Content uploaded by Christopher Ireland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher Ireland on Aug 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
University of Huddersfield Repository
Ireland, Chris
Student oral presentations: developing the skills and reducing the apprehension
Original Citation
Ireland, Chris (2016) Student oral presentations: developing the skills and reducing the
apprehension. In: Proceedings of 10th International Technology, Education and Development
Conference Valencia, Spain. 7-9 March, 2016. IATED (2016). IATED, Valencia, Spain, pp. 1474-
1483. ISBN 978-84-608-5617-7
This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/27264/
The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the
University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:
•The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
•A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
•The content is not changed in any way.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk.
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
STUDENT ORAL PRESENTATIONS: DEVELOPING THE SKILLS AND
REDUCING THE APPREHENSION
Christopher Ireland
University of Huddersfield (United Kingdom)
Abstract
For many students it is important that they develop good oral presentation skills [1] since the ability to
demonstrate oral communication competence is highly valued in many professions [2] while there has
also been a rise in the use of oral presentations in university classrooms [3]. Despite this, there is
doubt cast over whether it is possible to support the development of the required skills and address
the fear that many students experience regarding oral presentations as part of the same intervention
[4]. Furthermore, despite being a widely researched topic, there is much in the area of communication
apprehension that remains unclear [5]. In order to determine suitable interventions, research is
required to identify pedagogy that might successfully help apprehensive presenters develop their skills
and confidence [4].
This paper reports on an intervention which seeks to help students develop oral presentation skills and
at the same time help apprehensive presenters reduce their fear of delivering oral presentations. The
intervention, which takes place with foundation level undergraduate Accounting students, is
underpinned by problem-based learning and contributing student pedagogy and focuses on the
development of self-efficacy which has been identified to be a key area for the reduction of oral
communication apprehension in public speaking contexts [6]. The paper will introduce the concept of
communication apprehension in oral presentations and discuss causes and possible interventions. It
details the progress that has been made in the study which uses qualitative data in the form of
research conversations and student reflections. Such an approach is taken in order to gain insights
into the “lived experiences” of students, which has been absent in much of the previous research
conducted in the area [5].
Keywords: Oral presentations, oral communication apprehension, public speaking anxiety.
1 INTRODUCTION
Amongst the core competencies expected worldwide of professionals are presentation skills [1]. At the
same time there has been an increased use of presentations in Higher Education (HE) [3]. Despite
this, it is widely recognised that it is an area in which graduates often have not developed sufficiently
[7]. This paper derives from a tension that exists between the expectations of the accountancy
profession, which now requires a greater development of generic skills from graduates [8], and an
enduring stereotype of the accountant in a profession that has undergone a transformation [9]. The
image of the reticent professional has endured despite considerable changes experienced by the
profession in the 1990s [10]. The image of accountants as “number-crunchers devoid of personality”
[10] is re-enforced by the stereotype portrayed via the Internet [11]. One fear of the profession centres
around the effect this stereotype has on “the development of the accounting profession” [12] with
concern that the stereotype causes bias in recruitment and may become “self-fulfilling” [13].
Recruiters are also concerned about the suitability of graduates but despite communication being a
main competency required in the industry [14], it is an area in which both professionals and academics
are dissatisfied with the general level of graduate development [15]. Therefore, with university
entrants, influenced by the stereotype of the accountant and often overestimating the relative
importance of numeracy [16] and recruiters seeking graduates who can communicate, the HE sector
must help undergraduates develop their communication skills so that recruiters wish to employ them.
1.1 Aims and Objectives
The study which is reported in this paper aims
to map changes in public speaking anxiety (PSA) exhibited by students during the six month period of
a multifaceted intervention aimed at reducing PSA and developing oral presentation skills;
to identify factors which might be influential in determining levels of PSA amongst students during the
intervention;
to ascertain which features of the intervention support the presentation skills development of those
students exhibiting PSA;
to contribute to the development of a theoretical framework for the reduction of PSA and development
of oral presentation skills as part of the same general intervention.
1.2 Outline
Following this introduction there is a brief discussion of the causes of PSA which is followed by
consideration of suggested interventions. A framework for classroom intervention is then introduced
and its practical application described.
2 AN ETIOLOGY OF PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY
A feeling of nervousness when having to speak in public “is inevitable” [17]. In fact the fear of speaking
to an audience is often considered the most common phobia [18, 19] with studies suggesting that
three-quarters of people are fearful of public speaking [20]. Research into the fear of public speaking
has been wide ranging but despite the claim that apprehension experienced in oral communication is
the most widely studied communication topic [21], there is a great deal which remains unclear [5]. It
therefore follows that similar difficulties to those experienced in attempting to establish an etiology of
oral communication apprehension (OCA) may be encountered when attempting to establish an
etiology of PSA. The difficulty that researchers have had in conceptualising OCA and PSA is not
surprising since a wide range of reasons exist which attempt to explain why individuals experience
such trepidation [22]. In short, PSA may derive from a variety of sources [23].
2.1 Possible Causes of Public Speaking Anxiety
Five key causes for PSA which are identified in the literature are now briefly discussed.
2.1.1 Novelty
The novelty of the experience of anticipating having to speak in front of an audience is often found to
be the cause of anxiety amongst those who have no experience of delivering oral presentations [23].
2.1.2 Conspicuousness
The term ‘illusion of transparency’ describes the sense of conspicuousness that can be felt by
presenters. A certain level of apprehension with regard to the delivery of presentations is not only
normal [24] but is also desirable [25]. Furthermore, even “the calmest speakers will experience at least
a few mild symptoms of anxiety” [26]. However, when presenters perceive nerves as visible to an
audience then this is likely to heighten the level of apprehension felt [27].
2.1.3 Performance orientation
Presenters possess a ‘cognitive orientation’ on a continuum from ‘performance orientation’ where
speakers are concerned with the “aesthetic experience for listeners” to ’communication orientation’
where they are concerned with the message conveyed [28]. Performance-oriented speakers believe
the skills of presenting are more “formal” and “polished” than in other communication contexts;
whereas communication-oriented speakers assume the audience tolerates typical communication
imperfections [28]. In many cases anxious speakers have performance orientations [26].
2.1.4 Audience characteristics
Audience characteristics can determine the level of anxiety felt by presenters. Apprehension can
increase along with the size of the audience, however the reverse can sometimes be true [29]. Similar
conclusions might be drawn from characteristics of audience members; some presenters prefer
friends, while others prefer strangers; some prefer experts while others prefer non-experts.
2.1.5 Trait-like individual differences
Trait-like communication apprehension has become an increasingly popular explanation for OCA.
Much of the discussion centres on the degree to which OCA can be regarded as genetic or as
learned. Therefore one explanation is that trait-like OCA may be partially explained by heredity [30,
31]. Research by social biologists has indicated that heredity is a determinant of sociability and it
follows that it may be a factor contributing to OCA [30]. Spielberger is credited with having originally
proposed the notion that anxiety could be a trait [32]. He proposed that anxiety research should focus
on the existence of a “personality trait that remains relatively stable over time” [33]. Building on the
notion of trait-like anxiety, the communibiological paradigm has been proposed which suggests that as
much as eighty percent of trait-like communication apprehension may be accounted for by genetics
[34]. Until the communibiological paradigm was suggested, trait–like communication apprehension
had been mostly viewed as “a product of social learning” [35]. This discussion extends to PSA which is
suggested as being “validly conceptualized as a trait” [36]. Despite this, most evidence suggests that
OCA caused as a result of the oral communication taking place in a public speaking context is greater
than OCA in other contexts. Research from fifteen studies conducted with business students from the
US, Australia, Ireland, Spain, Canada and the UK found that in thirteen of the fifteen cases OCA for
the public speaking context was reported as higher than the other contexts [37]. These findings are
not limited to business students with similar findings for research conducted with, for example,
American engineering students [38], school principals [39] and teachers [40], and Japanese
psychology students [41]. This suggests that while trait-like anxiety may be viewed as the main
contributor to PSA, anxiety caused in this context has more situational factors than in other contexts.
3 CLASSROOM RESPONSES
Given the variety of possible causes of PSA that exist it is not surprising that a variety of responses
have been suggested and that the results reported are mixed [36].
3.1 Possible interventions
Interventions are often categorised as behavioural and pedagogic [4, 43]. Behavioural interventions,
often provided in addition to presentation activities, generally focus on the psychology of the individual
towards presentations “and include systematic desensitisation, cognitive restructuring, assertiveness
training, stress release exercises and visualisation techniques” [31]. However, a difficulty with many of
the behavioural interventions is that they are “time consuming and … therefore inappropriate for
'mass' education” [4]. Pedagogical interventions tend to focus on the activity [31] with the main
examples “skills training and actual public speaking” [43]. This type of approach incorporates suitable
interventions by “involving students in communication development exercises” [4]. However,
pedagogical interventions need to be designed to ensure anxious students engage in them and that
apprehension is not heightened [4]. Despite this warning, there is evidence that the use of
presentation practice can reduce apprehension and increase the inclination to be involved in such
activities [44, 29]. This brief discussion of interventions aimed at reducing PSA illustrates the variety of
choices faced by course designers.
When considering how to reduce PSA, there is broad support for the introduction of a variety of
methods. Indeed it has been suggested that “the widest possible combination of methods” should be
used [45], while “the best treatment for OCA appears to be a combination of behavioural and
pedagogical interventions delivered in a supportive and positive atmosphere” [43]. Despite this
conclusion, frameworks for the development of oral presentation skills are not easy to find [7, 46]. This
means that the call by Docan-Morgan and Schmidt “for teachers and course designers to develop and
test innovative techniques and activities that can help learners reduce their public speaking anxiety”
needs to be heeded [42]. However, while the benefits associated with interventions are widely
reported, little research has addressed how or why improvements in PSA occur when they do [47].
3.2 A Framework for Intervention
Given that there seems to be broad support for interventions which draw on multiple methods, an
intervention has been developed which seems to have met with some success in attempting to help a
diverse cohort of students who range from experienced presenters to those who have never presented
and those who are highly anxious about the thought of presenting to those who are confident.
3.2.1 Illeris’s three dimensional model
The approach taken is broadly underpinned by the three dimensional model of learning developed by
Illeris [48]. The model is used since it allows for different theories of learning to be incorporated into
the same model and accounts for conditions that influence learning as well as those that are
influenced by learning [48]. Fig. 1 shows Illeris’s diagrammatic representation of this process.
Figure 1 The three dimensions of learning and competence development [48].
Illeris’s model not only accounts for internal and external dimensions of learning but also recognises
that internal learning has two dimensions, namely content (cognitive learning) and incentive (emotional
learning) [48]. Illeris claims to have been the first to treat emotional learning as equal in status to
cognitive learning [49]. The importance of the incentive dimension is highlighted by Miller and Boud
who argue that “[e]motions and feelings are key pointers both to possibilities for, and barriers to,
learning” [50]. Indeed, learning from a student perspective may be determined more by emotion than
cognition [51]. However, this element of learning is relatively unexplored when compared with the
content dimension of learning [52]. Since the current study is concerned with the development of oral
presentation skills and how apprehension can be reduced, knowledge of the incentive dimension is
important in the development of the approach. If learning opportunities do not account for the incentive
dimension then for those students who do not have sufficient drive there is no real learning opportunity
due to the barrier presented by this dimension. As a result, an understanding, particularly of emotions
in learning and motivations to learn, can help ensure presentation exercises are more inclusive than if
this were left to chance.
There might be many reasons why students may not have the motivation to learn and part of the
difficulty in addressing this area has been the “bewildering complexity of ideas and findings” in the
area of motivation to learn [53]. Despite the range of possible theories, a subset relate directly to the
individual’s expectations of success. These theories are often collectively termed expectancy-value
theories [53] of which one, self-efficacy, has already been identified as having a close relation to OCA
and particularly the public speaking element [6]. It is therefore an important part of the current
framework, despite Illeris not mentioning self-efficacy in his model. If barriers to learning that exist in
the form of OCA and specifically PSA can be lowered as a result of the approach taken, which is
directly informed by self-efficacy, then this allows the potential for learning to take place where
previously there would have been no learning.
3.2.2 Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura as “the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments” [54]. Beliefs that individuals hold about self-
efficacy are concerned with competencies [55], meaning that it applies to oral communication. In
addition, the beliefs that individuals hold about their self-efficacy are not generalisations but apply to
specific situations [55]. This implies that individual self-efficacy may be specific to particular oral
communication contexts. In fact it has been suggested that there may be a strong negative correlation
between self-efficacy and OCA [6, 56] with apprehension for delivering presentations the main driver
of this relationship [6]. Furthermore, recently developed frameworks for presentation skills
development are based on self-efficacy [7, 46]. In Bandura’s analysis the expectations that individuals
hold concerning self-efficacy are constructed from four sources: performance accomplishments or
mastery experiences, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states [58].
Elaborating on Bandura’s ideas, Mitchell describes how self-efficacy can be developed through these
four sources [59]. He first mentions “mastery experiences” which derive from past experience,
meaning that self-efficacy can be developed through practice [58]. These experiences, if positive, are
likely to develop self-efficacy; however, if the experience is negative then self-efficacy is likely to
diminish [55]. Mitchell also mentions “vicarious experiences” in which self-efficacy can be gained by
observing others [58]. This helps individuals form expectations about how they might behave [55]. The
third aspect, “verbal persuasion” which is “the validation of one’s own efforts by significant others”,
places value on feedback [58]. The final aspect contributing to self-efficacy is “emotional and
physiological arousal” which Mitchell explains as “noting one’s state of anxiety or enthusiasm” [58].
This is something that students may not wish to consider but might be encouraged to through the use
of reflection. Mitchell sees the development of self-efficacy as central to student engagement [58].
The importance of considering self-efficacy as part of programme design for oral presentation
competence is emphasised by the development of the “Seven Design Principles for Developing Oral
Presentation Competence” [7]. The principles emphasise the importance of self-efficacy development
as key to the development of oral presentation competence with self-efficacy mentioned in four of the
seven principles. However, as previously mentioned, Illeris does not include self-efficacy in his
considerations despite much of his writing seeming to point towards self-efficacy as potentially having
a strong role in the incentive dimension. Given the suggested relation between self-efficacy and OCA,
it would seem that it may be a key element of the incentive dimension, particularly when considering
the question of what approach might be taken to reduce PSA and develop presentation skills in the
same intervention. Illeris identifies motivation as being important in learning but he discusses this in
relation to the transformative learning of Mezirow and emphasises the potential barriers that learners
may exhibit when encountering such learning [59]. It would seem that low self-efficacy might fall into
this category for some and therefore provides another reason for incorporating it into the framework of
the current study. Furthermore, there is support for the development of interventions that focus on the
raising of self-efficacy and the development of communication skills [6].
3.2.2 Other learning theories
Given that the intervention, underpinned by Illeris’s framework, occurs amongst a large group of
students who have varying experiences and expectations, various learning theories might
simultaneously help explain how students both develop skills and confidence in presenting. The
nurturing of self-efficacy is key but problem based learning [60], contributing student pedagogy [61]
and experiential learning [62] all contribute to this approach.
3.2.3 Classroom practice
The approach adopted in the current study recognises that individual students bring with them a wide
range of experiences and conceptions of presenting. Therefore in any given activity it is possible for a
variety of learning to occur. With this in mind, the discussion that follows focuses on how theory and
pedagogy underpin the activities with the aim of providing the widest opportunities for learning.
During the year students prepare three projects which culminate in presentations delivered to an
audience of peers and tutors. The projects are intended to simulate those that might occur in the real
world, being underpinned by problem-based learning. As part of the preparation process the students
are encouraged to practice the presentations either on their own, with peers or with an Academic
Skills Tutor. By working in groups to prepare and practice the students may improve self-efficacy since
this can be improved through the honing of the presentation, the experience of delivering the
presentation successfully and also through having to communicate with each other in groups.
The parameters of the presentations that the students deliver are constructed so that the three
presentations become progressively more challenging. This adheres to the “Seven Design Principles
for Developing Oral Presentation Competence” [7] and is also an approach which Turk promotes.
Since adrenalin is produced in response to the anticipated situation, when the body realises that there
is actually nothing to fear the reaction is subsequently reduced [63]. The “process of learned response
is quite involuntary, and cannot be changed once learnt” [63]. This approach therefore also supports
the development of self-efficacy. The experience of the first presentation is designed to be as non-
threatening as possible; short in duration; open-ended with no right or wrong answer; no questioning
from the audience and having feedback focussed on what the presenter has done well. This is
designed to ensure as far as possible that students see their presentation as a success and so can
take the experience into account as they move on to the next project.
The presentations are delivered to both tutors and peers which means that during presentation weeks
the students observe four peer presentations. This adheres to the principle of “Behavioural modelling”
[7]. As part of the observation the students provide feedback using grading criteria and anonymous
comments. This aspect of the activities is underpinned by Contributing Student Pedagogy [64] and
also complies with the “Seven Design Principles for Developing Oral Presentation Competence” [7].
Furthermore, this aspect of the projects also supports the development of self-efficacy through
vicarious experience of observation and verbal persuasion, albeit in written form, of the feedback
received.
For each presentation the students complete a structured reflection using all the evidence available.
This allows them to think about the event and focus on how they might improve for the next project.
This aspect of the activities is supported by experiential learning but is also relevant to the
development of self-efficacy since emotional arousal may be activated as the students write about
how they felt and also think of the causes for particular outcomes.
Finally, as part of the course preparation, students complete a series of self-assessments which
include questions about presentations. Students indicating high PSA are invited for a one-to-one
appointment aimed at identifying the main sources of PSA and considering how they might reduce it.
This approach is also underpinned by self-efficacy. In most cases the students are reminded of the
sources of self-efficacy and a discussion takes place which centres on verbal persuasion and
emotional arousal. This discussion is based on many of the areas typically reported as sources of PSA
and considers possible solutions. One example drawing on verbal persuasion concerns perceptions
that individuals have of speaking to audiences, particularly focussing on the performance-
communication continuum [26]. If students with OCA for public speaking demonstrate that they have a
performance orientation then the discussion focusses on encouraging them to think of the
presentation as a communication event [26]. Such discussion not only has the potential to reduce
PSA, but it may also improve the quality of the presentations students deliver. The discussion has the
potential to completely change the way that individuals think about presentations. It is therefore
underpinned by constructivism; some students will not have developed many ideas about what
constitutes a good presentation and therefore are likely to adopt the ideas without resistance;
assimilating the new knowledge. On the other hand, students with prior experiences which have
resulted in a performance orientation are likely to need more persuasion in order to adopt the notion of
presentations as communication events. In such cases, needing to change beliefs concerning
presentations, the students will at least be experiencing accommodation. This reiterates the view that
student learning is likely to be underpinned by various theories and so supports the adoption of Illeris’s
framework.
Discussion in the one-to-one sessions may also consider emotional arousal by, for example,
discussing how students feel before presentations, how they can attempt to overcome any negative
feelings and how they might attempt to manage nerves as they prepare to present.
Much of the discussion focusses on aspects of the approach taken in the module which take place
through group projects or through student interactions during projects. The problem-based and
contributing student approaches need to be supplemented by one-to-one meetings, particularly with
those exhibiting the greatest PSA. This then caters for the varying needs of the students and supports
the use of Illeris’s model as a framework. The model supports the likely complexity of learning which
takes place as well as the notion that an approach which both develops presentation skills and helps
reduce PSA is achievable.
4 DATA COLLECTION
Much of the previous research in the area of OCA has “been solely quantitative in orientation” [5]. As a
result, a deeper understanding of the experiences of students, of the causes of their apprehension,
their feelings when preparing for and delivering presentations and what they feel about classroom
approaches is rare. In fact, identifying research which has addressed this area has proven difficult; “no
prior research with business and accounting students has explored the phenomenon of OCA using
qualitative methods. Indeed, there is an absence of qualitative research of the topic with students in all
disciplines.” [5]. Therefore, the current study uses qualitative insights gained from student participants
in order to find out about their “lived experiences” and tries to establish which aspects of the approach
help students with their presentations as well as attempting to ascertain how and why they help. In
order to do this the study uses student reflections on the presentation activities as well as research
conversations, also known as ‘muddy interviews’ [65]. By using the student reflections a greater
number of participants can be included in the data collection than if interviews were used. The one-to-
one tutorials with students who indicate that they might have PSA are also research conversations
where the students agree to participate in the research study.
5 CONCLUSION
The paper has detailed progress that has been made to date in the study by setting out the framework
for a classroom intervention to support the development of presentation skills which accounts for those
who are apprehensive about the prospect of speaking to audiences. It shows that there is a need for
research into approaches which demonstrate some success and draws on recent research to
emphasise the potential that self-efficacy has in the development of interventions.
REFERENCES
[1] Campbell, K. S., Mothersbaugh, D. L., Brammer, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Peer versus self
assessment of oral business presentation performance. Business Communication Quarterly,
64(3), pp. 23-40. doi:10.1177/108056990106400303
[2] Cepero, A., Clapés, A., & Escalera, S. (2013). Quantitative analysis of non-verbal
communication for competence analysis. In CCIA, (pp.105-114). doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-320-
9-105
[3] Iberri-Shea, G (2013). Teaching English through debate in classroom contexts. In 4th
international conference on argumentation, rhetoric, debate, and the pedagogy of
empowerment (pp.129-136).
[4] Hassall, T., Arquero, J. L., Joyce, J., & Gonzalez, J. (2013). Communication Apprehension and
Accounting Education. In L. Jack, J. Davison, & R. Craig (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to
Accounting Communication (pp. 166-176.). Abingdon: Routledge.
[5] Byrne, M., Flood, B. and Shanahan, D. (2012). A Qualitative Exploration of Oral Communication
Apprehension, Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21(6), pp. 565-581. doi:
10.1080/09639284.2012.725636
[6] Hassall, T., Arquero, J. L., Joyce, J., & Gonzalez, J. (2013). Communication apprehension and
communication self-efficacy in accounting students. Asian Review of Accounting, 21(2), pp.
160-175.
[7] van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design
principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher
education. Educational Research Review, 14, pp. 62-80. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.002
[8] Gammie, E., Cargill, E., & Hamilton, S. (2010) Searching for good practice in the development
and assessment of non-technical skills in accountancy trainees: a global study. Aberdeen:
Robert Gordon University.
[9] Usoff, C. A. (2013). Integrating Liberal Learning into the Accounting Curriculum. In G. M. Hardy
& D. L. Everett (Eds.) Shaping the Future of Business Education: Relevance, Rigor, and Life
Preparation (pp. 61-71). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[10] Ameen, E., Chow, S., and Jackson, C. (2000). Student perceptions of the importance of oral
communication in the accounting profession. Business and Behavioral Sciences Track Section
of Accounting, 7(1), 337-340. Downloaded from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.200.5132andrep=rep1andtype=pdf#p
age=347
[11] Ameen, E., Jackson, C., and Malgwi, C. (2010). Student perceptions of oral communication
requirements in the accounting profession. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 7, 31-
49. Retrieved from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.2817andrep=rep1andtype=pdf
[12] Baldvinsdottir, G., Burns, J., Nørreklit, H., & Scapens, R. W. (2009). The image of accountants:
from bean counters to extreme accountants. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
22(6), 858-882. doi:10.1108/09513570910980445
[13] Friedman, A. L., & Lyne, S. R. (2001). The beancounter stereotype: towards a general model of
stereotype generation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(4), 423-451.
doi:10.1006/cpac.2000.0451
[14] Arquero, J. L., Hassall, T., Joyce, J., and Donoso, J. A. (2007). Accounting students and
communication apprehension: a study of Spanish and UK students. European Accounting
Review, 16(2), 299-322. doi: 10.1080/09638180701391337
[15] Gray, F. E. (2010). Specific oral communication skills desired in new accountancy graduates.
Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 40-67. doi:10.1177/108056990935635
[16] English, J., & Ireland, C. (2008). Developing the tools of the trade: reconciling vocational and
academic demands. In: Doing University: Student Transitions and Skills in Higher Education, 19
March 2008, University of Huddersfield.
[17] Theobald, T. (2013). Develop Your Presentation Skills. London: Kogan Press.
[18] Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
[19] Dwyer, K. & Davidson, M. (2012). Is Public Speaking Really More Feared Than Death?,
Communication Research Reports, 29(2), 99-107. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2012.667772
[20] Gallas, G. E., & Latta, S. (2014). Scared stiff: Everything you need to know about 50 famous
phobias. San Francisco: Zest Books.
[21] Wrench, J., Brogan, S., McCroskey, J. and Jowi, D. (2008) Social communication
apprehension: the intersection of communication apprehension and social phobia, Human
Communication, 11(4), 409–430.
[22] Bippus, A. M., & Daly, J. A. (1999). What do people think causes stage fright?: Naïve
attributions about the reasons for public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 48(1), 63-
72. doi: 10.1080/03634529909379153
[23] Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J., & Sakamoto, M. (2001). The effectiveness of a skills‐based program in
reducing public speaking anxiety. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(3), 148-155.
[24] Rawlins, K. (1993). Presentation and communication skills: A handbook for practitioners.
London: Macmillan.
[25] van Emden, J., & Becker, L. M. (2004). Presentation skills for students. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
[26] Motley, M. T. (1995). Overcoming your fear of public speaking: A proven method. New York,
N.Y: McGraw-Hill.
[27] Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2003). The illusion of transparency and the alleviation of speech
anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39(6), 618-625. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1031(03)00056-8
[28] McCarthy, P., & Hatcher, C. (2002). Presentation skills: The essential guide for students.
London: SAGE.
[29] Finn, A. N. (2007). Widening the lens: an interdisciplinary approach to examining the effect of
exposure therapy on public speaking state anxiety (Doctoral dissertation, University of North
Texas).
[30] McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J.C.
McCroskey (Eds.) Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension, (13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[31] Gardner, C. T., Milne, M. J., Stringer, C. P., and Whiting, R. H. (2005). Oral and written
communication apprehension in accounting students: Curriculum impacts and impacts on
academic performance. Accounting Education, 14(3), 313-336.
doi:10.1080/06939280500077269.
[32] Lee, S. (2014). Study on the Classification of Speech Anxiety Using Q-Methodology Analysis.
Advances in Journalism and Communication, 2(03), 69-83. doi:10.4236/ajc.2014.23008
[33] Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (ed.) Anxiety
and behavior, (pp.1-20). London: Academic Press.
[34] Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as
temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs,65(3),
197-220. doi:10.1080/03637759809376448
[35] Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Lewis, R. J., Pence, M. E., Reinhart, A., & Tian, Y. (2011).
Communication apprehension and resting alpha range asymmetry in the anterior cortex.
Communication Education, 60(4), 441-460. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2011.563389
[36] Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining,
explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70-105.
[37] Shanahan, D. (2011). Communication apprehension among business and accounting students
(Doctoral dissertation). Dublin: Dublin City University. Retrieved from:
http://doras.dcu.ie/16071/1/Communication_apprehension_among_business_and_accounting_s
tudents.pdf
[38] Frantz, J., Marlow, A., & Wathen, J. (2005). Communication apprehension and its relationship to
gender and college year. Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University,
Mankato, 5(1), 1-11. Retrieved from
http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=jur
[39] Webb, C., Hogg, M., Borst, A., & Orendorff, J. (2012). Quality Communication: A 21st Century
Leadership Challenge. In G. Perreault & L. Zellner (Eds.) Social Justice, Competition and
Quality: 21st Century Leadership Challenges. (pp.87-98). NCPEA Publications.
[40] Roby, D. E. (2009). Teacher leadership skills: An analysis of communication apprehension.
Education, 129(4), 608-614. Retrieved from
http://www.psycholosphere.com/Teacher%20leadership%20skills%20-
%20An%20analysis%20of%20communication%20apprehension%20by%20Roby.pdf
[41] Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J. A., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F. (1998). Assessing the cross‐cultural
content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA‐24).
Japanese Psychological Research, 40(1), 47-53. Retrieved from
http://www.unco.edu/keaten/Content%20Validity%20Study.pdf
[42] Docan-Morgan, T., & Schmidt, T. (2012). Reducing public speaking anxiety for native and non-
native english speakers: The value of systematic desensitization, cognitive restructuring, and
skills training. Cross - Cultural Communication, 8(5), 16-19.
doi:10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120805.2018
[43] Shanahan, D. (2013). High Oral Communication Apprehensives: How Can Students be Helped
to Reduce Their Fear of Public Speaking?. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 2(1), 9.
[44] Ayres, J., Schliesman, T., & Sonandré, D. A. (1998). Practice makes perfect but does it help
reduce communication apprehension?. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 170-179.
[45] Allen, M., Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta‐analysis of self‐report data on the
effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication
Education, 38(1), 54-76.
[46] Brown, T., & Morrissey, L. (2004). The effectiveness of verbal self‐guidance as a transfer of
training intervention: its impact on presentation performance, self efficacy and anxiety.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 255-271. doi:
10.1080/14703290410001733302
[47] Finn, A. N., Sawyer, C. R., & Schrodt, P. (2009). Examining the effect of exposure therapy on
public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 58(1), 92-109. doi:
10.1080/03634520802450549
[48] Illeris, K. (2009). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.)
Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning theories … in their own words (pp.7-20). London:
Routledge.
[49] Illeris, K. (2012). Learning and cognition. In P. Jarvis & M. Watts (Eds.). The Routledge
International Handbook of Learning, (pp.18-27). Abingdon, Oxon.
[50] Miller, N. & Boud, D. (1996). Working with experience: Animating learning. London: Routledge.
[51] Nash, G., Crimmins, G., & Oprescu, F. (2015). If first-year students are afraid of public speaking
assessments what can teachers do to alleviate such anxiety?. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-15. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1032212
[52] Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. London:
Routledge.
[53] Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). ‘French is the language of love and stuff’:
Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British
Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503-528. doi: 10.1080/0141192022000005805
[54] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
[55] Maddux, J. E., & Volkmann, J. (2014). Self-Efficacy. In R. Hoyle (Ed.) Handbook of Personality
and Self-Regulation. (pp. 315-331). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
[56] Hopf, T., & Colby, N. (1992). The relationship between interpersonal communication
apprehension and self‐efficacy. Communication Research Reports, 9(2), 131-135.
[57] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191-215.
[58] Mitchell, G. (2008). Psychology in Education. In D. Matheson (Ed.) An Introduction to the Study
of Education (3rd ed.). (pp.70-84). London: Routledge.
[59] Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning re-defined: As changes in elements of the identity.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(5), 573-586. doi:10.1080/02601370.2014.917128
[60] Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
[61] Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H. C., & Sheard, J. (2011). Tools for contributing student
learning. ACM Inroads, 2(2), 78-91.
[62] Dennick, R. (2014). Theories of learning. In D. Matheson (Ed.). An Introduction to the study of
education (3rd ed.). (pp.37-69). London: Routledge.
[63] Turk, C. (1985). Effective Speaking: Communicating in Speech. London: Spon Press.
[64] Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H., ... & Sheard,
J. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194-212.
[65] Lippke, L., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Leaning in to “Muddy” Interviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(2),
136-143. doi:10.1177/1077800413510869
