I. INTRODUCTION
In the evolving landscape of higher education, the proficiency of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in oral communication has gained substantial importance. The twenty-first-century skills essential for students to thrive in today’s globalized environment encompass strong communication abilities, effective collaboration, critical and creative thinking, and digital literacy skills (Huang, 2021). As globalization continues to transform academic and professional spheres, the ability to formulate and deliver effective oral presentations has become a crucial competency for university students.
The traditional focus for oral presentations has been on synchronous (live) delivery. Advocates of live presentations argue they help students practice real-time communication skills while teaching them to manage their nerves, adapt to audience reactions, and respond to spontaneous questions (King, 2002). These experiences simulate real-world scenarios, where immediate interaction is inevitable, thereby fostering competence in the target language and fluency. Proponents believe that the best way to become comfortable speaking publicly is through repeated experience. In other words, the more often a person presents live, the less likely they are to be anxious (Böhme, 2009). However, critics contend that live presentations pose significant challenges for some students who may feel unable to adequately demonstrate their language skills, regardless of their level of preparation, due to the anxiety they experience when speaking before an in-person audience (Copeland, 2021).
Alternatively, recorded, or asynchronous presentations have been introduced to alleviate in-person presentation anxiety. They allow students to focus on accuracy and refine their speech through multiple attempts. Recorded presentations enable students to focus on improved pronunciation and clear grammar while reducing the pressure associated with live performances, thus making it easier for students to showcase their language abilities. Furthermore, in the current work environment—which includes remote jobs, global offices, and widespread access to advanced communication technologies- there is a compelling argument for EFL instructors to expand their focus beyond live presentations to incorporate recorded assignments. This would better prepare students for the practical use of English in varied contexts. Changes brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) have transformed the way businesses operate, forcing educators to adapt their teaching toolbox to better prepare students for a more dynamic and automated environment (Borrageiro & Mennega, 2023).
To be able to produce the target language competently, students need to practice it. To do so, they need a comfortable environment where they have less focus on making mistakes and more focus on making improvements and gaining experience in the target language. There are five key areas, this research identified as focal points for this study based on a synthesis of existing literature on oral presentations in the EFL context. First presentation related anxiety has been widely documented as a significant barrier to oral presentation performance, especially in live settings, where students face real-time pressure to showcase their fluency (Al-Nouh et al., 2014; Copeland, 2021; King, 2002; Nurwahyuni, 2019; Saidalvi & Mansor, 2012). Second, preparation time is a practical constraint that affects the quality of student output (Lan et al., 2024; Viswanathan & Ng, 2025). Third, the use of technology is integral for modern communications and presents both opportunities and obstacles for students (Encalada & Sarmiento, 2019; Kang, 2022; Kirkgoz, 2011; Ngadiran et al., 2024). Fourth, fairness in grading can shape a student's motivation and trust in the instructor's assessment practices (Copeland, 2021; Lan et al., 2024; Viswanathan & Ng, 2025). Finally, concerns about academic integrity have gained prominence in digital education contexts, especially when assignments are completed outside the classroom. Student perception of cheating can also impact their opinions on fairness in grading (Copeland, 2021).
Overall, research exists on the need to develop a suitable environment to maximize student engagement and learning. This can be achieved by reducing assignment anxiety, providing a clear understanding of the assessment process improving their perception of fairness in grading, sufficient time to prepare for both types of presentations as well as creating an environment where students have the opportunity to develop their technical efficiency which in the long run will enable them to function in the modern work environment.
However, student perceptions and preferences are equally important to highlight so that teachers are aware of methods that are finding some success and those that are not. However, there is limited research on student perceptions and preferences regarding live versus recorded presentations in classrooms that provide both types of assignments. Their experiences can offer a direct comparison of both methods of learning, which is important for teachers to understand the benefits and shortcomings of each approach.
Building on these considerations, this study examines the perceptions and preferences of assignments for university-level EFL students in a classroom that incorporates both live and recorded oral presentations as tools to enhance their English-speaking skills and prepare them for the modern workplace environment. By investigating how students experience these two formats concerning anxiety, preparation time, technology use, grading fairness, and perceptions of cheating, the research aims to provide practical insight for language educators designing oral communication classes that are both pedagogically sound and responsive to the needs of students. Specifically, the following research questions were investigated:
RQ1. Do student attitudes about live audience and recorded presentations differ based on their anxiety?
RQ2. Do student perceptions of the preparation time needed for a live audience versus recorded presentations differ?
RQ3. Do student attitudes toward the use of technology between live audience and recorded presentations differ?
RQ4. Do student perceptions of the fairness of grading in live audience and recorded presentations differ?
RQ5. Do student perceptions that cheating is easier in live audience or recorded presentations differ?
The findings of this study will contribute to the ongoing discourse on best practices in language education and the optimization of assessment methods to enhance the pedagogical experience for EFL learners.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Live Presentations
Live oral presentations have traditionally been the cornerstone of evaluating students’ speaking abilities. As a Task Based Learning (TBL) activity, they are student-centered. Unlike the traditional top-down approach to teaching, with TBL students have complete responsibility for production. They research, write, practice, and deliver their speech (Hallemans, 2021). Studies have shown that live oral presentations can enhance a student’s proficiency in English (Gürbüz & Cabaroğlu, 2021; Keo et al., 2025; Riadil, 2020). They provide students with a dynamic platform to interact with an audience, receive feedback, and demonstrate their skills in spontaneous speaking. The immediacy and interactive nature of synchronous presentations often mirror real-world scenarios, preparing students for future professional encounters.
2. Recorded Presentations
Recorded oral presentations are an alternate means for delivering oral presentations. Katchen (1992) was an early explorer of the benefits of recorded presentations by using VHS videos in the classroom. The suggested advantages included the potential for self-reflection and the capacity for individuals to make necessary improvements to their skills. Katchen (1992) pointed out that most students practiced more diligently to deliver an effective performance because they were preparing something tangible, a visible product. This encouraged them to become more self-critical, allowing them to identify their weaknesses, make improvements, and track their overall progress.
3. Anxiety
Research has also shown that anxiety and a lack of confidence can impact the student’s ability to deliver a successful oral presentation (Al-Nouh et al., 2014; Nurwahyuni, 2019). While language teaching stresses the importance of decreasing anxiety in the classroom, the very nature of live presentations increases it. Therefore, the more relaxed they are when learning language skills, the more success they will have in producing quality output. However, according to MacIntyre (1995), anxiety can either improve or impair a student’s ability to learn. It all depends on the degree of anxiety they are exposed to. Fook et al. (2011) explain that facilitating anxiety motivates learners to undertake new and challenging tasks, whereas debilitating anxiety leads them to avoid difficult assignments. Simple tasks may benefit from some degree of anxiety, while difficult tasks might result in impaired performance due to high anxiety levels. Tian’s (2019) research of Korean university students found that their anxiety was often linked to their degree of preparedness. Moreover, he identified five aspects that contributed to their anxiety: public attention, frequency of presentations, preparation time, peer feedback, and language proficiency. Interestingly, he found that comparisons to the language skills of their peers were more stressful than the fear of making mistakes. Self-confidence is also a key factor for some in encouraging L2 acquisition, and success in oral presentations (Al-Hebaish, 2012; Chikh & Dich, 2016). Without self-confidence, the learner is not motivated to actively develop their oral presentation skills. “The correlation between self-confidence and academic achievement is dynamic one; as levels of self-confidence raise, academic achievement increases and this has a particular impact on learners’ communicative competence” (Chikh & Dich, 2016, p. 74).
Saidalvi and Mansor (2012) found that students preferred recorded oral presentations as they reduced public speaking fear and allowed for more practice. Their study showed that 96.3% of students agreed or strongly agreed that recorded presentations eliminated their fear, and 96.2% agreed or strongly agreed that these recordings provided many practice opportunities. Copeland’s (2021) study found something similar. One student in the study stated, “There is a huge psychological difference between presenting in front of people and presenting in front of the screen. The best online presenter may be a poor live presenter” (p. 33). Sari and Iswahyuni (2019) found that students preferred video presentations as they were less intimidating than other speaking activities.
While live presentations are credited with increased levels of anxiety, recorded presentations have been shown to alleviate this problem. However, there are no direct comparisons studies gauging the perceived anxiety levels of students who have had to deliver both live and recorded presentations in the same classroom.
4. Preparation Time
Experts in the field of EFL believe that oral presentation skills can only improve by practicing in “learning environments which closely resemble the situations in which the acquired skill is actually applied and performed” (Böhme, 2009, p. 1). In other words, to become a better public speaker, one needs to practice in front of a live audience. Lan et al. (2024) agreed by finding that in order for students to succeed in live audience presentations lecturers had to provide students with sufficient preparation time. Viswanathan and Ng (2025) reported student dissatisfaction with preparation time. They found that some students who had to present in an earlier week had less time to prepare than those at the end. This lowered student satisfaction in the live audience presentation classroom.
Recorded presentations allow students to rehearse, self-assess, and reflect and refine their delivery, reducing their anxiety about making mistakes publicly and allowing for a more polished final product. However, this critical behavior requires more preparation time. Hallemans (2021) found that students reported spending a great deal of time re-recording a video because of their self-critical behavior, indicating an overemphasis on perfection. Self-assessment plays a vital role in education. It requires a student to invest a lot of time in the assignment. The flexibility to record presentations at one’s own pace and convenience can be particularly beneficial for EFL students who may need additional time to prepare and articulate their thoughts in a non-native language. While it lacks the spontaneity of live presentations, it provides students with more time to develop their thoughts. In addition, Hallemans (2021) found that while students spent longer completing the recorded assignment, they perceived it to be easier than what they imagined live presentations to be. The perceived ease was associated more with delivery than with the time and effort required to complete the assignment. These findings were also reported in Nguyen (2024) who also examined the time to prepare for a recorded presentation.
Based on the literature, it is unclear how the student perception of presentation time differs between live and recorded modes. The gap in the literature is that there is not a direct comparison between students’ perceptions of preparation time who had experienced both modes of delivery in the same classroom.
5. Technology
Recorded oral presentations are a means of building language skills and are a particularly beneficial practice given the ongoing advancements in digital technology and the growth in remote learning and working (Encalada & Sarmiento, 2019; Kang, 2022; Kirkgoz, 2011, Ngadiran et al., 2024). Recorded presentations also provide students with opportunities to enhance the relevance of language education in the contemporary work environment by providing opportunities to practice industry-demanded skills. Huang (2021) found that the skills students developed by producing recordings are beneficial for meeting job requirements in the 21st century and solving real-world problems that may arise in the future. While the use of technology in recorded presentations is obvious and well documented as a benefit for this type of delivery, there is a void in the literature related to the use technology in live audience presentations.
6. Fairness of Assessment and Cheating
Another issue regarding presentations is fairness in assessment. Lan et al. (2024) examined the factors that students believe lead to success in oral presentations. They found that the role of the lecturer was to provide a clear rubric before presentations so that students were aware of the measures for grading the assignment. In addition, they believed that lecturers should provide clear and constructive feedback. Viswanathan and Ng (2025) found that a clear rubric was necessary for the success of live audience presentation assessment after receiving feedback that their grading system was unclear.
In Copeland’s (2021) study of video presentations students believed grading was fair and cited a clear, understandable rubric, student effort through the ability to revise the recording and submit the best version, presenting without the pressure of a live audience, and the teachers’ grading system as reasons for their position. Interestingly, students believed that removing the anxiety of presenting before a live audience leveled the playing field and made presentation grading more equitable. Despite the majority support for recorded presentations in Copeland’s study, some students also felt that it was easier to cheat. They cite hidden scripts and voice-over technology as possible methods for cheating on recorded exams.
Consequently, using both modes of presentation, teachers need to be aware that grading must be transparent and clearly defined. The use of a well-developed rubric assists in achieving this objective. While the literature states what makes that form of assessment fair, there is no direct comparison of the student perceptions of the assessment and ability to cheat between the two.
7. Summary of the Literature
Overall, while research shows live presentations allow students to practice public speaking and recorded presentations reduce anxiety and allow them to self-reflect while developing their technological toolbox, it fails to explore the perceptions and preferences of students who experience both methods of delivery within the same classroom framework. In addition, the research lacks a direct comparison on the perception of cheating and the role of fairness in grading for both modes of presentation. The literature lacks clarity on the perception of cheating and the role of fairness in grading during live audience presentations. This research attempts to address these noticeable gaps in the literature on the perceptions and preferences of students for the two modes of delivering an oral presentation from students who have experienced both in the same classroom setting. By understanding students’ perception between live audience and video presentations, teachers will be able to define and implement more effective EFL classroom activities that promote language growth.
III. METHOD
1. Participants
The study was conducted at a medium-sized university in South Korea. A total of 161 students responded to the survey after participating in a required first-year English course based on professional speaking. Most students were enrolled at the intermediate level, with 128 participants indicating this as their level of proficiency. Students who scored between 401 and 700 on a university-administered TOEIC-like entrance exam were designated as intermediate level. Twenty-two students were classified as beginner level, scoring under 400 on the entrance exam, while 11 advanced students who scored over 701 on the entrance exam were placed into the advanced level. The students represented various majors within the university population (see Table 1). There were 61 Engineering students, 27 Social Science majors, and 24 Business majors. The School of Software SW was represented by 18 participants while Humanities had 16. The School of Music and Art saw eight students respond to the survey, Law had five, and Education had two students.
Two professors with more than 15 years of experience teaching at the university level conducted the surveys. The class met a total of 30 times, twice a week for 15 weeks. They had a maximum of 35 students, limiting some of the in-class presentation activities. Each unit was broken into four components, background knowledge activation, organization, presentation tips, and presenting the material. Participants had to perform a presentation for each of the seven units in the textbook. The midterm and final exams were included in these presentations. Each of the professors utilized both live audience and video presentations in their classes. Both professors utilized a detailed rubric that was shared with the students prior to their presentations. They also implemented a detailed feedback system which was used by both professors and students to enable the students to self-reflect.
2. Data Collection
The survey was available for students to complete after the fall semester when the required presentation class was the primary course offered. Data was collected after the 2023 and 2024 fall semesters through a survey posted as an announcement in the university’s class management system. Students were not required to participate, and there was a disclaimer with the survey link informing them of this fact. This ensured anonymity since the professors could not track who viewed it and participated. The announcement was posted after the grading period ended ensuring grades would be unaffected.
The survey consisted of three sections made up of 16 questions, each using a 4-point Likert-type scale. A 4-point scale was selected to force participants to better express their preferences (Krosnick, 1999). The first section of the survey consisted of five questions corresponding to student perceptions of video presentations tied with anxiety, time, technology, grading fairness, and cheating. The second section asked five parallel survey items dealing with student perceptions of live audience presentations. The final section had six survey items that asked students to rate their preference directly between recorded and live audience presentations. All of the survey items were offered to the students in both English and Korean (see Appendix).
3. Data Analysis
The first task with the data is to assess whether there is sufficient internal consistency to make determinations from it. A Cronbach α was utilized to check reliability. The data set reported a Cronbach’s α of .778. According to Taber (2018), a Cronbach’s α above .700 is an acceptable level. To ascertain whether the items in the data set were related, it was also determined what the change in the alpha would be with any given item deleted. The resulting Cronbach’s α fell within a range of .737 and .794 verifying that all of the items contained similar amounts of internal reliability within the construct (see Tables 3 and 4).
Before proceeding with the study to compare the means of the survey items, the most appropriate statistical test needed to be determined. To run a parametric paired t-test, the data must have a normal distribution. A Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used to determine if the data met this parameter (Khatun, 2021). The Shapiro-Wilk test was run, and all ten items were found to be significant at under the .001 level (see Table 2). Because the test was significant, the survey items are not statistically normal, and a distribution-free test such as the Wilcoxon signed rank test must be used (Kim, 2014).
After the Wilcoxon signed rank test was completed, the results were compared with the corresponding item from the third part of the survey. This secondary check allowed further confirmation of the data from the first two parts of the survey.
IV. RESULT
1. Descriptive Statistics
The survey consisted of 16 items split between two groups. The first group consisted of ten items (see Table 3). The paired items used a four-point Likert-type scale: 4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree. The pairs were related to student use of a recorded presentation versus that of a live presentation.
The first pairing dealt with students’ perceived fear while performing the presentation. The students responded with a 2.02 (SD = .877) for fear of presenting in a video indicating disagreement with the statement. However, the corresponding question of fear while presenting in a live presentation received a 2.72 (SD = .950) emblematic of a slight agreement with the statement. The second pair explored whether the students felt they spent a lot of time preparing for their presentations in the different modes. In this grouping, videos received an average student response of 2.71 (SD = .920) while live audience presentations had a 2.99 (SD = .837). This result indicates that students agreed with the statement in both cases. The third pair of survey questions explored whether technology was difficult to use for the presentation. Students disagreed with the statement in both cases. However, their responses showed a greater disagreement with video presentations with a mean of 1.75 (SD = .875) than for live audience ones, 2.21 (SD = .951). The fourth point of comparison dealt with whether the teacher’s grading was perceived as being fair. In both cases, students strongly agreed with the statement with a 3.58 (SD = .597) for recorded and 3.55 (SD = .611) for live presentations. The final pair of items on the survey explored student attitudes about the ease of cheating using the different modes of presentation. Students felt that it was difficult to cheat when preparing recorded presentations, reporting a 1.68 (SD = .794) thereby disagreeing with the statement. Student perceptions indicated even more difficulty cheating on live audience presentations with an average of 1.19 (SD = .477), the lowest score on the survey.
The second part of the survey asked the students to mark their preference between recorded and live audience presentations (see Table 4). Responses of one or two on the survey item indicate a preference for live audience presentations while three and four suggest the student prefers video-based assignments. The sequence of the topics varied from the questions in Part 1. The first survey item polled students’ preference for performing before a live audience versus a recorded presentation. This item noted a mean of 2.94 (SD = 1.160). The 2.94 demonstrates a preference for using video recording over live audience presentations. This item had the second largest standard deviation indicating that there was a range of preference for this question. The second point in this section of the survey asked students how comfortable they were performing a live versus a recorded presentation. This item had the second highest preference for video presentations with a score of 3.18 (SD = 1.060). The third question asked the students about whether the preparation time was reasonable. Students had a slight preference for video presentations in this case with a 2.80 (SD = 1.060). The fourth point was about preferences for teacher grading, which is related to fairness. It proved to be the closest response to neutral with a mean of 2.65 (SD = 1.216). It also had the largest SD, indicating the widest range of responses. When responding to questions related to comfort using technology, the results indicated a slight preference for recorded presentations with a 2.70 (SD = 1.157). The standard deviation for this item also indicates a range of responses from the students. The largest preference for an item was observed with the last question on the survey. The responses indicated that students strongly believed that cheating was easier in video presentations with a mean of 3.29 (SD = .704). It also had the lowest standard deviation indicating the highest level of consensus for the answers.
2. Comparing Means
1) Research Question 1: Fear of Presenting
RQ1 investigated whether there was a statistical difference between student attitudes about live audience and recorded presentations based on their anxiety. The Wilcoxon signed rank test compared survey item 1 and 6: fear of presenting in front of a live audience versus a video presentation. A Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated that there was more fear of presenting in front of a live audience (mean rank = 48.08) than in a video presentation (mean rank = 38.05), Z = -7.127, p = 0.001 (see Table 5). There were 10 negative cases, 83 positive cases, and 68 neutral cases. This means that ten respondents claimed to perceive more fear in the video presentations than live audience ones, while 83 responded oppositely. With approximately 51.6% of respondents having more fear of presenting in front of a live audience, the largest Z score of any of the points compared is demonstrated.
The null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between student anxiety about presenting in front of a live audience versus a recording can be rejected. Therefore, there is a preference for video presentations based on anxiety. This information is further corroborated by the survey item 12 which asks students to indicate which mode of presentation they were more comfortable using. The mean average was 3.18 where a score of three or four indicated a preference for video presentations.
The results support and collate the previous research (Al-Nouh et al., 2014; Copeland, 2021; Nurwahyuni, 2019; Saidalvi & Mansor, 2012; Sari & Iswahyuni, 2019) into the students’ perceptions of anxiety related to live and recorded presentations.
2) Research Question 2: Preparation Time for Presentations
RQ2 queried whether there was a statistically significant difference in student perception of the preparation time necessary between a live audience and a video presentation. A Wilcoxon signed rank test determined that a statistically significant number of students believed that they spent more time preparing for a live audience presentation (mean rank = 37.21) than a video one (mean rank = 32.44), Z = -4.309, p = .001 (see Table 6). The positive rank, indicating that students responded higher for live presentations over recorded ones, occurred 53 times while only 18 students reported preferring the opposite. A total of 90 students had the same response for both live audience and video presentations.
Because of the statistically significant result on the Wilcoxon paired ranks test, the null hypothesis of no significant difference can be rejected. When asked directly which required preparation time (live audience or video presentation) was more reasonable, they responded with a mean of 2.80 (see Table 4), indicating a slight inclination that the time necessary to produce a recorded presentation was more reasonable, furthering this finding.
This result was different than what was expected from some of the single presentation mode research (Hallemans, 2021; Nguyen, 2024; Viswanathan & Ng, 2025). Hallemans (2021) and Nguyen (2024) reported students spending a great deal of time preparing for a recorded presentation. Conversely, Viswanathan and Ng (2025) stated preparation time was one of the negative aspects reported by students in live audience presentations, thus indicating the need for more preparation time.
3) Research Question 3: Difficulty Using Technology Within a Presentation
RQ3 explored the difference in student attitudes toward the use of technology when preparing a live versus video presentation. The Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated a statistically significant difference. Students believed that using technology was more difficult during a live presentation (mean rank = 41.41) than during a recorded presentation (mean rank = 39.20), Z = -5.225, p = .001 (see Table 7). Since this test had a significant result, the null hypothesis can be rejected. In the direct individual comparison, 66 participants felt that technology was more difficult to use during a live audience presentation. Only 15 students had more difficulty using technology when preparing a recorded presentation. The final 80 students responded with the same level of difficulty for both versions using technology.
Item 15 of the survey verified this result. It found that students felt more comfortable using technology in the video presentation. However, the amount of choice was small at only 2.70 (2.50 would indicate no preference). So, when asked to directly compare the two modes of presentation, students were not as split on their use.
One interesting finding of the comparative research between live audience and recorded presentations was that student felt that it was more difficult to use technology in the live setting. There were no studies related to student perceptions of the direct use of technology during a presentation. The fact that it was more difficult indicates that teachers need to focus on the development of this skill set during classroom activities.
4) Research Question 4: Fairness of Presentation Grading
RQ4 investigated whether there was a statistically significant difference in student perceptions about the fairness of grading between the use of live audience and video presentations. The Wilcoxon signed rank test did not have a significant result indicating that there was no statistical difference between live audience (men rank = 19.35) and recorded presentations (mean rank = 19.62), Z = -.646, p = .562 (see Table 8). There were 123 out of 161 participants who answered with the same preference for both types of presentation. Only 21 believed that the video presentation grading was fairer while 17 preferred live audience. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Item 15 of the survey requested students to choose which type of presentation was better in terms of fairness of grading. The average score for this item was 2.60, which was the closest to neutral of all of the items in this section of the survey. There is a very slight penchant for the fairness of grading in video presentations, but it is not large at all. This question mirrors the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Given that the participants in the survey were enrolled in classes that had clear and detailed rubrics the finding of no statistical difference is supported by the literature (Copeland, 2021; Lan et al., 2024; Viswanathan & Ng, 2025).
5) Research Question 5: Ease of Cheating in a Presentation
RQ5 scrutinized whether students perceived cheating as easier in live audience or video presentations. The Wilcoxon signed rank test determined that there was a statistically significant difference. Students perceived cheating as easier with a recorded presentation (mean rank = 37.38) than a live audience one (mean rank = 38.64), Z = -6.332, p = .001 (see Table 9). Video presentations had 67 out of 161 marks that it was easier to cheat in a video presentation while only seven felt this way about live audience ones. Eighty-seven students rated both approaches as equal in terms of ease of cheating. Accordingly, the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Item 16 asked students if they believed it was easier to cheat in live or video presentations. This item had the highest score in the comparative section of the survey: 3.29. This perception of more prevalence of cheating in video presentations matches the results of the Wilcoxon sign rank test.
As the only found mention of student perception of cheating while making presentations was single mode (Copeland, 2021), the finding that students perceived video presentations as easier to cheat is supported. This finding indicates that teachers who choose to use video presentations need to implement measures to mitigate the possibility of cheating on a video presentation.
V. CONCLUSION
This study highlights students’ significant preference for recorded presentations, particularly due to reduced anxiety, a lower perceived time investment, and the effective integration of technology. As a result, the null hypotheses for RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 were all rejected. Perceptions in grading showed no significant variance between the two modes, meaning the null hypothesis for RQ4 was accepted. However, live presentations were associated with a lower likelihood of cheating, meaning the null hypotheses for RQ5 was rejected.
The results of the study corroborated previous research (Copeland, 2021; Hallemans, 2021) where anxiety of public speaking is an important factor for educators to consider when planning a speaking activity. The null hypothesis for RQ1 was rejected as 51.6% of students reported higher anxiety of presenting live compared to recorded presentations, while only 10 out of 161 felt the opposite. Requiring students to prepare a video presentation or alternating between modes are ways to reduce presentation anxiety. It is also crucial to introduce stress-reducing activities in order to improve students’ public speaking skills through classroom activities. One example of a classroom activity that can reduce anxiety is to have students rehearse their presentation in small groups before a live audience presentation.
An interesting finding was that recorded presentations were perceived as requiring less time investment compared to live ones. This is contrary to previous research conducted by Hallemans (2021) which found that students were investing a great deal of time recording and re-recording their assignments to achieve the best possible outcome. Several factors could explain this observation. Live presentations often necessitate extensive rehearsal and practice to ensure a smooth delivery, which can be time-consuming. On the other hand, recorded presentations allow for retakes and enable students to work at their own pace. This flexibility can contribute to the perception of spending less time overall, compared to the immediacy required by live presentations. In order to reduce the perception of time differences, teachers should ensure sufficient preparation time and practice prior to a live audience delivery.
Another finding was that using technology in live presentations is viewed as more complex than in recorded presentations. This may be because preparing for live presentations involves managing stress and ensuring readiness to present in front of an audience while coordinating technical arrangements such as setting up slides and executing transitions in real-time, which can add to preparation time and complicate delivery. Conversely, recorded presentations require less immediate technical management, allowing students more flexibility in utilizing the technology. As a result, teachers should provide students time to practice with the classroom equipment. Teachers can also spend class time providing presentation software advice and guidelines.
The null hypothesis for RQ4 was accepted as students indicated they believed grading was fair in both methods of delivery. This may be because both professors used a clear and detailed grading rubric that was shared with students when the task was assigned. Understanding how and why the scores were earned helps with the perception of fairness and should be applied to all speaking activities. This practice should be utilized by all teachers.
The null hypothesis was also rejected as students believed it was easier to cheat on a recorded presentation than it was in front of a live audience. Copeland (2021) predicted this result when he found students were concerned about cheating methods that could be applied when making a recorded presentation. The perception of what is classified as cheating is undefined in this research and more importantly in the minds of teachers and students because technology is consistently evolving and new techniques incorporated in the use of this technology are advancing. It is imperative that teachers remain knowledgeable about new possible ways of cheating on recorded presentations.
Both live audience and recorded presentations offer distinct advantages and challenges for EFL learners. Live presentations facilitate genuine interaction with an audience, thereby enhancing communication skills and spontaneity. However, they also heighten anxiety, which can have a direct consequence on performance. Conversely, recorded presentations emphasize precision and reduce anxiety by eliminating the pressure to perform in front of your peers. However, they also limit the use of the L2 to a controlled setting decreasing opportunities for spontaneous language use. Overall, these findings suggest that while students prefer recorded presentations, they believe out of the two methods of delivery, there is a greater chance a student can cheat when preparing a video presentation. It is clear that both methods can be beneficial in the speaking classroom so long as educators leverage their respective strengths to optimize student engagement and learning outcomes while addressing their limitations. Utilizing a combination of both methods can help students develop a comprehensive set of technical and communication skills, which are important for both academic and professional success. From a pedagogical standpoint, it is clear that both methods can be beneficial in the speaking classroom so long as educators leverage their respective strengths to optimize student engagement and learning outcomes while addressing their limitations. For example, this can be accomplished by requiring video presentations as practice for a live presentation. Or simply alternating assignments between recorded submissions and live presentations. The recorded versions enable students to practice their target language and their presentation skills in a format that enables them to self-assess and also get feedback from the instructor that they can compare with their video for a deeper understanding of the comments. This format also enables them to enhance their use and comfort with technology. The live presentation provides students with an opportunity to put their skills to the test in a more pressured environment. This experience helps them develop as a public speaker as well as teaches them to handle anxiety in a high stress environment. Utilizing a combination of both methods can help students develop a comprehensive set of technical and communication skills, which are important for both academic and professional success.
One limitation is that surveys are limited to respondents who took the time to answer rather than encompassing the entire target population. In addition, this study did not focus on the prior experience students had with oral presentations. Finally, this survey was newly developed based on previous research conducted by Copeland (2021) and Hallemans (2021).
There is room for future research in assessing the impact both mediums of delivery have on learning outcomes and L2 acquisition. In addition, future research could look at student perceptions of personal language skills development when presenting synchronously versus asynchronously. Blending students’ perceptions of both modes of delivery can create a better picture of what teachers should consider when designing courses for EFL learners. Finally, all the respondents in this study were enrolled at the same university. It would be interesting to know if the perceptions remain the same across students from a wider population.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
Print
