臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著針對特定目的的語言教學日趨發展，專業英語（ESP）已發展了包括商業英語（EBP）在內的分支。從業界的角度來看，如何有效的溝通成了大學生學習和大學教育的關鍵。特別是PowerPoint簡報，PowerPoint簡報不僅是最常見的口語溝通技巧之一，並且近來受到更多的關注。對於未來希望在商業上成功的學生來說，如何有效地運用PowerPoint簡報已成為一種生存的技能。雖然PowerPoint是一個功能強大且普遍的簡報軟體，但是僅有非常少的研究調查學生在口語簡報上PowerPoint的使用，特別是在商業英語領域。
本研究的目的在於探討學生對於有效的商業簡報的看法、表現以及困難之處。因此，研究者採用問卷調查及訪談做為研究工具進行了這一項研究。六十七名英語系學生分屬兩個班級參與了此項研究。為了比較有較多商業簡報經驗和較少經驗的學生，四十三位二年級的學生和二十四位四年級的學生被納入本次研究。此外學生的PowerPoint幻燈片做為資料補充說明學生的問卷調查結果。
為了調查學生在商業簡報上的看法、表現與困難，研究者發展五個方面包括：（1）場域認知、（2）訊息素養、（3）背景知識、（4）語言使用、（5）簡報設計。
根據問卷結果顯示，兩組學生在看法和困難的部分有很多相似之處，但是兩組學生在簡報的表現部分顯示比較多的差異。在看法的部分，兩組學生皆回應，訊息素養是非常重要。在困難的部分，學生在背景知識和訊息素養方面有困難。在他們簡報的表現，加上學生的簡報投影片做為輔助說明，發現學生在場域認知、語言使用和簡報設計上有顯著的差異。大四的學生認為場域認知非常重要，特別是對於觀眾的認知，因此他們在設計簡報時會更注意此點。在另一方面，二年級學生較少留意簡報的場域背景，並且他們也沒有注意語言的使用和簡報設計。大四的學生比起大二的學生在語言使用和簡報設計上更能有效的運用。其差異的原因可能是因為學生受老師的教學影響與對商業簡報整體的認知。針對結果，本研究提出有關學在學習商業英語簡報的具體教學建議。

With the growing development of teaching language for specific purposes, branches of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) have been developed including English for Business Purposes (EBP). From the industry perspectives, the competence of making effective communication at the workplace is crucial for college students. In particular, making PowerPoint presentations is one of the most common oral communication skills in business and it has received greater attention in recent years. How to use PowerPoint effectively in presentations has became a survival skill for students who wish to succeed in business in the future. Though PowerPoint is a powerful and ubiquitous presentation technology; there are limited studies investigating students’ use of this technology in making oral presentations, especially in the EBP field.
The purpose of the present study is to explore students’ perception, performance, and difficulties in making effective PowerPoint presentations for business purposes.
Therefore, the researcher conducted a study using a questionnaire and interviews as research instruments. Sixty-five English majors from two different classes participated in the study. In order to compare less experienced students and more experienced students, 43 sophomores and 24 seniors were invited to voluntarily participate in the study. Besides, a number of student’s PowerPoint slides were used as supplemental data to the students’ questionnaire responses.
In order to investigate students’ perception, performance, and difficulties in making business presentations using PowerPoint, the researcher developed five dimensions consisting of (1) contextual awareness, (2) information literacy, (3) background knowledge, (4) language use, and (5) visual design.
According to the statistical results of the questionnaire responses, the two classes showed more similarities in both perception and difficulty part, but they showed more differences in the performance part. In the perception part, both groups of students responded that information literacy was important. As for their difficulties, students had difficulties in background knowledge and information literacy. In their perceived performance with supplement of the students’ PowerPoint slides, two groups of students had significant differences in contextual awareness, language use and visual design. The seniors considered contextual awareness more important than the sophomores, especially regarding the audience awareness. Therefore, they paid more attention to the audience’s needs or expectations when designing slides. Moreover, the seniors’ slides had more effective language use and visual design than the sophomores’ slides. According to the interviews with the students, the reasons for their differences could probably because of their instructor’s teaching emphasis and their understanding of what business presentations should be. Based on the findings, pedagogical implications are provided in the end.

摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Effective Communication in Business 2
PowerPoint Presentations 3
Key Terms of the Study 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Audience Centered Approach 9
Information Literacy 10
Background Knowledge & Schema Theory 11
Effective PowerPoint Presentations 12
Studies in PowerPoint Presentations 15
Studies regarding Information Literacy 15
Studies regarding Background Knowledge 17
Studies regarding Language Use and Visual Design 18
Summary 20
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 22
The Research Procedure 23
The Participants 24
Participants for the Survey 24
Participants for the Interviews 27
Class Description 28
Class1: Communication and Presentation 28
Class 2: Business Oral Communication 29
The Questionnaire 31
Dimension 1: Contextual Awareness 33
Dimension 2: Information literacy 34
Dimension 3: Background knowledge 35
Dimension 4: Language Use 36
Dimension 5: Visual Design 39
Data Collection 42
The Questionnaire 42
Interviews 42
PowerPoint Slides 43
Data Analysis 44
Quantitative Analysis 44
Qualitative Analysis 44
Interviews 44
PowerPoint Slides 44
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 46
Question 1. What is an effective business presentation from students’ perspectives? 47
Contextual Awareness/ Information Literacy/ Background Knowledge 47
Language Use 49
Visual Design 52
Question 2. What do students do when making a business presentation? 56
Contextual Awareness/ Information Literacy/ Background Knowledge 56
Language Use 59
Visual Design 63
Students’ PowerPoint slides 67
Question 3. What difficulties do students have when making a business presentation using PowerPoint slides? 69
Contextual Awareness/ Information Literacy/ Background knowledge 69
Language Use 72
Visual Design 74
Summary 77
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 79
Summary of Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire 79
Discussion for the Research Questions 81
Interpretations of Research Question 1 81
Interpretations of Research Question 2 82
Interpretation of Research Question 3 82
Pedagogical Implications 84
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 88
REFERENCES 90
Appendix A Communication and Presentation Course Syllabus 96
Appendix B Business Oral Communication Course Syllabus 98
Appendix C The Questionnaire (Chinese Version) 101
Appendix D The Questionnaire (English Version) 106
Appendix E Evaluation Criteria for Presentation 112
Appendix F Students’ Interview Questions 114

ACBielson Research Services. (1998). Research on employer satisfaction with graduate skills: Interim report. Canbera: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Alley, M., & Neely, K. A. (2005). A case for sentence headlines and visual evidence. Technical Communication, 52(4), 417-426.

Anderson, G. Z. (2006). Top ten tips for PowerPoint slide shows. Retrieved June, 24, 2011, from: http://www.ou.edu/class/bc2813/PresentationTips/Top_ten_tips_for_powerpoint.htm

Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader''s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of the reader''s schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Teoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.) (pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Angell, P. (2004). Business communication design: Creativity, strategies and solutions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of students preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computer & Education, 50, 148-153.

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency#ilhed.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teach writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.

Baker, W. H., & Thompson, M. P. (2004). Teaching presentation skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 216-219.

Baro, E. E. (2011). A survey of information literacy education in library schools in Africa. Library Review, 60(3), 202-217.

Beebe, S. A., & Beebe, S. J. (1996). Public speaking: An audience-centered approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Berko, R., Wolvin, A., & Ray, R. (1997). Business communication in a changing world. New York: St. Martins.

Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553–573.

Craig, R. J., & Amernic, H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 147-160.

Cyphert, D. (2007). Presentation technology in the age of electronic eloquence: From visual aid to visual rhetoric. Communication Education, 56(2), 168-192.

Dey, A. K., & Abowd, G. D. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Retrieved June 21, 2012, from https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/3464/00-18e.pdf

Dey, A. K., (2001). Understanding and Using Context. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 5 (1), 4-7.

DiResta, D. (2009). Knockout presentations: How to deliver your message with power, punch and pizzazz. Madison: Chandler House Press.

Dogruera, N., Menevisa, I., & Eyyama, R. (2010). EPS instructors’ perceptions of factors that affect students’ oral performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 2(2), 5089-5094.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Business.

Duff, P. (2005). Thinking globally about new literacies: Multilingual socialization at work. In J. Anderson, M. Kendrick, T. Rodgers & S. Smythe (Eds.), Portraits of literacy across families, communities and schools (pp.341-362). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Finkelstein, E. (2006). PowerPoint tips. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from Ellenfinkelstein.com. website: http://www.ellenfinkelstein.com/ppt_news/powerpoint_news_powerpoint_design_2009.html

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). A introduction to language (8th ed.). Michael Rosenberg.

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2007). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goad. T. (2002). Information literacy and workplace performance. CT: Quorum Books.

Guffery, M. E. (2006). Essentials of business communication (7th ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.

Hill, J. (2000). Changing faces; facing change. Presentations, 14, 42-50.

Huang, Z., Lu, X., & Duan, H. (2011). Context-aware reconnendation using rough set model and collaborative filtering. Artificial Intelligence Review, 35(1), 85-99.

Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003) Information literacy in higher education: a review and case study. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 335-352.
Kassim, H., & Ali, F. (2010). English communicative events and skills needed at the workplace: Feedback from the industry. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 168-182.

Kavaliauskiene, G. (2005). Good practice in teaching ESP presentation. English for Specific Purposes world, Web-based Journal. Retrieved from: http://esp-world.info/Articles_13/article%20GOOD%20PRACTICE%20TEACHING%20EFFECTIVE%20PUBLIC%20SPEAKING.htm

Lien, T. M. (2009). Assessing the perceptions and difficulties of students at COT, VNU in making ESP presentations. The Asian ESP Journal, 5(1), 78-96.

Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lucas, S. (2004). The art of public speaking (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Mackiewicz, J. (2008). Comparing PowerPoint experts'' and university students'' opinions about PowerPoint presentations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 38(2), 149-165.

Mandel, S. (1995). Effective Presentation Skills: A Practical Guide for Better Speaking. WA: Crisp Publications.

Manning, A. (2005). Using visual rhetoric to avoid PowerPoint pitfalls. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, 281-287.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1994). The relationship between preparation and performance in public speaking. Communication Education, 43(1), 17-26.


Munter, M. & Russell, L. (2002). Guide to Presentations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Munter, M. (2003). Guide to Managerial Communication, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nunberg, G. (1999). The trouble with PowerPoint. Fortune, 330-334.

Osborn, S., Osborn, M., & Osborn, R. (2008). Public speaking guidebook. Boston: Pearson.

Otochi, J., & Heffernen, N. (2008). Factors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL classrooms. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 65-78.

Papanas, N., Maltezos, E., & Lazarides, M. K. (2011). Delivering a powerful oral presentation: all the world''s a stage. International Angiology, 30(2), 185-191.

Paretti, M. C. (2006). Audience awareness: leveraging problem-based learning to teach workplace communication Practices Tutorial. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(2), 189-198.

Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker, 77(13), 76-87. Retrieved on July 15, 2011 from: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/05/28/010528fa_fact_parker.

Patil, Z. N. (2006). Oral presentation skills for prospective business executives. TESOL LAW Journal, 1, 66-84.

Reeker, J., A. (2010). Presenting at Medical Meetings. Berlin: Springer.

Shepherd, M. (2006). How to give an effective presentation using PowerPoint. European Diabetes Nursing, 3(3), 154-158.


Shown, B. L., & Keller, K. P. (2003). The great man has spoken. Now what do I do? A response to Edward R. Tufte''s "The cognitive style of PowerPoint." Communication Insight, 1, 1-15. Retrieved on December 10, 2012 from www.communipartners.com.

Simons, T. (2005). Does PowerPoint make you stupid? Presentations, 18 (3). Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://g;lobal.factiva.com/.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital. New York: Doubleday.

Tarpley, M. J., & Tarpley, J. L. (2008). The basics of PowerPoint and public speaking in medical education. Journal of Surgical Education, 65(2), 129-132.

Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., & Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2009). Using the Internet: skill related problem in users’ online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5-6), 393-402.