Introduction

Oral presentations (OP) are widely practiced in the EFL context at the tertiary level (King, 2002). They are considered as effective tools in developing the students' English speaking skills, promoting learner autonomy, identifying and addressing individual differences and assessing students’ performance (Munby, 2011). Academic Oral Presentations (AOP) are broadly defined as a type of public speaking which involves the delivery of a formal talk, to a particular audience, in a structured way, for the purpose of sharing ideas and information (Cheung, 2008; Nation & Newton, 2009; Zareva, 2009). It is worth mentioning here that the term OP may differ from what we call AOP. Despite the fact that both may occur in academic settings, the former seems to be associated with teaching speaking for general purposes (Harmer 2007; Nation & Newton, 2009; Thornbury, 2005), while the latter is often perceived in conjunction with teaching English speaking for academic purposes (Horowitz & Stein, 1990; Hyland, 1991; Jordan, 1997; Levrai & Bolster, 2015). For the purpose of this study, giving OPs is regarded as an academic task rather than a classroom activity.

Delivering spoken academic monologues such as OPs is often considered a key requirement in higher education (Jordan, 1997). In this, Zavera (2009) regards the students’ AOP as a genre situated in a larger network of academic genres. She further explains that AOP, as a genre, has its own characteristics and regularities that distinguish it from other academic oral genres such as lectures, conference presentations, and any other presentations given by professionals. Excluding these professional genres, the students may encounter various types of AOPs during their studies (Shephard, 2005; Levrai & Bolster, 2015). The research-based OP is one such type. This kind of presentations occurs often when students are in the final year of their graduation; hence, they have to report the findings of their research in oral presentations whether at the end of the project or during its progress (Shephard, 2005, p. 61). In the context of the present study, the participants are required to deliver an oral summary of research processes and findings during their master dissertation defense. This particular type of presentation has some specific features; it is a research-based OP, conducted in an academic and formal setting, in the presence of peers and evaluators, and for the purpose of assessing the student's skills and knowledge. The term AOP will be used in this study with reference to the master dissertation OP as described above.

Although giving OPs is a familiar activity for graduate students, the master dissertation OP, in particular, is considerably new for students who have had no previous experience with such highly structured and formal types of AOPs. Thus, the students are confronted with this demanding academic task, which seems to pose some challenges for them. However, this area is under-investigated in the Algerian context. Little is known about the difficulties Algerian EFL students encounter with regard to AOPs. The relative lack of research on academic speaking in the Algerian context coupled up with the researcher's concerns about students' academic success have motivated the current study to report on students' perceived AOP difficulties and some coping strategies, hoping to find some remedial suggestions and pedagogical solutions. To this end, the present study addressed the following questions:

1. What are the main difficulties encountered by EFL master students when preparing and delivering AOPs at the University of Bejaia?

2. How do students perceive their own difficulties and manage to overcome their AOP problems?

Literature Review

Delivering OPs in academic settings is a stressful task for college students, and it is considered even more challenging for EFL students particularly (Jordan, 1997; Morita, 2002). This can be due to the fact that giving OPs, like many other forms of oral communication, is an inherently complex task, since it involves linguistic features such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, non-linguistic elements such as body language and facial expressions, as well as paralinguistic elements such as pitch, stress, and intonation; all of which should be appropriately applied in accordance with the context (Shumin, 2002, p. 204). This task also involves the ability to appropriately design visual aids and implement effective strategies during the communication process (Hyland, 1991).

Taking into consideration these intricacies, expectedly, EFL students face several challenges in giving AOPs. Bankowski (2010) believes that AOPs require self-direction and active participation, which is highly demanding for EFL students and often leads to confusion, anxiety, and lack of understanding. King (2002) assumes that speech anxiety, failing to adopt written language to spoken language and reading from slides or notes are the reasons behind students’ failure to deliver effective OPs. In a somewhat parallel view, Evans, Gruba, & Zobel (2014) consider selecting appropriate content, transforming a written work to an oral form, competent delivery, and dealing with nerves as major challenges in preparing and delivering a dissertation oral presentation in particular (p.143). Further, Duklim & Musigrungsi (2016) claim that the main factors inhibiting students when preparing and giving OPs are native language barriers, unfamiliarity with genre-related features of the target task, and the lack of oral communication skills. Another problem noticed by Weissberg (1993) is that ESL students tend to rely often on memory or written texts when they are asked to give OPs. Echoing Weissberg’ (1993) view, King (2002) reports that EFL students reckon on reading or memorizing OPs, which makes their oral performance “sound canned, machine-like and dull”.

These issues have been noticed by many researchers and have become the subject of considerable empirical research in the EFL/ESL context. AOPs have been examined from various perspectives. While many studies focused on identifying and listing the main difficulties EFL students encounter in giving AOPs (Abu-El-Enein, 2011; Ariff & Mugableh, 2013; Benraghda, Radzuan, & Ali, 2018; Hong & Fong, 2012; Al-Harun, Islam, & Rahman 2016; Lien, 2009), some studies narrowed their scope to investigate specific problems such as anxiety (Elliot & Chong, 2004; Woodrow, 2006). Additionally, substantial research has explored the problems that may emerge from using OPs as a form of assessment (Al-Nouh, Abdul-Kareem, & Taqi, 2015; Mazdayasna, 2012; Turner, Roberts, Heal, & Wright, 2012). Further, a considerable amount of research on OPs has been conducted from the perspective of academic discourse socialization (Morita, 2000; Weissberg, 1993; Zappa-Hollman, 2007).

Abu-El-Enein (2011) explored the challenges English students encountered while delivering AOPs at Al Aqsa University of Gaza. The results showed that the students suffered from serious linguistic problems including lack of vocabulary, grammatical inaccuracy, and incorrect pronunciation. Moreover, several deficiencies were identified with regard to the selection and organization of content, the miss-management of non-verbal behavior and the inappropriate design of visual aids. Similarly, the findings of a study carried out by Ariff and Mugableh (2013) revealed that non-native Jordanian students faced several language difficulties namely: vocabulary, pronunciation and listening comprehension. Following this line of research, Lien (2009) examined the perceptions of ESP undergraduate students towards OPs and identified some of the problems that hindered students’ oral performance at Vietnam National University. It was found that students lacked presentation skills including searching for relevant materials, selecting presentation forms and memorizing presentation contents. Accordingly, a qualitative study was conducted by Al-Harun et al. (2016) to explore the challenges faced by English freshers in AOPs. The results showed that the students who had a good command of speaking skills were able to perform OPs satisfactorily; whereas, the students who had a moderate or weak level of speaking skills faced several problems including lack of self-confidence, shyness, anxiety and reciting word-by-word from memory or slides, which handicapped their oral performance. It can be noted here that these studies were conducted with undergraduates which can be an important factor in their OP difficulties. However, graduates also face challenges in AOPs (Hong & Fong, 2012; Morita, 2002; Zappa-Hollman, 2007). A qualitative study was conducted by Hong & Fong (2012) to examine closely a research proposal session at a public University. Following a single case study design, the findings indicated that even at the graduate level, AOPs can be very challenging to students. Additionally, the findings of this study suggested that reading from slides, lack of familiarity with the task and lack of knowledge about the topic were the main areas of hindrance for the students.

Al-Nouh et al. (2015) conducted a study to investigate the perceived difficulties of EFL college students when giving AOPs as a form of assessment. The problems identified in this study were mostly related to personal traits and fear of evaluation. Additionally, some issues were due to the lack of technology-based materials and lack of time devoted to teaching oral presentation skills. In a similar vein, Alwi & Sidhu (2013) described and compared self-assessed and experts’ evaluations of students’ OPs. Using a needs analysis questionnaire, oral presentation tests and semi-structured interviews, the results revealed some discrepancies between both forms of assessment. The findings indicated that while the students perceived their OP skills to be higher than average, the evaluators pointed out that the students’ oral performance was far from satisfactory in areas of content, organization, delivery, and language.

In an attempt to reveal the reasons why EFL students often face challenges in performing AOPs, Whai & Mei (2015) carried out a study in which they found that lack of practice, some psychological factors and the underplayed role of teachers constituted the main causes of students’ OP problems. Further, a study undertaken by Derwing (2003) showed that fear of negative evaluation and fear of making errors can cause major impediments in students’ oral performance. Moreover, Benraghda (2018) identified anxiety, lack of technical vocabulary, lack of training and feedback as major causes of technical OP difficulties at the Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP).

Anxiety is probably one of the most reported difficulties when giving oral presentations. Speaking in front of an audience is known to provoke fairly high levels of anxiety in students, which can be increased when the audience’s response is unfavorable or negative (Woodrow, 2006). Berbar and Fodil (2017) conducted a recent study to measure levels of anxiety among undergraduates before, during, and after oral tests. It was found that students experienced anxiety in all those stages but in a moderate way. Interestingly, the findings also revealed that students' apprehension was related to their fear of making language mistakes and fear of evaluation. It is worth mentioning here that most of the studies that reported high levels of presentation anxiety (Elliot & Chong, 2004; Lien, 2009; Woodrow, 2006) have been conducted on undergraduate EFL students who may lack experience and academic skills. Graduate students are also confronted with some psychological barriers (Chen, 2009; Morita, 2002; Weissberg, 1993). Nevertheless, graduates' ability to adopt appropriate coping strategies may exceed that of undergraduates. For example, in a study that aims to investigate graduate students’ presentation anxiety, Chen (2009) found that the students’ anxiety was moderate and can be managed by the students. The findings also pointed out that students’ presentation anxiety can be triggered by social factors including peers’ response and audience familiarity, and psychological factors such as self-perceived oral proficiency, self-perceived accuracy of pronunciation, and self-perceived personality. Moreover, an exploratory study carried out by Wu (2008) revealed that AOPs are complex tasks involving various stages of preparation, delivery, and post-delivery. This put the students under stress and pressure of constant decision making especially the stage of delivery which was identified by the students as the most anxiety-provoking phase.

Morita (2000) examined the discourse socialization of native and non-native graduates through OPs. The study showed that non-native speakers experienced three types of difficulties: linguistic, sociocultural, and psychological. Despite the advanced level of non-natives, English skills were regarded as the reason for students' difficulties. The findings of the study showed that the participants were socialized into their academic community through observations, peer support, expert assistance, and practice. Similarly, Zappa-Hollman (2007) explored the discourse socialization of non-native graduates as they engage in academic presentations at a Canadian university. Zappa-Hollman found that the challenges faced by the students are associated with linguistic, socio-cultural and psychological problems.

It can be noted that the majority of the studies on AOPs have been carried out in ESP/EAP contexts. There were several studies conducted with undergraduates and only a few that targeted graduate students, which suggest a need for further research on graduates. Moreover, the available literature focused on AOPs in the classroom context leaving many other sub-genres of AOPs uncovered. This paper strives to contribute to this bulk of literature on AOPs by investigating the difficulties English graduates encounter in preparing and delivering a particular type of AOPs, the master dissertation oral presentation.

Methodology

The present study employed a mixed-method research design to report on the difficulties that EFL master students encounter when preparing and giving their master dissertation OP. The case-specific data were obtained through a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. This triangulated study is more likely to enhance the validity of data and overcome the limitations of relying on a single method as suggested by Nunan (1992).

Participants and setting

This case study involved a class of EFL master students majoring in linguistics at the Department of English, Bejaia University. The study was conducted with 15participants, including 3male and 12female students who took the course of oral presentation skills in the first academic term and were expected to display these skills in their master dissertation OP. Data were obtained by the end of the second term of the academic year 2017/2018by means of a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview.

Research Instruments

The questionnaire aimed at eliciting information about the difficulties students faced when they prepared and delivered their master dissertation OP. The questionnaire was designed after observing the students’ in-class OPs and reviewing the literature about factors that inhibit EFL students’ OPs. It was revised by an expert in TEFL and then piloted. After receivingconstructive feedback from both processes, adjustments were made to ensure the comprehensiveness, conciseness, and accuracy of the questionnaire as recommended by Dörnyei (2007). Afterward, the questionnaire was administrated to 15EFL master students by the end of the academic year 2017̸2018after the delivery of their master dissertation OPs.

Additionally, a semi-structured interview was utilized to triangulate the data that were obtained through the questionnaire and to gain deeper insights as to why the students face difficulties when preparing and delivering AOPs and how they manage to overcome their problems. Moreover, allowing the students to report in their own words might provide valuable insights into their understandings of and attitudes towards some of these difficulties. The semi-structured interview was conducted with 12students after the questionnaires were retrieved.

Data analysis

The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS 20.0and presented in the form of descriptive statistics with percentages and means. Qualitative data collected in the semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and analyzed by using content analysis. This process was assisted by the Qualitative Data Analysis miner lite (QDA) software.

Results and Discussion

To answer the research questions effectively, both quantitative and qualitative data were reported and discussed in four areas: students' preparation difficulties, nonverbal behavior problems, linguistic challenges, and psychological barriers.

   Students’ perceived difficulties in preparing AOPs

The results showed that the participants did not seem to face major problems when preparing their presentations as the means of almost all items were between medium and low. However, some areas of hindrance were identified. Over half of the participants reported that the examiner's expectations with regard to OPs were unclear and 47% of the students agreed that the ambiguity of OP norms constituted a major challenge for them. About half of the participants (46%) faced some problems when trying to select appropriate content. These findings are in line with previous literature which highlights the problems of selecting and organizing OP content (Abu-El-Enein, 2011; Evans et al., 2014; King, 2002).

As showed in Table 1, a considerable number of respondents (40%) felt confused about the appropriate delivery style they should adopt. Some students (33%) admitted that they tend to memorize their speeches, while nearly half of the students rejected the use of this technique. This is in good agreement with Weissberg (1993) and Al-Harun et al. (2016) who found that EFL students tend to memorize their speech when asked to give OPs.

      The majority of students stated that using PowerPoint and designing visual aids were not problematic for them despite the fact that they did not receive any laborious training in this area. This, however, does not correspond with Abu El-Enein’s (2011) study in which he found that participants lacked the necessary skills to design effective visual aids.

      Apparently, many of the difficulties that confronted students when preparing their OPs did not stem from a lack of presentation skills. Rather, they seemed to be associated with the students' lack of knowledge and experience about the norms of master dissertation oral presentations. Since the participants were advanced learners, presumably, they have acquired OP skills. However, these skills seemed to be insufficient to prepare them for this academic task. This confirms Musigrungsi and Duklim’s (2016) claim that unfamiliarity with genre-related features of the target task constitutes a major impediment for students. The overall results in this section lend support to the findings of previous research (Abu-El-Enein, 2011; Al-Harun et al., 2016; Hong and Fong, 2012; Lien, 2009).

Table N° 1:Students’ difficulties in preparing AOPs

1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No opinion, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree

The data obtained from the semi-structured interview provided in-depth explanations for the students' preparation problems. The results suggested that there was some confusion on the part of respondents as to what constitutes an effective AOP and how to prepare for it, which supports the results of the questionnaire. A student reported that "at the beginning, we didn't know how to do it, or what are the elements of a presentation, or what to select as content, the only thing that we know is the time; we are given 15minutes to speak" (S1). Another participant stated that “in the beginning, I didn’t know how to make my presentation, because we don't do presentation like this. In the class, we talk about regular topics and we don't use PowerPoint, so this presentation was different for me” (S4). In addition to the alleged lack of knowledge about this type of AOPs, the students also felt confused about the requirements of this task. A student in this context noted that "it was also not clear how the jury evaluates the presentations; there should be a model or some clear criteria so we can be compared to that model" (S2). Another problem reported by the majority of participants was the selection and organization of OP content.  For example, a student mentioned, "it was difficult to choose the content and summarize the whole thesis" (S1). Similarly, another student added, "it was hard to summarize the important points, then to organize them"(S6). The students claimed that the main causes behind these problems were the lack of instructions on how to do a master dissertation OP, lack of materials and the short time allotted to the course of OPs, which deprived them of acquiring sufficient knowledge and preparation skills. This concurs well with Al-Nouh et al. (2015) who found that some aspects of the course such as lack of technology-based materials and insufficient time affected negatively the students’ acquisition of OP skill.

In line with the questionnaire results, the interview analysis showed that the students had the necessary skills to design effective visual aids. Moreover, some students admitted that they relied solely on memorizing the whole speech. This was explained by a student as follows: "I just feel afraid that if I didn't memorize, I'll not be able to express my ideas well and I'll do more mistakes” (S9). A student added, “I personally do not like memorization but I was afraid to forget my ideas” (S8).   

Surprisingly, the students seemed to encounter several preparation problems despite the fact that the department of English at Bejaia University offers a specific course for presentation skills. It can be assumed here that the course did not emphasize preparation skills, which might have happened because teachers tend to take for granted that graduate students know how to prepare OPs (Zavera, 2009).

To compensate for their lack of knowledge and experience with regard to the genre of AOP, the participants applied a number of strategies. When the participants were asked about these coping strategies, many replied as follow:

S1: “Actually we followed some videos, we saw samples on YouTube how to make thesis presentations, we even Googled some problems and we found solutions”. 

S12: “I saw the presentation of my classmates, this gave me some ideas”.

S6: “I didn't really know how to do it at first, but later we asked our supervisor”.

S7: “we prepared at home just like it was viva and we present it in front of our supervisor, and she told us it’s perfect so we were comfortable and confident that the presentation is good”.

     Apparently, the students applied various coping strategies such as searching on the internet, observing their colleagues’ presentations, asking teachers about AOP and performing OPs in pre-viva voce sessions with supervisors. The students seemed to favor the last two strategies. Unlike the internet, they provided a valid source of information and clear instructions relevant to their academic context. These findings correlate favorably with Morita (2000) and Zappa-Hollman (2007) and further support the importance of exploring the process through which the students are socialized in their academic communities when using oral activities.

The students’ nonverbal behavior problems

As displayed in table 2, the low level of means in most of the items indicated that the students have fewer problems related to their nonverbal behavior when delivering OPs. Another plausible explanation is that the students may not be aware of these problems, giving that much of nonverbal behavior occurs unconsciously. However, some difficulties were reported by the students. Over half of respondents agreed on their overuse of fillers during the OP, which could be due to stress or lack of fluency. 53% of students mentioned that they look at the PowerPoint slides too often. This was reported in another context as a strategy employed by students who were shy or anxious to avoid eye contact with the jury or the audience.

Table N° 2:Students’ non-verbal behavior problems in AOPs

1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No opinion, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree

In accordance with the results of the questionnaire, the qualitative data revealed that the overwhelming majority of students did not consider nonverbal behavior to be an issue when giving OPs. However, some students reported some minor problems. These obstacles were explained in a student’s words: “I've noticed that I use a lot of gestures and movements as I present” (S5). Another student added, "I memorized my speech well, and I didn't forget it really, but I was unable to look at the jury or audience because I was so shy, so I kept my eyes on slides” (S12). Evidently, these problems resulted from some psychological factors. For example, avoiding eye contact by looking at and reading from the slides was correlated with shyness and stress respectively. Some students seemed to overuse gestures while others seemed to complain about standing still and rigid throughout the delivery, which suggests that the students respond differently to stress and anxiety.

The students’ linguistic challenges

Table 3depicted the linguistic difficulties that encountered EFL students when giving AOPs. The high mean level of item 11( mean = 3,86) indicates that students faced serious problems in using English to answer questions addressed to them after their oral delivery, followed by a medium mean level of several other items. This suggests that students encountered moderately some other linguistic problems.

As displayed in Table 3, approximately two-thirds of the participants reported that miss pronouncing words and committing grammatical mistakes were two major problems for them. This correlates fairly with Abu El-Enein’s (2011) study in which he found that EFL students suffered from serious linguistic problems including lack of vocabulary, grammatical inaccuracy, and incorrect pronunciation. 60% of respondents stated that they found difficulties in using English to refer to visual aids. While many students reported that the language used in the introduction and conclusion sections was not problematic, the language used in the main body of OP seemed to pose some challenges for over half of the respondents. In addition, some students (33%) had problems with the effective use of transitional language. Despite the fact that many students (60%) admitted that their vocabulary is limited, the majority (73%) asserted their adherence to the academic and formal style when giving OPs.

Table N° 3:The students’ linguistic challenges in AOPs

1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No opinion, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree

The results suggested that many students lacked the linguistic skills to perform effectively an AOP, which can be attributed to different reasons such as unfamiliarity with speaking in highly formal and academic settings, anxiety and other issues related to the course of OPs. The findings from this section are consistent with previous studies (Abu-El-Enein, 2011; Alwi & Sidhu, 2013; Morita, 2000; Zappa-Hollman, 2007) which reported that the EFL undergraduates and graduates often encounter several linguistic challenges regarding AOPs.

The findings from interviews support the quantitative data concerning linguistic challenges faced by students. The main theme that was identified across the qualitative data was related to the accuracy of language. Many students felt frustrated when presenting because they committed grammatical mistakes and miss pronounced words as reported by a student, "I did not present well; I made mistakes in language, grammatical and pronunciation mistakes" (S9). Similarly, a student commented, "I didn't do my presentation as I wished, even I prepared well but I know I did many mistakes" (S10). Some students tried to overcome this problem by ignoring those mistakes and putting emphasis on the message they wanted to convey. 

In addition to language inaccuracy, lack of fluency was also reported as an issue by some respondents. A student mentioned, "I used a lot of fillers, I was kinda stressed and forgot what to say” (S12). Further, a student stated, “Honestly my problem is not in standing in front of audience or anxiety, my problem is how to express myself in English fluently” (S4).

Seemingly, the students' linguistic problems were mainly related to grammar, fluency, pronunciation, and vocabulary; components of the English language. When the participants were asked about the obstacles they faced with the language of presentations, a student responded as follows: "It was difficult to choose appropriate language for the presentation and the speech, because it needs to be very formal" (S1). Another student said: "I didn't know how to do it at the beginning, how to start my oral presentation, what I should say in every stage, what language I should use" (S4). Clearly, some students were not familiar with the language of oral presentations and the appropriate transitional language as reported by a student, "My presentation didn't go easy or smooth…I felt stuck when I move from one point to another” (S9).

The students claimed that the linguistic problems they faced during their oral performance were related to some psychological factors such as anxiety and fear of making mistakes, inadequate preparation and some deficiencies in speaking skills. The students assumed that a part of what makes OPs challenging is its formal setting and the demands and complexity of this task. This is consistent with Zappa-Hollman (2007) who found that oral presentations were perceived by students to be a daunting task because they require the mastery of various skills to manage the stages of preparation, delivery, and post-delivery.

The student’s psychological barriers

As illustrated in table 4, the mean level of all items indicates that the students struggled, though moderately, with some psychological barriers. When the participants were asked to comment on their anxiety level through the whole process of preparing and delivering their OPs, the majority of students agreed that the stage of delivery was the most anxiety-provoking followed by post-presentation stage and preparation phase respectively which is in good agreement with Wu’s (2008) findings.

Table N° 4:The students’ psychological barriers  

1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No opinion, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree