Journal of Teaching & Learning English in Multicultural Contexts Volume 2.
Number 2
ISSN: 2541-6383
A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF POSTER PRESENTATION
AND CLASSROOM PRESENTATION
Farida Ashriyani1.
Melisa Sri2 *melisahandri@yahoo.
Siliwangi University ABSTRACT In second language learning, requiring students to perform their speaking skill can be done through presentation assignments such as classroom presentation and poster presentation.
This research reports a comparative case study between poster presentation and classroom presentation focuses on the interaction between the presenters and the audiences, in relation to constructivism theory.
The data obtained in this research were videotaped and Ethnographic microanalysis, selective verbatim transcript, conversational analysis, and Seating Chart Observation Record were used to analyze the data.
The result showed that more interactions between the presenters and the audiences took place in classroom presentation rather than in poster presentation.
Moreover, several issues also appeared during the interaction in presentation tasks, including the use of L1 in presentation activities and some corrections to the mistyped and mispronounced words.
Keywords: Constructivism Theory.
Micro Ethnography.
Poster Presentation.
Classroom Presentation INTRODUCTION Presentation assignments which require the studentsA speaking skill for second language speakers can take several forms, such as a traditional class presentation or a poster presentation (Ferreira & Prichard, 2014, p.
However, in presentation tasks, the interaction between the presenters and audiences is needed to acquire the information involved in the presentation.
Prichard and Ferreira .
investigated the effects of classroom presentation and poster presentation in the university studentsA language learning, especially in their speaking skill and affective factors, and it did not investigate the interaction which occurred during the presentation.
However, the presenters-audiences interaction in presentation tasks in senior high school students remains sparsely investigated.
To fill this void, this research aims to report a comparative case study of poster presentation and classroom presentation by focusing on the interaction between the presenters and the audiences related to constructivism theory.
A study conducted by Prichard and Ferreira .
focuses on the effects of using poster presentation and classroom presentation in two different classes which shows that poster presentation is more effective rather than classroom presentation.
The classroom presentation showed speaking rates comparable to those of the poster presentation group in their first presentation.
However, as the poster group repeated their talk, their mean speaking rates increased.
Also, it resulted in the studentsA vocabulary retention in recalling the new vocabulary.
Besides, the poster group felt significantly less nervous than the class presentation group.
There was no significant difference in whether the students in the two groups felt that they did a good job or if their presentation task was fun.
However, to enhance studentsA teaching and learning experience, it is important to *Corresponding Author Melisa Sri Email: melisahandri@yahoo.
Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri increase their motivation and keep them engaged in class (Esnaashari, et al, 2015, p.
Therefore, the interaction between the presenters and the audiences during the presentation is important to optimize teaching learning process.
The previous study just investigated the effects of the studentsA fluency, vocabulary retention, also their motivation and anxiety, without paying attention to the interaction which is occurred during the Hence, in the present study, the researchers want to raise the issues of the presenters-audiences interaction during the presentation tasks.
METHOD
This research involved a class in one of senior high schools in Tasikmalaya.
West Java consisting of 29 students whose age range between 16 to 17.
For the poster presentation task, the researchers chose a presenter group which consists of four female students, (P1f.
P2f.
P3f, and P4.
, and an audience group which consists of three female (A1f.
A3f, and A4.
and two male students (A2m and A5.
For the classroom presentation task, the researchers chose the same presenter group as in the poster presentation task which consists of four female students, (P1f.
P2f.
P3f and P4.
, and the audiences are the rest of the students which consist of 25 students.
To collect the data, the researchers used a cell phone and an action camera to record a session of the classroom and the poster presentation, since it is considered to give more contextual data than audio-recorded data (Grass and Hock.
Lino, as cited in DuFon, 2.
The micro ethnography approach assisted with several instruments, including ethnographic microanalysis, selective verbatim transcripts, conversational analysis, and Seating Chart Observation Record (SCORE) is used to analyze the data.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Structure of Classroom Presentation and Poster Presentation A week before the observation started, the researchers informed the participants that they were going to do two kinds of presentation.
presentation and poster presentation.
In the first week, the participants did the classroom presentation, while the poster presentation was done in the following For the classroom presentation task, the researchers informed several instructions to the participants, such as .
They divided into six groups which freely decided by themselves.
Each group should prepare the PowerPoint slide contains the particular topic about AuReport TextAy.
In the next week, the participants have to present the prepared material based on the set turn, but the researchers just focused to a group to be investigated.
For the poster presentation task, the researchers also informed several instructions to the participants including .
They have to work in group which members are similar with their group in classroom presentation.
Each group should make a poster containing the particular topic about AuHistorical Recount TextAy.
In two weeks after doing the classroom presentation task, they have to do the poster presentation.
In the classroom presentation activity, there was a group doing the Before doing the presentation, the researchers assigned the participants into some different roles.
two persons as presenters, one person as both presenter and operator, and one person both as presenter and note maker.
The presentation was about AuReport TextAy material and its text entitled AuHoney BeeAy.
According to the time allocation, the presentation ran in about 20 minutes.
The researchers then gave a command when they have to start the presentation.
Then, the presenter group did the presentation with PowerPoint presentation slides, and the A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation rest of the students were the audiences.
The section was divided into presentation .
hile presentatio.
and discussion .
ost-presentatio.
In poster presentation activity, there were six groups of students participating in the presentation.
Before doing the presentation, the researchers assigned the participants into some different roles adapted from Widodo, .
as follows:
Table 4.
1 Roles of Presenters and Audiences in Poster Presentation Audience Groups Presenter Groups Information seeker .
has to Passage masters .
have the find more information.
responsibility to master and convey the Questioners .
have to verify opaque information.
Enricher .
expands material to be more elucidated Note maker .
writes the received material Summarizer .
concludes from the whole material of presentation.
Reporter .
reveals the brief explanation of the poster presentation after the presentation ends.
The presentation was about AuHistorical Recount TextAy material and its text entitled AuMaimoonAy.
According to the time allocation, the presentation ran in about 10 minutes due to the repeated presentation.
The researchers then gave a command when they have to start the presentation.
Then, the presenter group did the presentation with the prepared poster, and an audience group visited the presenters The section was divided into two sections, including presentation .
hile presentatio.
and discussion .
ost-presentatio.
The Nature of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in While Presentation More Interaction in Classroom Presentation This section ran in 8 minutes 55 seconds.
In the beginning, the presenters greeted all the audiences and introduced the group.
They presented the material about Report Text entitled AuHoney BeeAy.
The picture below shows the SCORE analysis of the interaction between the presenters and the audiences on presentation section in Classroom Presentation:
Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri Picture 4.
1 SCORE analysis of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in While Presentation Picture 4.
1 showed, during this 8 minutes 55 seconds period, the researchers noted the total of presentersA interaction is 37 times.
From the amount of the interaction, it can be seen that P1f did the most interaction and the audiences also interacted a lot with her.
Meanwhile, the total of audiencesA interaction is 18 times.
It indicated that A6f interacted a lot.
Moreover, mostly the interaction happened because the presenter (P1.
mispronounced some words, and almost all of the audiences corrected those mispronounced words.
Besides.
P1f also seemed confused to say some words, so the audiences helped her to say those words, as can be seen in the following excerpt:
00:00:2500:00:40
00:00:4000:00:41
00:00:4100:00:45
00:00:4500:00:50
P (P1.
Function.
Report text is a text which present information about something as.
as it is.
It is as result .
rong pronunciation, resu.
Resul, resul .
ried to make P1f realize her mistake in pronouncing that wor.
P (P1.
of systematic observation and analysis .
rong pronunciation, eneli.
Analyse .
orrecting the pronunciatio.
, .
A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation 00:00:5000:00:52 P (P1.
its social pu.
00:00:52- A
Purpose 00:00:53 00:00:53- P (P1.
00:01:02 00:01:02- A is presenting information about something.
They generally describe .
rong pronunciation, deskre.
Describe .
orrecting the pronunciatio.
00:01:04 00:01:04- P (P1.
ust give the sign with her mouth, saying 00:01:15 AudescribeA.
an entire class of things, whether natural or made, mammals, the plen.
rong 00:01:15- A Planet.
houting at P1.
00:01:19 00:01:19- P (P1.
aughing, realizing her mistak.
planets, rocks, 00:01:29 plants, countries of region, culture, transportation, and so on.
Excerpt 1 From excerpt 1, it can be seen that correcting the mispronounced words was occurring during the presentation section.
Normally, there will be no interruption while the presenter was presenting the material, but in this case, the audiences did not hesitate to do that.
It means that the students engage in direct learning (Nuthall and Church, 1973.
Stallings and Kaskowitz, 1984 as cited in Noel, 1.
Additionally, there was also an audience (A1.
who asked the presenter (P3.
to speak louder when she presented the material, as can be seen on the following excerpt:
00:02:12- P (P3.
language feature.
Language feature of 00:02:23 reportNouns and noun phrases are used rather than personal.
intrupsi suara 00:02:23- A (A1.
00:02:26 00:02:26- P (P3.
peak loude.
The use of 00:02:30 pronouns is.
00:02:30- A
, then someone says AstA
00:02:31
00:02:31- P (P3.
Most reports are written in the 00:03:24 Some reports use technical or Linking verbs are used, eg.
is, are, has.
Have belong to, to give cor.
Uses some action verbs .
limb, ea.
Descriptive language is used that is factual ra.
than imaginative.
? color, shape, size, body parts, habits, behaviors, functions, uses.
Excerpt 2 Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri In presentation task, students need to be taught how to communicate effectively with each other so they know how to express their ideas, acknowledge the contributions of others, deal with disagreements, and manage conflicts.
Accordingly.
Gillies .
claims that Authese interpersonal skills are not easy to master, particularly when many students still work in classes.
Ay.
In addition, they need to know how to share resources fairly, take turns, and engage in democratic decision making (Gillies, 2007, p.
In fact, although P3f spoke louder, some audiences still made a noise and did not pay attention to the Regarding the interaction between the presenters and the audiences in this section, the researchers noted that there were just two presenters (P1f and P2.
who actively interacted with the audiences, while the other two presenters seemed more passive.
They just interacted with the audiences in their turn, and sometimes they acted as the operators.
The feedback also just came from the audiences who sat on the first two rows and another at the back.
The other audiences seem did not pay attention to the presenter group.
This contrasting participation in the presentation might be influenced by several factors, such as individuality, enthusiasm, anxiety, social, and personal identities (Brown, 2007.
Morita, 2004 as cited in Widodo, 2009, p.
Shortly, depends on that case, participation could be correlated with the interaction of mind.
Less Interaction in Poster Presentation This section ran in 4 minutes 59 seconds period.
In the beginning, the presenters greeted all the audiences and introduced the group.
They presented the material about AuHistorical Recount TextAy entitled AuMaimoonAy.
Picture 4.
below shows the SCORE analysis of the interaction between the presenters and the audiences on the presentation section in Classroom Presentation:
Picture 4.
2 SCORE Analysis of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in While Presentation A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation Picture 4.
2 showed that the total of presentersA interaction is 14 times.
From the amount of interaction, it can be concluded that P2f did the most Meanwhile, the total of audiencesA interaction is 4 times, where A1f interacted mostly, while A5m.
A3f and A4f did not do the interaction.
As seen in picture 4.
2, all of the audiences focused on their duties based on the role given.
They tried to comprehend the presentersA explanation and took Three out of the five audiences (A5m.
A3f, and A4.
were passive.
They might be focused on writing the explanation from the presenters.
Despite, the first response came from an audience.
He asked the presenter to hold the folded part of the poster, and the presenter directly did what is ordered by the audience.
can be seen from this excerpt 5:
00:00:
(P2.
00:00:
00:00:
(A2.
00:00:
00:00:
00:00: (P2.
hah? We are, umm.
group four .
howsign 4 with her finger.
ya, saorang cekelan tah eta tah .
ointing the lower part of poster which was .
olding the lower part of the poste.
I want to .
I want to .
eing cu.
Excerpt 5 There was also an audience who asked the presenter to move the poster into the better sight, so that she could see the poster clearer, as shown by excerpt 6:
00:01:35- A(A1.
00:01:39 00:01:39- P (P2.
00:01:45 00:01:45- A (A1.
00:01:46 00:01:46- P (P2.
00:02:03 teu katingali, .
ove the poster into a better sight position for the audienc.
Only, only the main room, which features the lavish in.
? inauguration.
eing teu kaciri iih .
ove the poster into a better sight position for the audienc.
lavish inauguration throne, is open to the public.
Here you can check out a modest collection of ceremonial crises and dress up in traditional Malay costume.
Excerpt 6 From this case, it can be concluded that the audiences were dissatisfied with the poster placement.
They were also dissatisfied with the aural situation during the presentation.
Besides, the class was crowded, because the other groups were also doing the presentation, so the audiences seemed cannot hear the presentersA voice well.
See the following table of excerpt 7:
00:00:4200:00:54
P (P2.
I can, .
iya Maimoon Palace is royal house for Sultanate of Deli and becomes of tourism sites from Medan.
South Sumatra.
Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri 00:00:5400:00:55 00:00:5500:00:56 00:00:5600:00:59 A (A1.
A (A1.
A (A3.
(Taking note.
teu kadangu .
hen taking note.
aking note.
P (P2.
A (A3.
P (P1.
ih atuda kumaha.
gandeng atuh da .
aking note.
astagfirullohalAoadziim .
ointing the other groups which were also doing the presentatio.
aking note.
place, balikan deui nya, is royal house of Sultanate of Deli and becomes of tourism sites .
rong pronunciation: site.
, from Medan, .
aking note.
orrect pronunciatio.
A (A3.
00:00:5900:01:08 00:01:0800:01:09 00:01:0900:01:35 P (P2F) A (A3.
P(P2.
eem didnAt hear the correction, continuin.
South Sumatra.
This grand, 30-room Maimoon Palace was built by the sultan of Deli in.
onfused, think of the English word of the number.
ieu, eighty.
eighty eight and the architecture features Malay.
Mogul and Italian influins .
ealizing her mistak.
Excerpt 7 Thus.
A1f and A2m seemed convincing their understanding by seeing the poster clearer.
Hence, when the poster could not be seen in a good sight, they asked the presenter to fix it.
The audiences also needed a clear and well-listened voice when the presenters were presenting the material, by doing so they might acquire the presented material easier.
This poster presentation activity is a dynamic and constructive meaning making process, involving audiences-content The effectiveness of this process depends on the audiencesA active role in the meaning-making process (Jamian, et al.
, 2.
It also can be seen from excerpt 7 that in minute 00:00:59-00:01:35 a presenter was presenting the material, but there was a mispronounced word.
Then, the audience tried to correct it, but the presenter ignored the correction and just continued her The reason might be because of the crowded situation at that time.
In accordance.
Lin & Zhu .
as cited in Zhang & Kou .
argued that AuhumanAs cognitive structure should construct from the interaction with environment gradually and the humanAs cognitive structure develops by the internal and external cause.
Ay Comparison in While Presentation From the findings in both presentation sections, the interaction mostly occurred in classroom presentation .
he presenters interacted 37 times, the audiences interacted 18 time.
The interaction mostly happened because the audiences corrected the presenterAs mispronounced words when they were presenting the material and complained about the presentersA low voice.
However, two presenters interacted actively with the audiences.
the other two presenters just interact with the audiences when they got their turn to present the From the audiencesA view, there were just several audiences who interacted with the presenters.
they are the audiences who sat in the front rows.
It means not all the audiences paid attention during the presentation section.
A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation In contrast, during poster presentation the presenters only interacted 14 times, and the audiences interacted 4 times.
The interaction happened because the audiences complained about the placement of the poster and the crowded situation which troubled them in acquiring the material.
Not as in the classroom presentation, in poster presentation, when the audiences corrected the mispronounced word, the presenter did not correct it immediately, which might be caused by the crowded situation in the class.
Additionally, same as in the classroom presentation, there were two presenters who interacted actively with the audiences.
the other two presenters just interacted with the audiences when they got their turn to present the material.
Meanwhile, there were just two from five audiences who interacted with the presenters, the other three presenters just listened to the presentation and took notes.
In sum, both in classroom and poster presentation, the interaction occurred during the presentation section which generally runs without any interruption from the audiences.
This condition could happen because of some reasons, such as personality, willingness to communicate, anxiety, social and environment (Brown, 2007.
Morita, 2004 as cited in Widodo, 2.
The Nature of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in Post Presentation More Interaction in Classroom Presentation This section ran in 13 minutes 36 seconds period.
After the presenter group presented the material, the audience were allowed to ask some questions.
Firstly, the presenters allowed three audiences to ask question, but there were four audiences who gave some questions to the presenter group.
Picture 4.
3 shows the SCORE analysis of the interaction between the presenters and the audiences on discussion section in Classroom Presentation:
Picture 4.
3 SCORE Analysis of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in Post Presentation Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri Picture 4.
3 showed, during this period the researchers noted the total of presentersA interaction is 59 times.
From the amount of interaction, it can be seen that P1f still did the most interaction and the audiences also interacted a lot with Meanwhile, the total of audiencesA interaction is 40 times.
In this session.
A4m interacted the most.
The first response came from A2f who sat in the second row.
She clarified the mistyped word in one of the PowerPoint slides.
Further.
P1f and P2f responded to her correction, and then P4f changed the mistyped word into the correct one directly.
LetAs see the following excerpt 8:
00:08
Any question, any question? 00:08(P1.
Ada yang mau di koreksi dong 00:08 00:09(A2.
00:09 00:09(P2.
liat yang language feature 00:09 00:09(A2.
Language 00:09 00:09(A5.
heem languange, .
00:09 00:09 harusnya kan language, iya, 00:09 00:09(A2.
oh salah, iya iya, sorry sorry 00:09 00:09(P2.
P4f irectly changed the mistyped the correct on.
word into Excerpt 8
:57:59
:59:00
:00:01
:01:02
:02:03
:03:05
:05:13
:13:15
Based on the excerpt 8.
A2f had better concentration on the PowerPoint slide, so she could correct the mistyped word in the slide.
Meanwhile, the other audiences just realized the error after someone criticized it.
As the audiences, the students may have a position as checker for the other as they are forced not only to focus on what they have learned, but also on each otherAs understanding and interpretation of what they have learned, a process that enhances studentsA understanding of text, challenges their cognitive and metacognitive processing and facilitates learning (Gillies, 2007, p.
Additionally, the interaction mostly carried out in Bahasa Indonesia.
In this discussion section, there was a case when an audience interacted with the presenter in English, she did not understand it.
Look at the following excerpt 9:
00:09:3900:09:41
00:09:4100:09:55
00:09:5500:09:56
00:09:5600:10:07
00:10:0700:10:08
00:10:08-
A (A3.
Annora.
Annora .
aising her hand, calling P1.
P (P1.
Siti .
llowed her to spea.
A (A3.
P (P1.
what is .
what is quick and easy way for us to check the authentically honey bee? Keheula P (P2.
Naon eta teh.
A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation 00:10:09 00:10:0900:10:10 00:10:1000:10:13 00:10:1300:10:14 P (P1.
Naon eta tadi teh? A (A3.
ku indo lah, nya? .
bagaimana cara mengecek keaslian madu? Oh, yes, yes, yes.
P (P1.
Excerpt 9 As can be seen from excerpt 9.
A3f asked a question by using English, but P1f didnAt understand it, so A3f switched the language into Bahasa.
Finally.
P1f can understand what was asked by A3f.
It indicates that L1 use is a preferred learning strategy (Manara, 2007, p.
The use of L1 in language learning also lowers studentsA language anxiety and enhances positive affective environment for the students to make a progress in their L2 learning (DAAnnulizios, 1991.
Garcia.
Hemmindinger, 1987.
Shamash, 1990.
Strei, 1992 as cited in Manara, 2007.
Besides, there was also grammar correction from the audience during the discussion section.
Look at the following excerpt:
00:13
honey bee haveA.
(P1.
00:13 Species 00:13 Has, has 00:14 (Irfan,Tanti 00:14 ) has species .
ake a 00:14 (P1.
seven finger.
seven, seven,.
elped by P2.
seven species, yes .
00:14
Another :08- 00:14 (Irfan,Nata :10 00:14 sh.
P Another :10- 00:14 (P2.
:11 00:14 .
:11- 00:14 (P1.
onfused, then comes to her group.
Then, the :36 presenter group is discussin.
Excerpt 10
:53:58
:58:00
:00:08
The discussion section may encourage an audience to be a critical thinker.
This is in line with constructivism principle which encourages studentsA selfexploration and learning control, incorporated with their existing knowledge (Koohang, 2009 as cited in Jamian, et al.
, 2.
In sum, this section ran longer than presentation section.
Discussion within the presenters group caused this section ran longer.
The interaction also occurred more than in presentation section .
he presenters interacted 59 times, the audiences interacted 40 time.
From all of the audiences, there were just eight audiences who paid their attention, responded, and interacted with the presenter.
Less Interaction in Poster Presentation This section ran in 5 minutes 7 seconds period.
After the presenter group presented the material, the audiences were allowed to ask some questions and Picture 4.
4 below shows the SCORE analysis of the interaction between the presenters and the audiences on discussion section in poster Presentation:
Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri Picture 4.
4 SCORE analysis of Presenters-Audiences Interaction in Post Presentation Picture 4.
4 showed, during this period, the researchers noted the total of presentersA interaction is 31 times.
From the amount of the interaction, it can be concluded that P2f did the most interaction.
Meanwhile, the total of audiencesA interaction is 13 times.
The first response came from A1f.
She wanted to ask a question, but she seemed confused to explain what she wanted to say.
It also made the presenter confused to record the question.
In fact, the interaction carried out in Bahasa Indonesia, and A1f also tried to explain it by using gestures and eye contact.
LetAs take a look at the following excerpt 11:
A Comparative Case Study of Poster Presentation and Classroom Presentation It can be concluded that gestures and eye contact can be used in the Gestures and speech interaction are linked in language production and perception, with their interaction contributing to felicitous communication (Kopp.
Malisz.
Wagner, 2.
Additionally, the audiences and presenters interactively discussed the presentation topic, as seen in this following excerpt 12:
The audiences seemed unsure about the presentersA answer, and the presenters keep answering the question based on their own knowledge.
This is in line with constructivism view that learners are regarded as autonomous individuals integrating schemata and new information from text in producing meaning, where they actively select, create and refine hypothesis made in synthesizing information and interpreting meaning (Bruner, 1966, as cited in Jamian, et al.
, 2.
Comparison in Post Presentation From the findings in discussion section, it can be concluded that the interaction mostly happened in classroom presentation task.
In classroom presentation task, there was grammar correction by the audience when the presenter was presenting the material.
The interaction mostly carried out in Bahasa Indonesia.
Same as in the previous section, the active audiences were just the audiences who sat in the front row.
In poster presentation task, the interaction also carried out mostly in Bahasa Indonesia.
There were just three of five audiences who interacted with the presenters.
The other two audiences did not interact anymore.
Farida Ashriyani.
Melisa Sri CONCLUSION The research result showed that there was a different amount of interaction occurred in poster presentation and classroom presentation.
The interaction mostly occurred in classroom presentation task.
This may because of the limited time given in doing these tasks.
The occurring interaction happened because of some reasons, such as the correction for the mistyped and mispronounced words, and the complaint about the unsatisfying media and voice used in the presentation tasks.
The interaction mostly carried out in Bahasa Indonesia.
Both in classroom and poster presentation tasks, not all the audiences paid attention and interacted actively with the presenters.
Non-verbal interaction using gestures and eye contact also occurred in presentation tasks.
It indicates that interaction can happen not only by using verbal action, but also non-verbal action.
both presentation tasks, not all the audiences interacted and paid attention to the Since this study focused on the interaction between the presenters and audiences in classroom and poster presentation tasks, the next researchers are suggested to investigate the interaction within the presenters and within the audiences during the presentation tasks.
Moreover, conducting research with the same approach which is applied in different topic is recommended.
REFERENCE