Oral Presentations

Teaching Oral Presentation Skills in Adult Education

Oral presentations are a staple of higher education across disciplines and cultures. Whether explaining a concept, defending a project, presenting research, giving peer feedback, or even taking part in discussion, these tasks contribute significantly to their learning journey. The ability to speak confidently in front of others also supports workplace success, with public speaking widely recognised as part of the essential 21st-century skillset expected of global citizens (Elliott & Higgins, 2005).

Yet, for all their importance, oral presentations are often taught and assessed in vague or inconsistent ways. Learners may feel disadvantaged when feedback is ambiguous or when assessment criteria are ill-defined. This post explores how body language, psychology, and pedagogical research can inform more effective ways to teach and assess oral presentation skills in adult education.

Why Traditional Feedback Falls Short

Assessment criteria for oral presentations frequently include terms such as “body language” and “vocal delivery” (Morreale et al., 1993, cited in Dunbar et al., 2006), but these phrases can be mystifying. Telling a learner to “engage the audience more” or “vary your intonation” without further explanation can leave them unsure of what to change (Ritchie, 2016). Many repeat their struggles from one presentation to the next without making meaningful progress (Mercer-Mapstone & Matthews, 2017).

Phrases like “physical behaviours that support the verbal message” (Morreale et al., 1993, cited in Dunbar et al., 2006) are too vague to guide improvement. Broad Likert scales and generic rubrics often fail to promote meaningful self-reflection (Mercer-Mapstone & Matthews, 2017).

Adult learners, who are often juggling education with work and family, benefit most from clear, practical guidance—not abstract notions of what “good” communication looks like.

A Better Approach: Self-Regulated Learning

A promising alternative lies in the development of self-regulated learning strategies, which involve learners actively managing their progress through goal-setting, monitoring, and reflection (Zimmerman, 2002). Research shows that structured self-assessment can lead to more detailed and constructive feedback than teacher evaluations alone (Huang, 2016).

When trained to notice specific cues—like monotone delivery or lack of eye contact—learners are better equipped to self-correct and improve.

However, autonomy doesn’t mean isolation. Teachers play a vital role in scaffolding self-awareness by modelling effective behaviours and guiding reflective questioning (Nilson, 2013). Awareness-raising activities, including peer feedback sessions, are particularly impactful in adult learning contexts.

Making the Abstract Concrete

To support this process, assessment tools can be co-developed with learners and broken down into observable, measurable behaviours. Whilst these are many, and provide too much to think about all at once, these examples provide measurable unambiguous targets that can be worked on.

Eye Contact

• Coverage: Makes eye contact with all audience sections (left, centre, right; front and back) at least once every minute.

• Duration: Maintains contact with individuals for 1–4 seconds at a time to avoid staring or scanning.

• Distribution: Engages most of the audience visually during key segments (introduction, transitions, conclusion).

• Note Reference: Looks down at notes or screens for no longer than 2 seconds at a time and fewer than 3 times per minute.

• Online: Looks directly into the camera for 80%+ of speaking time, breaking gaze every 30 seconds naturally.

Pitch and Vocal Variation

• Emphasis: Varies pitch to emphasise at least 2–3 key words per main point.

• Variety: Avoids monotone speech for more than 10 seconds; changes pitch or tone once per paragraph or key idea.

• Balance: Avoids speaking in a consistently high or low pitch unless stylistically justified.

• Rhythm Shifts: Demonstrates at least 3 intentional pace changes to match meaning or audience needs.

Use of Pauses

• Dramatic Pauses: Pauses (1–3 seconds) used at least 3 times to mark major points or transitions.

• Fluency: Filler words (“um”, “uh”, etc.) kept to fewer than 3 per minute.

• Intentional Placement: Pauses used before/after rhetorical questions, strong statements, or audience reaction moments.

• Responsiveness: Pauses briefly after laughter, questions, or interruptions before resuming.

Gestures

• Relevance: Gestures support or emphasise content with at least 3 used to highlight key points.

• Control: Gestures are smooth and deliberate, with 90%+ falling within the 'gesture box' (waist to shoulders).

• Balance: A majority of gestures are symmetrical with occasional asymmetrical gestures (used for emphasis at least 3 times).

• Frequency: Gestures are evenly spread across the speech, avoiding clustering or overuse.

• Visibility: Hands are visible and at navel height when not gesturing, is a relaxed clasp or steeple position.

• Visibility: Gestures are visible, with palms being displayed regularly.

Posture and Stance

• Alignment: Maintains upright, open posture for at least 90% of presentation.

• Balance: Weight evenly distributed; avoids rocking or shifting more than once every minute.

• Stability: Feet grounded during key moments (e.g., intro, closing); no leaning on podium unless intentional.

• Professionalism: No fidgeting or unconscious body movement that distracts from the message, including face touching.

Facial Expression

• Congruency: Facial expressions match emotional tone or theme at least 90% of the time.

• Variation: Uses a minimum of 3 distinct facial expressions to signal tone shifts.

• Engagement: Smiles appropriately at start and end (assuming congruent with the message); avoids prolonged blank or tense expressions .

• Emphasis: Expresses key moments visually (e.g., raised eyebrows for surprise, frown for concern).

Pacing and Rhythm

• Rate: Maintains average speaking speed of 100–150 words per minute.

• Adjustment: Slows down for complex points and speeds up during narrative or energised parts.

• Variety: Demonstrates rhythmic variation appropriate to content (e.g., quick anecdotes vs. slow arguments).

• Responsiveness: Adjusts based on audience cues (e.g., slowing if confusion is observed).

Movement

• Purposeful Positioning: Movement marks structural changes (e.g., new point = new spot); changes position max once per minute unless content-specific.

• Control: Movement is smooth and non-repetitive; avoids pacing, fidgeting, or turning away from audience.

• Postural Anchoring: Lower body remains still during most of the speech (90%+), especially opening and closing.

• Online: Speaker is framed to show upper body and hands; remains central or 1/3 framed for visual balance.

Volume

• Audibility: Clearly audible in all parts of the room without shouting or microphone issues.

• Emphasis: Raises or lowers volume intentionally at least twice per minute to signal importance or contrast.

• Consistency: Avoids volume drop-offs at sentence ends or during complex explanations.

Tone

• Alignment: Tone suits purpose (e.g., persuasive, informative, celebratory).

• Variation: Changes tone at least twice in a 5-minute speech to reflect emotional or narrative shifts.

• Clarity: Avoids sarcasm, irony, or tonal mismatches that confuse audience interpretation.

Clarity and Articulation

• Intelligibility: At least 95% of words articulated clearly and understood by a general audience.

• Precision: Avoids slurring, mumbling, or trailing off; ends of words fully enunciated.

• Pronunciation: Pronounces technical or uncommon words correctly on first use.

• Syllabic Accuracy: Stresses correct syllables in multisyllabic terms.

Audience Engagement

• Opening Hook: Uses a rhetorical question, anecdote, quote, or direct audience reference within the first minute.

• Interactivity: Prompts audience engagement at least once every 3 minutes (question, poll, invitation).

• Adaptability: Visibly responds to cues (e.g., adjusts if attention wanes, repeats if confusion evident).

• Appropriateness: Interaction suits topic, audience, and format (e.g., humour in informal vs. seriousness in academic talk).

Visual Aids (if applicable)

• Integration: Visuals referred to within 10 seconds of being introduced; explained or expanded upon.

• Design: Fonts, colours, and layouts are legible and consistent, with limited words and bullets.

• Delivery: Speaker avoids reading slides verbatim; uses visuals as support, not script.

Structure and Flow

• Framework: Presentation clearly includes introduction, main content, and conclusion.

• Signposting: Uses verbal cues like “Firstly…”, “Now let’s explore…”, “In conclusion…” to guide listeners.

• Cohesion: Transitions between ideas are logical and smoothly delivered.

• Summary: Speaker recaps 2–3 main points in the final 30–60 seconds.

Time Management

• Accuracy: Presentation finishes within ±30 seconds of the allocated time.

• Balance: Intro, main body, and conclusion are proportioned evenly to avoid rushing.

• Adaptability: Adjusts pace or skips non-essential content in response to timing cues.

Optional: Online-Specific Delivery

• Framing: Speaker is centred or 1/3 framed on camera; gestures are visible and lighting is adequate.

• Eye Line: Regular camera contact maintained (not just looking at screen), with brief breaks to simulate natural interaction.

• Tech Use: Visual aids (e.g., shared screen) are timely and clearly visible; avoids technical distractions.

These granular behaviours make the abstract tangible but should not be expected or introduced too quickly. They also support transparent feedback loops between teachers and learners—essential in adult education where confidence can be fragile.

What Do Learners Value?

While educators often prioritise content and structure, learners frequently focus on how they “feel” during a presentation—nervous, confident, overwhelmed. Addressing this perceptual gap could lead to more empathetic teaching.

For adult learners, presentation anxiety is a common barrier. Confidence-building, peer support, and even innovative methods like virtual reality practice (simulating larger audiences gradually) can help reduce anxiety and increase self-assurance. By building up the speaking time, audience numbers, and the points/skills to focus on, confidence can be achieved through gradation or gradual exposure.

Conclusion

Oral presentations are not just performance tasks—they are developmental milestones that integrate communication, reflection, and self-belief. To support adult learners effectively, we must move beyond vague directives and embrace clarity, specificity, and learner agency. By combining body language insights, self-regulated learning principles, and learner-centred feedback, educators can foster not just better presentations—but more confident, capable communicators.

References

Dunbar, N. E., Brooks, C. F., & Kubucka-Miller, T. (2006). Oral communication skills in higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 115–128.

Elliott, N., & Higgins, A. (2005). Self and peer assessment – Does it make a difference to student group work? Nurse Education in Practice, 5(1), 40–48.

Huang, S. (2016). Understanding learners’ self-assessment and self-feedback on their foreign language speaking performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 803–820.

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Matthews, K. E. (2017). Student perceptions of communication skills in undergraduate science at an Australian research-intensive university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 98–114.

Morreale, S. P., Moore, M. R., Taylor, K. P., et al. (1993). The Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Nilson, L. B. (2013). Creating Self-regulated Learners: Strategies to Strengthen Students’ Self-awareness and Learning Skills. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 207–221.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.