Ultra-Short Presentations with Immediate in-Class Public Feedback to Enhance Skill Development with Low Class Time and Instructor Time

Abstract

The development of oral presentation skills requires multiple opportunities to present and receive focused feedback. In typical discipline-based and general-education courses, class time is precious, and even when oral presentations are part of a course, students may receive only one or two opportunities to present with feedback. Here we describe an approach to develop presentation skills with ultra-short, one-minute presentations followed immediately by brief, supportive, focused, public in-class instructor feedback. Feedback is offered as one positive comment (one thing I liked) and one targeted goal for improvement (one thing to work on). The short time frame maximizes the number of iterative cycles of practice, feedback, and implementation of feedback. This approach was used with students in several semester-long courses offering three to eight opportunities to present. Students took anonymous surveys immediately after the course experience and again up to two and a half years post-experience. Over 95% reported that they learned a great deal about how to improve their own presentations by watching other presentations and hearing the instructor’s immediate feedback. Respondents reported lasting gains in skills, increased confidence in their public speaking abilities, and all would recommend the experience to others.

Keywords:

• Brief presentations
• communication apprehension
• communication self-efficacy
• public speaking
• speech anxiety

Introduction

Public speaking is a core skill for many careers, but developing a proficiency in public speaking is challenging (Scherer and Volk 2011). The most effective development of any skill includes frequent practice with feedback and increasing challenges (van Ginkel et al. 2015). Even very short, in-class speaking experiences can result in students evaluating future public speaking assignments more favorably (Sleigh 2013). Typical “brief” or “short” speeches in public speaking education are generally defined as four to five minutes in duration (Horvath et al. 2004; Yu-Chih 2008; Sleigh 2013), allowing a maximum of 10 students to present in a 50-minute class. Shorter presentation times would allow many more opportunities to present and practice (Calcich and Weilbaker 1992); one-minute presentations could allow 15 presentations in a 50-minute session and still preserve half of the class time for other activity. Instruction using shorter presentations appears to be rare, and we could find only one published example under four minutes: a course for non-native English speakers that required a single one-minute presentation before subsequent typical longer-length presentations (Hill and Storey 2003). While brief “elevator” speeches are increasingly common, we have been unable to find materials or research on the use of multiple ultra-short, one-minute speeches with immediate in-class public feedback. We propose such a method for the efficient development of oral presentation skills.

We sought to create an effective method for developing students’ oral presentation skills in discipline-based courses. We reduced presentation time to one minute followed by brief, immediate in-class feedback and provided multiple opportunities for practice. Our goal in this approach, “one-minute, one-figure Presentations” (hereafter referred to as one-minute presentations), was to improve oral presentation skills while using time efficiently for preparation, delivery, and feedback. Students received multiple opportunities for practice in a positive environment that was structured to reduce stress. We applied the method in three settings: (1) in a required first-year general education college course, (2) in two discipline-specific college biology courses, and (3) in formal meetings of an undergraduate biology research laboratory group. Here, we describe the technique and an assessment in the form of anonymous surveys from immediately after the experience and up to 2.5 years later.

Method and rationale

Prior to obtaining results reported here, pilot trials were conducted with students in an advanced undergraduate biology seminar course. Below we provide a brief overview of the method, details and a rationale for each element of the method, and an assessment based on anonymous student surveys.

Brief description

Students were allotted 8 or 12 minutes, either before or during the class session to prepare each presentation (or “talk” or “speech,” used interchangeably hereafter). Within the time limit, students were to choose a topic, hand-draw a single figure, and photograph the figure. Each student was allowed 60 seconds to present, displaying the figure with any available technology. The audience was expected and encouraged to interact, especially by making eye contact, smiling, regular nodding, and applauding after each presentation. No time was allotted for question and answer. Presenters were told to focus entirely on their presentation skills for their one-minute presentations, while content-related skills would be developed at other times.

On the first day (Supplemental Materials A), feedback to speakers was limited to applause and, for upper-level students, a single comment from the instructor framed as one thing I liked (examples provided in Supplemental Materials B). By the 2^nd to 4^th presentations, the instructor offered one thing I liked, and one directive for improvement framed as, one thing to work on (examples provided in Supplemental Materials C and D). The one-thing-I-liked was varied among students to highlight different aspects of effective presentations. Each one-thing-to-work-on was chosen for greatest potential improvement of that speaker with reasonable student effort. Students were expected to focus on that improvement in their next presentation. During each presentation, the instructor made brief notes and checkmarks on a rubric sheet (Supplemental Materials E: Instructor’s rubric). In the implementations described here, the grade component for one-minute presentations was based on the amount of improvement by the end of the course.

The method was applied initially in a first-semester freshman general education course (N = 14), and then tested with additional undergraduate students in two biology seminar courses (N = 11 and 14) and in an undergraduate research laboratory group (N = 6) (Total N = 45). On days with presentations, all or nearly all students gave a presentation. The number of one-minute presentations given by each student ranged from 8 in the freshman course (one every 1-2 weeks), to a median of 4 (range 3-7) in the other courses and in the research laboratory group.

Student apprehension

An active strategy encouraged “buy-in” and reduced apprehension. At the start of the first presentation exercise, students were given the objectives: improve oral presentation skills with opportunities to (a) experiment, (b) practice oral communication techniques, (c) practice developing figures that complement a spoken presentation, and (d) learn how to interact with an audience. Students were told that immediate in-class feedback was a suggestion from previous students and that the style of in-class feedback was developed with student input. The idea of public feedback created initial apprehension. Therefore, individuals were asked to volunteer for the earliest presentations, allowing others to realize that in-class feedback would be positive and constructive. To further minimize apprehension, presenters were given the option to request alternatives, such as initial presentations by video or one-on-one with the instructor, or to receive feedback in private. However, no students in this sample of 45 chose any alternative option.

Common sources of public speaking anxiety commonly include grades (Ayres and Raftis 1992; Rumbough 1999), lack of confidence (Raja 2017), and perceived subordinate status (Beatty 1988). In order to help reduce anxiety and develop a supportive class atmosphere, students were informed that initial presentations were ungraded (“On our first day, you just need to survive.”). For later presentations, students were informed that grading would be based solely on improvement and on audience participation in support of speakers. We wanted students to understand they were not in competition to achieve a high grade by becoming the best speaker in the course, and that active support and encouragement of others would benefit all.

Class atmosphere

A course axiom was “every presentation is a conversation” because audiences play a role in developing a good presentation. Perceived audience pleasantness and familiarity have a strong effect on student willingness to present (MacIntyre and Thivierge 1995), while negative nonverbal feedback during a presentation increases stress and can ultimately worsen public speaking anxiety (Hsu 2009). Students were instructed on nonverbal interactions with the speaker, including gaining a response from a speaker in the form of eye contact, a smile, nod, gesture, or laugh as part of the conversation. A class atmosphere of positive two-way communication between speaker and audience encouraged students to feel safe experimenting with something new, interesting, and/or difficult.

Topics and preparation time

On days for student presentations, a range of potential topics or goals were either outlined at the beginning of class or presented in advance – for example, “something relevant to today’s readings.”

Setting a time limit for developing a presentation had two goals. First, the time limit minimized the time students spent worrying or overinvesting in speech writing, pushing students to plan efficiently. The speech preparation procedure of anxious students is characterized by active avoidance. Procrastination for public speaking is correlated with communication apprehension and low self-perceived public speaking competence (Behnke & Sawyer, 1999). A short time limit for preparation minimizes student opportunity for procrastination. In different settings, 8 or 12 minutes was enough for students to prepare a talk they could present, but not enough time to dither about details. Second, the time limit reduced internal expectations: 8 or 12 minutes is obviously too short to construct a polished, well-structured presentation. But with experience, students reported that developing an ability to prepare a competent presentation in 12 minutes built confidence that, for most, transferred to other courses and activities.

One figure

The goal of a single hand-drawn figure was to build skill at crafting figures that add to a presentation without distracting from the presentation. Students were instructed to use the figures (1) for practice interacting with a figure/text while also interacting with the audience, (2) to help make a point, and (3) learn how to construct and interact with figures to support their spoken words. Hand drawing focused attention on the content of figures, rather than the mechanics of using a graphics program. The inclusion of a single figure needed minimal time while helping students learn to communicate with figures.

Figure 1. Responses to six questions from surveys administered after student experiences with one-minute presentations at intervals of 0, 1-1.5, and 2-2.5 years (N = 14, 18, and 10 respondents, respectively). Questions A – F are listed in the left-most column. For each question, the horizontal bars show the percentage of students choosing strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, disagree or strongly disagree, showing cumulative percentages in order from left (strongly agree) to right (strongly disagree). The heat map indicates color and pattern coding for the responses.

One-minute presentation length

Sixty seconds of presentation time was sufficient for students to apply and practice many elements of good presentation, and it was enough time for the instructor to observe, jot notes, and decide upon feedback. Longer presentations in the pilot trials added little information useful for formative or summative assessment of presentation skills.

Sixty seconds maximized engagement of the student audience. A speaker’s perception of audience congeniality at the end of a presentation improves self-assessed competence and gradually reduces anxiety (MacIntyre and MacDonald 1998). A disengaged or bored audience provides only negative reinforcement to speakers. As audiences gained understanding of effective presentations skills and knew the goals of the presentations, they became curious and focused on how well each speaker might perform. Short presentations interleaved with brief, usually interesting public feedback from the instructor made students more likely to stay engaged and play active roles in every presentation.

Presentations were self-timed or timed by a volunteer who gave a warning signal at about 45 seconds and could gently halt the presentation at 70 seconds. Students rapidly mastered the 60-second target, and no penalty was needed for short presentations or for failing to finish.

Eliminating questions and answers

Eliminating questions was important to keep students focused on the delivery of the presentations. Questions create a delay that allows the speaker and audience to forget details of a presentation. Eliminating questions allowed speakers and audience to connect easily in their own memory the one-thing-I-liked and one-thing-to-work-on to the presentation they had just heard, maximizing the value of feedback.

Formative assessment

Individuals with public speaking anxiety under-rate their performance compared to objective observers (Cheng, Niles, and Craske 2017). This negativity bias can intensify their fear of presenting. Emotional processing theory proposes that controlled exposures can alter the relationship between a stimulus and a fear response (Foa, Huppert, and Cahill 2006). Students’ fear networks are activated when they are asked to present, but by following up this stressful stimulus with positive feedback, the experience of public speaking can be recoded as nonthreatening. Repeated practice and immediate feedback provides students with an opportunity to hear how their presentation is objectively evaluated by an audience, gradually correcting their negativity bias. The first day of presentation involved either applause for the speaker and feedback for the audience or, in some settings, added a one-thing-I-liked. Furthermore, presenters knew that the audience was being assessed, transferring some of the attention and stress from presenters to the audience. The audience was assessed formatively on the first and subsequent days on their ability to make eye contact, their combined ability to gain acknowledgment from the speaker, and their combined ability to improve their interactions with each new speaker. Examples of audience feedback included: “many of you were smiling at the beginning, but then faces went expressionless. Keep smiling.” “I saw some nodding, but not enough; your goal is to give feedback to the speaker, so nod more often.” As either the presenter or as an audience member, students were pushed to develop active communication.

The speaker received one-thing-I-liked as a single positive comment, with the instructor varying among speakers the type of comment and presentation skill addressed (“One thing I liked was your eye contact with most of the room; that helped keep your audience engaged;” and see additional examples in Supplemental Materials B). By the end of a single day of presentations with one-thing-I-liked, all students had heard about multiple specific elements of an effective presentation, with some elements reinforced more than once.

To aid the speakers’ skill development, we worked to move students through the zone of proximal development, the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can achieve with guidance from a skilled partner (McLeod 2019). Three key components which aid progress include a knowledgeable tutor, interactions that allow the student to both observe and practice their skills, and scaffolding or supportive activities (Vygotsky 1978). Skill development through One-thing-to-work-on was added after the second presentation. This was the instructor’s opinion of the most useful presentation element on which a speaker should focus for improvement in their next talk (see examples in Supplemental Materials C). This feedback helped students learn key tenets of public speaking from a knowledgeable instructor. Subsequent presentations gave students the opportunity to practice the target skills and observe the behaviors in their peers’ presentations. To emphasize these target skills, students were asked, at their preference, to end or preface each talk by specifying what they were trying to improve. In addition to helping students focus on a single goal, this helped the audience engage with the speaker’s goals and helped the instructor track each student’s progress, responding either “well done, that was successful”, or “good effort, but try again.” Students in the audience became invested in each other’s success, often responded nonverbally to success, and empathized when a speaker did not succeed. With audience investment and participation, each presentation felt like a conversation, albeit one with the audience contribution being entirely nonverbal.

Specifying only one-thing-to-work-on focused student attention on steady improvements in a logical, achievable sequence. This is a key element of scaffolding, which suggests students progress most effectively when their attention is focused on a single simplified task appropriate for their current developmental level (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976). Attention divided across multiple areas for improvement can be so challenging as to block improvement, especially when presenting a talk already carries a high cognitive load. Effective scaffolding requires constantly adjusting student goals as skills develop (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976). As students improved, the instructor set new challenges, steadily raising the bar for success, but always defined by the developmental stage of the student. Advanced students skilled at basic elements might be told, for example, to “experiment with extremes in movement. Get wild at least once,” or “try a rhetorical device: next time, try repeating twice at least one word or phrase in your introduction, then again in the middle repeat a phrase after a pause, and again repeat something at the end – each chosen to give maximum power in your introduction, again for a key point in the middle, and again in your conclusion”. For students, the message always was “we don’t care if it works in every presentation – just try new things to expand your skills”. All students showed improved presentation skills as a result of the one-minute presentations, while experimenting with elements of speech.

Repeated practice

Repeated opportunities to present addresses public speaking anxiety that is rooted in circumstance novelty and prior history (Beatty 1988; Finn, Sawyer, and Schrodt 2009). Exposure therapy in which initial speeches are not accompanied by negative consequences can diminish anxiety during subsequent presentations (Gray and McNaughton 2000). Repeated exposures develop habituation as students learn not to respond to a stressful stimulus when it is presented repeatedly in the absence of significant consequences (Behnke and Sawyer 2004). Repeated practice also provides students with opportunities to implement feedback and receive confirmation their adjustments have been successful.

Peer critique

In the first-semester general education class, one goal for students was to learn how to critique a presentation. Therefore, during two later sessions, each student was assigned two talks to critique using the instructor rubric. Peer critiques were graded on how well they replicated elements on the rubric noted by the instructor. Peer critiques were neither shared with speakers nor used to assign grades to speakers.

Instruction on presentation skills

Feedback intervention theory suggests feedback is not universally beneficial and that student personality and feedback style play a role in feedback efficacy. Feedback which focuses on meta-task performance, directing attention to the student rather than the presentation, can damage performance. Feedback which focuses on task motivation or learning processes improves performance, suggesting a need to focus feedback on specific behaviors instead of the student (Kluger and DeNisi 1996). High sensitivity students can be negatively impacted by high-intensity negative feedback (Smith, Paul, and King 2004; King 2016). To maintain a productive learning environment, the feedback provided during these exercises was specific, low-intensity, and targeted at a behavior. The one-thing-I-liked segments focused initially on foundational elements. As individual students increasingly mastered the foundations, feedback and goals became more complex, often including elements of presentations new to all, or nearly all, students. Importantly, students could directly connect each piece of feedback with the student presentation given only a minute earlier. Within sessions that included presentations, students heard feedback directed to themselves as well as others equivalent to a lecture including as many as 20 attributes of effective presentations, but with the added benefit of peer examples. Variation among speakers and presentations allowed the instructor to draw class attention to multiple ways to make a presentation effective. The variation among talks and students also demonstrated that there are many ways to affect audience attention and no single “best” presentation style. Students were told not to try to converge on a single style, but rather to practice different elements of effective presentations and decide which they could apply with skill.

For one-thing-to-work-on, the instructor often added suggestions on ways to address each specific issue. These included, for example, “Try practicing short segments of a presentation on your own in front of a mirror” (for when a talk can be practiced before class time); “Choose a single point to emphasize with eye contact – and at that point in your talk make eye contact with one person in each quadrant of the room”; “Practice varying your volume – for one part of your presentation, raise your voice to a shout and, at another part, reduce volume to a whisper”; and, for students who struggle to remember parts of a presentation or lose track of their place, “If you tend to forget your speech, use notes structured with cascading indents.” (see Supplemental Materials C)

Instruction on presentation skills came entirely through the in-class feedback immediately after presentations. Immediate feedback is viewed more favorably by students compared to delayed or absent feedback, and immediate feedback is effective in improving speech delivery skills such as eye contact, gestures, volume and speaking speed (King, Young, and Behnke 2000). Delayed feedback has been shown to be more effective for performance edits which require deliberation, such as performance lengths and including supporting sources. Deliberative skills were not the focus of this exercise, but may be valuable considerations in future implementations.

Summative assessment and grading

Grades on presentations were based on improvements from initial presentations, following a rubric (Supplemental Materials E). According to the rubrics, all students improved in multiple skills. For instructor records and grading, one-minute presentations provided enough time to record key notes on core presentation skills, focused on each individual’s one-thing-I-liked and one-thing-to-work-on. During a presentation, it was usually possible to notice audience behaviors one or several times.

After the final presentation, grades for one-minute presentations were assigned based on the time-series of rubric sheets for each student showing the degree of improvement over time. Students who entered the course with weak presentation skills were expected to develop stronger speaking skills, while those entering with stronger presentation skills were expected to improve and refine their speaking style while experimenting with new elements.

Instructor time for feedback, grading and preparation

One-minute presentations required very little instructor time outside of class sessions, as feedback given entirely in class requires much less time than individual written critiques or one-on-one meetings. For the course with 14 general education students, each giving 8 presentations across 8 class periods, with two of those days including peer critiques, the instructor time out of class totaled less than 15 minutes per student for the entire semester.

Pre-instruction preparation by the instructor required an understanding of public speaking skills along with familiarity with the instructor rubric and lists of feedback items for one-thing-I-liked and one-thing-to-work-on. An instructor might need to practice some public speaking behaviors such as how to use changes in volume, replace filler words, interact with a projected figure, and use eye contact before modeling them in class.

Evaluation of effectiveness

Anonymous surveys (Supplemental Material F) using Qualtrics were used to gain information from participants (approved by the William & Mary Institutional Protection of Human Subjects Committee under protocols PHSC-2018-04-24-12954-pdheid and PHSC-2018-09-18-13141-pdheid). Contact information was available for 44 of 45 students; these were solicited for responses to either a single survey or for two surveys. One respondent was removed from the data set because he/she completed only two presentations. Survey data were collected at two time periods: April-May 2018 and April-May 2019. These represented three time points for students surveyed: (1) immediately after the experience (from both of upper level courses and some research laboratory students; N = 14 respondents, 47% response rate), (2) 1 to 1.5 years after the experience (students in the freshman general education course, one upper-level course, and some research laboratory students; N = 18 respondents, 67% response rate), and (3) 2 to 2.5 years after the experience (students in the freshman general education course and some of the research students; N = 10 respondents, 63% response rate). At least 26 of the 45 students responded to at least one survey. Demographic data were not collected because the small group sizes would have made some individuals identifiable by their responses. Complete survey responses are available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/QHM8J.

For each survey, preliminary analysis of Likert-style data indicated that students from the different courses or research settings gave similar responses, and so data were not separated by course for analysis. We conducted binomial statistical tests on the Likert-style data by collapsing to single categories all “agree” responses and all “disagree” responses, respectively, and discarding from statistical analysis any “neither agree nor disagree” responses.

Quantitative survey data

Survey respondents agreed that by watching other students present and immediately hearing the instructor’s comments they learned “a great deal about how to improve MY presentations” (Fig. 1A; P < 0.01 at each time period). The presentations with feedback in class were considered “useful and helpful” (Fig. 1B; P < 0.01 at each time period). The experience helped reduce stress or increase enjoyment with presenting (Fig. 1C; P < 0.01 at each time period). Nearly all respondents felt that they learned “more about oral presentation skills than other students” they knew (Fig. 1D; P < 0.01 at each time period). Prior to surveys, we predicted that even if students found one-minute presentation experiences useful, many would nonetheless find them stressful or unpleasant. However, in response to that survey question, on average only 20% (10-30%) agreed their presentations were very stressful or unpleasant (Fig. 1E; P < 0.01 except groups 1-1.5 and 2-2.5, for which P < 0.05). All agreed that the experience would benefit others (Fig. 1F; P < 0.01 at each time period). Not shown in Figure 1, most agreed that they would not have learned as much (88% of responses) in an approach to teaching presentation skills using one or two longer presentations (see Q7 in Supplemental Materials F). In an additional question (Q12) included in two of the three surveys, nearly all respondents agreed they would recommend these experiences “to every student, ideally in freshman year” (96% of responses)

Qualitative survey responses

Two text response questions asked survey respondents to, (1) List up to three things about what you gained, or what you liked, from doing the one-minute, one-figure presentations. If there are none, please write "None"; and (2) Can you reflect on the impact of these presentations on your oral presentation skills? Is there any additional information or feedback you would like to offer? Of the 42 survey responses, 39 included text entries to one or both questions. Because respondents often addressed both questions in one or both text boxes, the responses were combined for analysis. Nearly all comments fell into nine categories (Fig. 2), the two most common referencing increased confidence (except one response reporting increased anxiety and fear from an individual who would nonetheless recommend the experience to others) and improved skills. The specific skills most commonly highlighted were decreasing the use of filler words (ums, ahs, like), gaining skills at being an audience member, and learning the use of pauses and intonation to emphasize specific parts of a presentation. The majority of respondents identified gains and/or valued at least one of the following aspects of one-minute presentations: they were fast and efficient, the feedback was focused and specific, there were frequent opportunities for practice, and there was low pressure. Less often mentioned, but still common, were improving skills for timing a talk, ability to interact with an audience, and selecting the essential material for a presentation.

Figure 2. Survey responses from two text-response questions asking respondents to: (1) “List up to three things about what you gained, or what you liked, from doing the one-minute, one-figure presentations. If there are none, please write none."; and (2) “Can you reflect on the impact of these presentations on your oral presentation skills? Is there any additional information or feedback you would like to offer?” The columns show the percentage of respondents that included references interpreted as being in the nine categories shown.

(Key words/phrases used to help define each category were as follows:

Confidence – confidence, comfort, less fear, less anxiety; Skill Development – skill, ability, eye contact, audience skills, um, ah, like, uptalk, intonation, voice, movement, using notes, and stutter; Feedback & Focus – feedback, focus, critique, simplicity, awareness, bad habits, progression, improve; Fast & Efficient – short, brevity, not longer, small time frame, not a large amount of time, prepared in class, increased ability to prepare on the fly, efficient, concise [with connotation of presentation time]; Practice Frequently – practice, experiment, play around with different things, doing it a lot, in front of peers constantly; Low Pressure – play, camaraderie, low stress, comfortable environment, casual environment, not as daunting, not judged; Using Time & Timing – time, timing, pacing, slow enough speech, concise [with connotation of the structure of a presentation], time management; Audience Interaction – audience, providing feedback to other presenters, actively nodding, show attention, watching others; Selecting Material – choose important information, gather my thoughts, leave out information, good introduction, figures that aid my presentation, think about the main point.)

Representative responses on things gained or liked were the following:

(A) “The most valuable thing for me was the repetition. I am a very nervous presenter in general so being able to do these presentations once a week proved to be very valuable for me. Although I dreaded these presentations, I truly believe they benefited me and I am a better public speaker because of it. I also really liked watching others present. It was much easier to critique them and then reflect on myself to see if I was making those mistakes as well.”

(B) “(1) Confidence - the shortness and low stakes nature of the presentations helped me to feel more comfortable in front of a group/(2) The ability to be concise - I am a long winded speaker and writer, so these presentations helped me to learn to be concise and get to the point/(3) ability to experiment - because we had so many presentations and they were so short, we were really able to try and make changes in our presentations skills and find what did and did not work for us”

In response to a third text entry question about things they might “like to change about the one-minute, one-figure presentations,” the most common text entry was blank or “none” (N = 13). Suggestions tended to be on details such as the chance to add slightly longer presentations (e.g., “2-3 minutes” or give a final longer presentation; N = 6), content (e.g., “how to decide what topic” or “more focus on content”), or feedback (e.g., “having other students anonymously critique” or “more feedback”). Most suggestions occurred in only a single response, and only one suggestion occurred in more than three responses (longer presentation times).

When reflecting upon the “impact” of the experience, most, but not all, students reported significant and often lasting changes, as in the representative range of comments below:

(C) “These truly helped me become a much better speaker. I had a few other presentations in other classes and I carried over the improvements into these classes. I will always remember this advice! Honestly SO helpful”

(D) “I think these presentations definitely made me more confident about presentations. I find myself more willing to participate and present now than I did that first semester freshmen year. Maybe this is just me evolving as a student naturally over time, but I truly think the presentation activity had something to do with it!!”

(E) “Having done several presentations before, I felt that this did not give me much information I didn’t already know whether it be how to present and what I personally needed to work on, but it did give me a chance to practice”

(F) “I have noticed a huge difference in how I present now. I am a lot more confident and presentations I make now with less preparation time have gone better than presentations I made before with a lot of preparation.”

(G) “I’m general [sic] I am much less stressed about giving presentations now than I had been before I took this class/practiced with this kind of presentation. I tend to talk very fast when I’m nervous and never pause to let a group digest information and I gained skills from the one minute presentation drills that helped with that (counting in my head, breathing, making eye contact etc.)”

Discussion

This format allowed students to deliver many presentations, each with specific goals for improvement, while using just a few class periods. Survey responses indicated that participants valued the short format with immediate feedback and would recommend them to other students (Fig. 1). The great majority of respondents did not find them stressful or unpleasant to present, and nearly all felt they had learned more than they would expect from more typical presentation formats (Fig. 1). In text responses, over half of respondents specified confidence and skill development within their top three gains (Fig. 2), meeting goals of the method.

Two important questions are how many presentations might be useful for students, and in what settings. These results were obtained with students who had opportunities for three to eight individual one-minute presentations in class sizes/research groups with 6-14 individuals. A practical minimum might be four opportunities to present, with up to 15-20 students presenting in one day. Subjectively, we observed gains in presentation skills for nearly all students within four presentations. Surveys indicated that even those who gave only 3-4 presentations felt they had learned useful skills and recommended the experience for others (Fig. 1 and raw data). A reasonable upper end might be eight presentations, at which point the students in the general education course reported diminishing returns. We suggest one-minute presentations could be useful with four to eight presentations per student. We found them useful in discipline-based and general education courses at the level of first-semester freshmen to last-semester seniors.

Limitations of the data include the small sample sizes, application by a single instructor, potential for bias in the survey sample, the use of an unvalidated survey, the absence of demographic data, the lack of a comparison from before and after the intervention, and applying only subjective measures of changes in presentation quality. It will be valuable to conduct more trials with additional instructors and deeper assessment, including objective assessment of pre-post presentations and use of pre-post surveys on (1) communication apprehension and (2) communication self-efficacy.

In addition to requiring very little instructor time outside of the classroom, one-minute, one-figure presentations appear to differ from other instructional approaches in five important ways: (1) short preparation time allotted to students to prepare each presentation, which appeared to develop skills for efficient preparation, (2) reduced duration of presentations to a minimum that still permits meaningful assessment, (3) a requirement that the audience appear engaged and send positive nonverbal signals to the speaker, (4) immediate public feedback to both the presenter and audience, and (5) feedback focused on a single accomplishment and a single goal. Students identified all of these characteristics as helpful for developing increased speaking skill and confidence.

Acknowledgements

For discussion and constructive feedback on this project we thank S. L. Sanderson, R.H. Macdonald, J.R Burns, E.R. Arents, S.P. Williams, B.T. Sher, E.A. Roche, and P. Yañez. We thank staff with the William & Mary Studio for Teaching and Learning Innovation and at the William & Mary Center for the Liberal Arts for encouragement and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by William & Mary and the National Science Foundation under Grant DUE 1758419.