Degree Thesis Teacher Education (Upper Secondary School), 300 Credits

Degree Thesis Teacher Education (Upper secondary school), 300 credits

Oral presentations in a first and second language

A case study of student and teacher perspectives on the work process during oral presentations following the five canons of rhetoric

English for Students in Teacher Education, 15 credits

Halmstad 2021-06-10 Harald Fried, Nils Lundberg HALMSTAD UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

This case study examines the potential differences in the performance level of oral presentations between a student’s L1 and L2 and how teachers can best help to improve students’ ability to perform in the two languages. The aim of this essay is to provide teachers with a mapped diagnostic of differences in the support that students require in the stages of working with oral presentations. The collected data are based on a questionnaire distributed to 32 students and qualitative semi-structured interviews with four volunteering students from the researched classes. The results indicate that students generally perceive a higher difficulty level of preparing and performing an oral presentation in their L2 as compared to their L1 for all stages of the work process. The interviewed teacher did not acknowledge this discrepancy between languages, nor did she recognise the students’ varying experiences regarding difficulty between the different stages. Both students and the teacher recognise the initial step of the work process as demanding of teacher guidance, however, the divergence is present concerning the other stages. All things considered, it was concluded that teacher and student perceptions of the perceived difficulty and support needs differ and therefore adequate teaching cannot be applied under these conditions.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………....…………………….……………..…3 2 Theoretical background …………………………………………………………....………….….……………...3 2.1 The five canons of rhetoric ……………………………………………………….…...………....…..4 2.1.1 Inventio ……………………………………....………………………..…………………4 2.1.2 Dispositio ……………………………...………………………………………..………..5 2.1.3 Elocutio ……………………………………………...………………………………..…5 2.1.4 Memoria …………………………………………………....…………………..………..6 2.1.5 Pronuntiatio ………………………………………………………....………….………..6 2.2 The affective filter hypothesis and affective factors …………………………….…………...…....…7 2.3 The monitor hypothesis …………………. ……….…………………………….………...……...…..8 2.4 Previous research …… ……………………....………………………………………...…………….9 3 The present study ……… …………………………….…………………………………….……….………….11 3.1 Research questions addressed ….. …………....………………………………..……………..…….11 3.2 Material and method …...……………………………....……………………….………...………...11 3.2.1 Research respondents ………………………………………………………..………….12 3.2.2 The questionnaire ……………………………………………………………..………...12 3.2.3 The established contact …………………………………………….……..……………..12 3.2.4 The interviews …………………………………………………….………….………....13 4 Results and discussion …....…………………………………………………….……….…………….……..…14 4.1 Student groups and attitude towards the learning situation ………....……….…………...………...15 4.1.1 Student opinions regarding competence, demands and motivation.…………..………....15 4.1.2 Teacher’s impression of student groups and their approach …………………..………..16 4.2 Presentation of results and discussion ………………………………….………….…...... ………....17 4.2.1 Research regarding the five canons of rhetoric …………….…………..……………….17 4.2.2 Inventio …………………………………………………….…………..……………….18 4.2.3 Dispositio ………………………………………………….……..……………………..21 4.2.4 Elocutio ……………………………………………………………..………………….23 4.2.5 Memoria ……………………………………………………………..…………………26 4.2.6 Pronuntiatio ………………………………………………………...……..…………....28 4.2.7 Potential anxiety during pronuntiatio ……………………………………..…………....30 4.2.8 Similarities and differences between students’ and teacher’s perception of support …..32 5 Conclusion ……………………………………………….……………………………………………………33 6 Limitations and further research ………………………….…………………………………………………...34 7 References …………………………………………………....…………………………………………….….36 8 Appendix 1 ..…………………………………....…………………………………………………………..…..38 Appendix 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………....….….46

1 Introduction Oral presentations form a central part of both the Swedish and English subjects in upper secondary schools in Sweden, and students have to prove their skills every year as they begin a new course in the subject. According to Skolverket (2010), students must be able to express themselves in both languages through writing and speaking, while also adapting their language use to the topic and the communicative situation. Guiding students on their path to meet these requirements is of great importance, and teachers need to provide students with the opportunities to put their skills and knowledge in the relevant areas on display. Aligning with the requirements set by Skolverket, oral assignments tend to involve debates, casual conversation, informative speeches and other presentations.

Preparing for an oral presentation requires several steps that will be discussed in this study, but one of the main concerns is how teachers may lack insight into how students perceive the challenges of these presentations. Understanding how students approach assignments aimed for oral presentations may be guided by observing how students grade the difficulties of working by the five canons of rhetoric. This may highlight the sections of the work process that students may view to vary in difficulty, also exploring the possibility of different viewpoints in relation to their first and second language. Providing teachers with this information could help them understand where students may struggle more, allowing the teacher to adapt their teaching to best help their students.

The study will also examine students' performances in relation to affective factors such as anxiety, motivation and self-confidence in accordance with Krashen's affective filter hypothesis. Comparisons will be made for the potential differences between these effects in the student’s L1 and L2 (first and second language). This study is meant to provide a mapped diagnostic of potential differences in the support required for students during the different stages of working with oral presentations in their L1 and L2.

2 Theoretical background The following background will present what theories will be applied to analyse the results from the present study. These theories were found to be relevant for analysing how students encounter the concept of oral presentations and the process of preparing these. The theories

will also be accompanied by previous research on the subject of second language acquisition, relating to the affective filter hypothesis.

2.1 The five canons of rhetoric Plett (2010, p. 57) states that rhetoric indicates “a process concerning an essential characteristic of humanity, namely speech”. The rules that characterise rhetoric have shaped a system that outlines the process of producing texts. Plett continues by providing a five-phase model describing individual stages of text production. This model is also known as the five canons of rhetoric, named by Cicero1 as the material of which he assumed Aristotle had approved. The art of rhetoric as a whole can be found to be reliant on this model and Cicero used these canons as a foundation for its outlining.

While the five canons will be presented in a chronological order, it should be pointed out that they may occur in a different order and can be implemented simultaneously during a work process. The steps may also be revisited several times during the process, and thus a set form is not obligatory. For clarification of the five canons and their content, the work of Cicero (translated by Hubbell, 2017) offers rather concise descriptions. Therefore, complementary input from other works will help expand on the canons and their content.

2.1.1 Inventio Inventio, known as invention, is defined by Cicero (in Ashok, 2017, p. 19) as “the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one’s cause plausible”. To expand on this concept, Foer (2012) (cited in Meldrum 2012) recognised inventio as a word representing both inventory and invention. Meldrum proceeds to state that while inventory refers to the memory of an individual, invention revolves around one’s creativity and the invention is first established as a product of using the inventory to create the invention in question. He continues by stating that creating knowledge requires knowledge and refers to how a chess grandmaster observes and adapts his playing style during a game of chess. By memory, patterns have been established, and a grandmaster sees the board in its entirety to recognise previous games found in the memory. Inventio is therefore seen as the process of using knowledge and past memories in the creative process of inventing. The greater amount of

1 Cicero was a Roman orator born in 106 BC.

knowledge that has previously been acquired may provide greater starting points in one’s inventio.

2.1.2 Dispositio Dispositio, known as arrangement, is defined by Cicero (in Ashok, 2017, p. 19) as “the distribution of arguments thus discovered in the proper order”. Following the invention, arranging and distributing a text in order is central in conveying its content strikingly. Enos (1985, p. 109) claims that Cicero found the arrangement of text to be of great importance to the composition, and as the invention was localised, the ideas are required to be in the proper place within the discourse. The ideas found during inventio require a proper arrangement to provide a structure for the ideas to fit in and Enos continues by referring to Quintilian2, who states that invention would be nothing without arrangement. Clarification would indicate that due to the central role of dispositio, the finished product may not be achievable if this stage has not been worked through properly.

2.1.3 Elocutio Elocutio, known as expression, is defined by Cicero (in Ashok, 2017, p. 20) as “the fitting of the proper language to the invented matter”. Dominik and Hall (2007, p. 181-183) further explain elocutio as the formulation of language in speech according to rhetoric principles, and the English term style can frequently be found in explanations of this linguistic usage. Quintilian is also referred to by Dominik and Hall, as he considers elocutio to be the most challenging part to fulfil among the five functions. It is mentioned that a rhetorician is required to have a certain eloquence to succeed in the task of fulfilling the expression. Deciding on appropriate diction and applying correctness of language with clarity may be seen as the main obstacle. However, the ornament, including the selection of words, figures, figures of speech, maxims and epigrams, as well as the composition, may be seen as an enormous plateau of aspects to cover, which require a great amount of consideration by the rhetorician. In overcoming the elocutio stage with prevail, the rhetorician is required to have already amassed a certain amount of knowledge and experience to excel in the elocutio stage and simply seeing it as a stage among the others may tone down its importance in a hazardous manner.

2 Quintilian was a Roman rhetorician born in 35 AD.

2.1.4 Memoria Memoria, known as memory, is defined by Cicero (in Ashok, 2017, p. 20) as “the firm mental grasp of matter and words”. The phase is connected to shaping memory and can extendedly be seen as a way to expand one’s inventio with new knowledge by means of shaping new memory. Pieper (1997) claims that shaping memory ties strongly to repetitiveness. Repetition is a tool used to implement the past into the current mind. Pieper continues by stating that Cicero used repetition to transmit versions of the past to the collective memory within his society, using it as a political tool to get his thoughts across effectively. Obtaining mastery in memorising thoughts and ideas may require interaction, as communicative memory ensures that memory cannot be a static entity. The flow of potentially new information may further shape one’s memory, but the core idea of repetition and continuous exposure to the content desired to be memorised still provides the fundamental foundation of developing one’s memoria.

2.1.5 Pronuntiatio Pronuntiatio, known as delivery, is defined by Cicero (in Ashok, 2017, p. 20) as “the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject matter and the style”. Speaking in front of an audience requires competence in the previously mentioned phases, but there is yet another crucial aspect to keep in mind. Preparation is necessary for the choice of words, structure and the shaping of memory, but there may be a demand for specific rhetorical tools to be used to connect with your audience. This explains the proclaimed frustration from Hall (2004, p. 143) over the lack of documentation regarding Cicero’s personal skill as an orator. Reading about the ways of a skilful rhetorician is a different matter than observing the said rhetorician in action, and Hall is mostly critical towards a deficiency regarding gestures in Cicero’s elaboration of pronuntiatio. Gestures can be performed by arms, hands and fingers to give an additional impact to words, and the constant speculation regarding Cicero’s possessed skill prevents a full understanding. Delivery is, however, not solely focused on gestures and Wesley (2015, p. 1272-1282) argues for the role of voice and emotion in presenting an ideal speech. The rhetorical delivery, therefore, relies on careful consideration taken in how the voice is used as wording requires certain words or phonemes to be enhanced. Taking consideration to the sounds processed demands attention to pitch, volume and tempo. These set of conditions are important to keep in mind in obtaining eloquent speech. As a statement fronting the collective importance of all areas, Wesley proceeds to put forward that the unique contribution of delivery is to legitimise sounds and

gestures to any given culture, reaching for an understanding among all members of an audience. Using past experiences and knowledge of connecting with people is a tool used for expression, and if this usage is poignant, the delivery may reach greater outcomes.

2.2 The affective filter hypothesis and affective factors

The affective filter hypothesis is one part of a model presented by Krashen (2013, p. 4-5), assuming the existence of a filter which hinders the process of language acquisition and language performance. The filter is defined by a set of variables, containing motivation, self- confidence, and anxiety. Krashen states that these variables are of crucial importance to consider when analysing students’ abilities to perform orally in their L2, as they influence both acquisition and production of the target language. Krashen also claims that communicative situations are most affected by the affective filter as these circumstances challenge students’ confidence within the group or situation and while they may understand the input, they might not acquire it due to their discomfort. Therefore, the affective filter hypothesis has a substantial role in analysing a student’s performance in a communicative situation, e.g. an oral presentation or speech.

Motivation is defined as the willingness to perform well in the target language, while self- confidence is defined as the learners’ perception of their own proficiency in the target language. Richards (2015, p. 157) claims that motivation and self-confidence are both crucial aspects in inspiring students to use English in the classroom. He refers to this desire as the willingness to communicate (WTC), a factor linked to personality and attitude. WTC describes how students with greater confidence in their communicative competence are more likely to initiate conversation in English, but the fear of “showing off” may also hinder students in this initiation. Furthermore, the occurrence of anxiety can heavily influence the way students approach these situations. Anxiety is a complex variable that requires complement from Richards’ explanation regarding the affective factors. He states that anxiety is one of several factors that affect an individual’s language performance, and that social activities, such as communication, may provoke anxiety to hinder the speaker, rendering him unwilling to interact in the target language. Anxiety can occur when a speaker is unsure if the presumably correct answer will be provided, and worry regarding others’ perception of him may emerge if he fails to live up to the standards of the group. Therefore, anxiety can affect the student’s willingness to use the target language, not only in a classroom environment but in situations outside of the school environment as well. In a study by Woodrow (2006) (cited

in Richards, 2015, p. 155), it is stated that international students in an Australian university express five situations, where they orally perform in their second language, that are highly stressful. These are ranked from most to least stressful as following: ● Performing in front of classmates ● Giving an oral presentation ● Speaking English to native speakers ● Speaking in English in classroom activities ● Speaking in English to strangers

Wright (2005, p. 357) (cited in Richards p. 155-156) suggests strategies to reduce anxiety in students performing orally in their second language. Only those found to be relevant to this study will be presented. The first is to give the student time to think when he is asked a question, not putting unnecessary pressure on him and guide the student to reach a well- formulated answer. The second one is to increase peer support, which is a vague exhortation but still an essential variable in students’ anxiety levels. The third strategy is to focus on content rather than form, e.g. to only assess the knowledge being mediated and not how the speaker formulates the speech. However, this strategy can only be applied if the form is not a hindrance to the intermediation of the content. It is also illogical to utilise this strategy if the form is required to be examined and graded. The points make it apparent that low-anxiety environments should be established by the teacher, reducing the chance of the affective filter to both hinder the acquisition and performance of the L2 learner. Richards also states that teachers should acknowledge the cause of negative emotions in second language learning environments as they may hinder an ideal learning curve for students. Teachers can then raise awareness regarding the potential issues with the students and counteract the obstacles by collectively finding strategies that work for the group.

2.3 The monitor hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis is also a hypothesis presented by Krashen (2013, p. 2-3). Monitoring is a process of editing speech or writing according to the learned grammar rules before the production of language is made in the target language. Less proficient second language learners are yet to master the target language, and therefore, the process of monitoring may become burdensome and ineffective for them. Monitoring can act as a confidence barrier to students who perform orally, but when used successfully, learners may speak more competently in their target language. However, it could cause the learner to hesitate and thus

halt the flow of the speech, so the second language learner needs to meet a set of conditions to monitor sufficiently. The first condition states that the learner needs to know the language rules that should be applied to the performed speech, but this condition can only partially be met due to the complexity of rules in language. The difficulty of focusing on form and correctness while speaking is mentioned as the second condition, and the third condition is related to granting speakers enough time to think during conversation as these are generally performed at a fast pace and rarely allow a sufficient processing time for the interlocutors, causing limited opportunities for contemplation. The spontaneous nature of communicative situations hinders a speaker’s prospect of speaking with fluency. However, some conditions of the monitoring hypothesis are easier to meet when the speaker is granted the opportunity of practice and preparation. This consideration may reduce the potential performance gap in students’ oral proficiency between their L1 and L2. Regardless of the preparations made, presentations rarely follow a written script verbatim, as parts of the speech may be improvised. Therefore, applying the monitoring hypothesis is relevant when examining and comparing the students’ oral performance in their first and second language.

2.4 Previous research

A minor amount of previous research has been taken into consideration and these were chosen in accordance to their relevance to the present study. A study made by McNish (2017, p. 131-144) examines how acting, voice and speech practice helped lower the affective filters among students in higher education who studied English as a second language (ESL). The author constructed a group course for students with English as a second language supported by the English Language Centre (ELC). The teaching method used by McNish is based on drama and acting, striving towards lowering the affective factors of performing in the second language. The students practised acts as characters and were taught to learn the nuances of their characters’ social and cultural backgrounds, leading to immersion being found in the act and their individual characters. It was observed that the students spoke more freely and with more confidence when playing or improvising a role than when they spoke directly to the instructor from their own person. McNish claims that this results from the students stepping away from their own identity, causing the mispronunciations, accent and grammatical mistakes to be separated from the speaker's own identity. The effects of pretending to be a speaker of the target language (role-playing) can also be found in Gardner (1985) (cited in Getie, 2020). He emphasises the importance of willingness and motivation when he

writes, ”...students learning a second language must be both able and willing to adopt various aspects of behaviour, including verbal behaviour which characterises members of the other linguistic-cultural group.” His claim indicates that students are exposed to both cognitive and affective components, emphasising that cognitive factors such as attitudes and motivation are implicated in second language acquisition. Even though the quoted phenomenon is not entirely in line with McNish’s observation, it supports the idea that learning a language is much like creating and acting out the role of a target language speaker.

McNish applies the affective filter hypothesis to the student group and observes a recurring harmful conflict between the achievements among second language learners and their poignant anxiety levels. McNish uses the word self-censorship to describe the affective filter as the idea limits the potential for optimal performance. Rodenburg (1992) (cited in McNish, 2017, p. 135) suggests some philosophies which may help counteract the anxiety levels of a non-native speaker. One of these ideas contended that “a sound that effectively communicates a thought, a need, or an emotion is a good sound”. McNish claims that an environment where risk-taking is rewarded creates an atmosphere of mutual trust.

In another study, Hendrickx et al. (2017, p. 250-262) investigated the potential effects of peer liking and disliking and how these affect students’ social and academic development. Peer liking and disliking reflect how positive or negative emotions towards the student(s) in question can be present in peers and teachers. The results shown in this study may help explain the teacher’s role in creating or dismantling the affective filter of second language learners. Hendrickx et al. argue that peer liking and disliking act as an affective filter, resulting in underperformance and academic disengagement. The study points out how disruptive behaviour can be caused and triggered by peer and teacher dislike, causing a student’s affective filter to be heavily influenced by the personal relationship with his teacher that he may find himself in. Teachers need to be wary of their role in students’ academic and social performance, not unintentionally taking on the part of an obstacle, hindering a student’s potential.

The social relationship between students and their peers defines the student’s affective filter, and the teacher plays a substantial role in the establishment of students' social status in the group. The authors claim that “for teachers to live up to this role it is first important that they have an awareness of their impact on students’ attitudes.” As stated, teachers have an essential role in preventing students from becoming underachievers due to their social status

in the group. Even though the article focuses on managing disruptive behaviour, parallels can be drawn to other interactions between teachers and students in high-anxiety environments and situations that may hinder students' performances.

3 The present study

In this part, the research questions addressed will be put forth, and the material of this study will be presented. The considerations taken in approaching the material will also be discussed and the method used will subsequently be clarified. The present study will examine the teacher’s approach during the preparation and execution of an oral presentation, one of several situations where a student's affective filter is visible in both acquisition and performance.

3.1 Research questions addressed

This study aims to present a more profound understanding for teachers of how students approach oral presentations in class. The main topic of interest is to explore if students generally experience various difficulties during the stages of preparation, production, and oral presentation in their L1 and L2, respectively. Identifying potential differences in performance between a first and second language is of key interest in understanding how teachers best can adapt their teaching to support their students. Therefore, the addressed research questions are as follow:

1. Are there differences in the performance level of oral presentations between a student’s first and second language and, if so, what are those differences? 2. How can teachers best help improve students when presenting orally in their first and second language?

3.2 Material and method

It was decided that the study would consist of both quantitative and qualitative research as the quantitative research is intended to give a broad insight, while the complementary qualitative research is to provide a deeper understanding of the case. This approach can commonly be found in case studies to map out the thoughts present and encourage elaboration to develop a deeper understanding of the topic in question.

3.2.1 Research respondents

The research population consists of students from two classes, one vocationally-oriented programme and one preparatory programme, with the same teacher consisting of 16 and 15 students respectively from a secondary school in southern Sweden. This total of 31 students between the ages of 16 and 17 were initially requested to participate in the study. The students were asked to respond to a questionnaire sent via mail, distributed in class, and observed by their teacher. Three students, who did not have Swedish as L1 and English as L2, were excluded as the intent of the study is to solely provide an understanding of how students with Swedish as their first language and English as their second language perceive oral presentations based on Cicero’s five canons of rhetoric. These 28 remaining members of the selected population study English as a second language for a total of two hours and forty minutes per week. The teacher is justified to compare both classes from a teaching perspective due to her responsibility over both groups.

3.2.2 The questionnaire

The questionnaire was formed based on the concept of Cicero’s five canons of rhetoric, as outlined in the theoretical background. It was further constructed to make it apparent how students view the discrepancy in the performance of oral presentations in Swedish and English. The primary purpose of the questionnaire was to identify if students experience varying difficulty based on a five-point scale concerning each stage of the five canons of rhetoric. Students were asked to grade the challenge of the different stages on a 5 point scale. Grade 1 implies the challenge to be particularly easy, while Grade 2 indicates the challenge to be relatively easy. Grade 3 represents a moderate difficulty, and Grade 4 and 5 indicate the challenge to be relatively difficult and particularly difficult respectively. The questionnaire consisted of twenty-three questions and certain questions were also complemented with minor room for explicit written elaboration. The questionnaire also asked the participants to grade their teacher’s tendency in effectively helping them during the different stages.

3.2.3 The established contact

Contact with the teacher was established via email to distribute the questionnaire to the students. The mail exchange consisted of a request being made for the students to answer the questionnaire and a response from the teacher asking for guidelines regarding the presentation of the questionnaire. She was then informed of the number of questions present

in the questionnaire and its structure. The teacher was also asked to provide the students with detailed information regarding the questionnaire's purpose and structure, reducing the risk of misunderstanding.

3.2.4 The interviews

The respondents were also asked if they were willing to participate in an interview, designed to acquire more detailed answers. Four students who expressed their interest in being interviewed were later asked to elaborate on their responses during an interview, with questions based on their answers from the questionnaire. These interview questions were also formed in relation to Krashen's affective factors and affective filter hypothesis, as discussed in the theoretical background. Respondents were encouraged to clarify how they viewed the differences between the two languages and were encouraged to explain their thoughts with more detail. This interaction also allowed for elaboration on the potential presence of the monitor hypothesis, as discussed in the theoretical background.

The four students who expressed their interest in being interviewed were invited via their learning platform, Microsoft Teams, to a voice call with one of the researchers. A date was then agreed upon, suiting both parties for a video call to be had. Due to considerations being taken to respect anonymity, all survey participants will be referred to by pseudonyms, making it clear to distinguish the individual answers that may differ. The interviews were performed and transcribed in Swedish and the extracts will be translated to English in the results and discussion. Three of the students, Simon, Karl and Elin, attend the second grade of a vocationally-oriented programme and Erik attend the second grade of a preparatory programme. They were all interviewed in Swedish because the authors were under the impression that usage of the students’ first language may have provided a more genuine interview with answers that best reflect the student’s mindset without a potential language barrier. The translations strive to best represent the respondents’ formulations to indicate a clear representation of the expressions communicated. The interviews were recorded using the microphone of a Samsung Galaxy A21s. The recordings were later carefully transcribed and translated into English during repeated listening sessions. The length of the four interviews varied, but the recordings resulted in a collected data of approximately 27 minutes.

An additional interview was performed with the responsible teacher, in which she was asked to present her impression of how her students deal with oral presentations in the two

languages. Some of these questions were also based on the five canons of rhetoric. Her reflections included assumptions regarding her students’ perception and if she had reflected on the potential occurrence of students underperforming due to the affective filter and the monitor hypothesis. The teacher was previously contacted by email while setting up the questionnaire, meaning communication had already been established. The interview with the teacher was the final part of the study, and this interview was seven minutes long.

4 Results and discussion

This section will firstly present answers received from the qualitative research of students accounting for their competence levels, impressions of demands set by teacher and course objectives, and their motivations to perform well in both their L1 and L2. A brief summary will follow regarding the teacher’s impression of her students and their ways of approaching the material. This summary of data will provide background to the relevant population for the discussion.

Following this, the results collected from the study will be shown through a presentation of answers from both the quantitative and qualitative research. Both research questions will be addressed as the results will be presented and discussed by comparing the information received through both means of research. The questionnaire was divided into two sections, firstly targeting potential differences between the students’ work processes in their L1 and L2, the second section investigating the students’ opinions regarding the support they receive from their teacher during the preparatory steps leading up to the presentation.

The results regarding students’ perception of the five canons of rhetoric will be presented in the order used in the theoretical background. Each step will discuss whether a discrepancy depending on the language is a reality for the stage in question and relevant statements from interviews with students and their teacher will be extracted and addressed to further analyse the topic. Presentation of students’ opinion regarding their teacher’s support during the stage in question will also be discussed and potentially contrasted with the teacher’s impression of the situation. Following the discussion of pronuntiatio, considerations to anxiety will be discussed to see how poignant the potential difference between high- and low-anxiety environments are. The potential similarities and differences between student and teacher’s impressions will lastly be discussed to provide an understanding of how the learning situation is perceived from both standpoints.

4.1 Student groups and attitude towards the learning situation

4.1.1 Student opinions regarding competence, demands and motivation

During interviews, four students were asked about their self-perceived competence in both languages and all students considered themselves to be indubitably more proficient in their L1. However, no student claimed to be of low competence in their L2 as their perceptions ranged from relatively strong proficiency to being of almost equal competence in both languages. Erik and Elin both describe the main difference to be their L1 vocabulary’s superiority to their L2. This information may prove useful while analysing the students’ responses regarding the differences of working in their L1 and L2.

Another topic of interest to cover before analysing the differences between working in L1 and L2 is to understand how students perceive the course demands set by their teacher in their L1 and L2. As previously mentioned, all students interviewed consider themselves more proficient in their L1, they also claimed that they experience their L1 to require more effort. A recurring opinion was that students find the teacher to have higher expectations of them in their L1 competence and therefore give them more difficult assignments. However, Elin explains that, despite this, her L1 is necessarily not more challenging as her competence offers a balance to the more advanced assignments. Simon also clarified that he finds the subjects to vary in focus as Swedish tends to focus on a form-based learning environment while he is under the impression that choice of words is more important in English, making it challenging in a different way.

The final aspect to be pointed out is how student motivation affects the ways students approach both subjects. Karl, for instance, finds Swedish to be a more tedious subject as he believes the expectations of him are set higher and the classes he attends tend to focus on learning about grammar and writing properly. The classes he attends in English are said by him to focus more on communicative activities which improves the classroom atmosphere and assignments can at times feel like “having fun with his peers”. Simon is also adamant in clarifying the greater joy he feels when working with his L2 as he considers English to be an important topic. He also claims L2 to be more lenient with language rules, and like Karl, finds Swedish to be more tedious as he feels obliged to use a more informative and formal style when presenting in his L1. Erik, on the other hand, finds greater motivation in his L1 as his proficiency and regular exposure to this language makes it easier for him to convey his

thoughts and use more natural body language. His confidence presenting in a language he feels comfortable with is crucial in motivating him to do well.

4.1.2 Teacher’s impression of student groups and their approach

When asked about the general quality of her students’ performance during oral presentations, the teacher is persistent in clarifying that all students are different, and there is no general answer that can represent all of them. She begins by dividing her students into two groups, based on their attended programme, as one group studies a preparatory programme for higher education, while the other is studying a vocationally-oriented programme. These groups will continuously be referred to G1 and G2, respectively.

The teacher states that even though far from all students exclaim their displeasure, there are cases when this occurs. However, she clarifies that it is often done with a hint of humour as students regularly joke about the situation while maintaining some seriousness in their desire. Their wishes usually relate to either presenting in front of only the teacher or recording their presentation. She assumes this resistance depends on performance anxiety, but students come to terms with the rules of presenting rather quickly, and it rarely develops into a significant issue. As expected, it is difficult for the teacher to assume a holistic understanding of how students approach and work with their oral presentations as all students are individuals with varying interests, competence levels and objectives. She explains that the two classes require additional focus in separate areas and the students generally approach her differently depending on their group.

Throughout the interview, the teacher does not indicate any major differences between L1 and L2 exist as students progress in their work. The main difference she accounts for relates to the lower competence level in L2 among her G2 students and their worries to reveal a “poor language” when speaking English. The low self-confidence in their proficiency causes their affective filter to hinder their performance, as Richards (2015, p. 157) claims that a student’s self-confidence is crucial in inspiring their will to use English in the classroom. However, during the different steps of the work process, the teacher finds minimal differences in how the students approach the assignments. She is under the impression that students mainly struggle to initiate the work process and may seek her assistance in finding a topic to delve into. However, she dismisses the idea of language being a significant factor in affecting the students. As the teacher does not point out any specific steps to be more

troublesome depending on the language, her assistance during unique stages is not absolute. The teacher also clarifies that students of G1 generally attain a higher competence level and are quite self-sufficient, managing relatively well on their own. However, they also tend to be somewhat apprehensive about sharing their work and her guidance is therefore limited. She speculates whether students may think sharing their unfinished work and asking for help can be seen as a weakness. Students of G2 also require help during the opening phase of their preparational progress but these students often seem excited to share their progress during the remaining stages. This attitude is spoken highly of by the teacher as their desire to share their progress may lead to a fruitful extension of improvements in their work and to develop their knowledge in both topic and ways of dealing with the five canons of rhetoric. As mentioned by Hendrickx et al. (2017), the relationship between students and their teacher is crucial in providing the best environment for ideal learning and it could be argued that the students in G1 perhaps do not feel the same comfort in the class as the G2 students do. However, it could also be argued that the personalities among students in G1 do not correlate with the concept of frequently seeking help. An interesting comparison can be made between the two groups and while the teacher seems to be aware of the general attitudes among students in both groups, Hendrickx et al. imply that high-anxiety environments may hinder both attitude and performance among students in the group and an effort to decrease this potentially negative environment may generate more prosperous learning situation.

4.2 Presentation of results and discussion

4.2.1 Research regarding the five canons of rhetoric

Five figures (Figure 1, 3, 5, 7, 8) will be presented below that each include grades 1-5. These five figures are referring to the five canons of rhetoric. Students were asked to grade the challenge of the different stages on this scale in relation to both their L1 and L2. Grade 1 implies the challenge to be particularly easy, while Grade 2 indicates the challenge to be relatively easy. Grade 3 represents a moderate difficulty, and Grade 4 and 5 indicate the challenge to be relatively difficult and particularly difficult, respectively.

Three other figures (Figure 2, 4, 6) will below present the opinion among students regarding the assistance they receive from their teacher during the different stages of the work process. These figures have also used a five-point grading system where Grade 1 implies the teacher’s assistance to be of particularly low efficiency. Grade 2 indicates the assistance to be of

relatively low efficiency and Grade 3 indicates a moderate amount of support. Grade 4 indicates that the teacher to provide a relatively large amount of support and Grade 5 implies that the teacher’s assistance is of particularly great use.

For discussion of the results received, connections will be drawn to the qualitative research made by the authors. This research, in the shape of interviews with four voluntary students and their teacher, may provide greater understanding regarding the results from the questionnaire. The elaborations made by students may contribute to more detailed analyses of opinions among them and the teacher’s comments may prove to agree or disagree with these statements.

4.2.2 Inventio

Figure 1. Challenge of collecting thoughts and ideas.

As seen in Figure 1 the first question asks the students to grade the difficulty in collecting ideas regarding their topic in their L1, while the second question in the figure requests them to grade the difficulty of the same stage concerning their L2. A greater number of respondents answered that the stage of inventio was of significantly greater difficulty in their

L2 than in their L1. Nine students considered the collection of ideas to be easy in Swedish, while only five students considered this stage to be easy in English. A further eleven students considered this stage relatively easy in their L1, while only seven considered it to be relatively easy in their L2. The most significant difference is shown as twelve students find this stage to be of medium difficulty in English, while only six students consider the stage to be of that difficulty in Swedish. This increase in difficulty perceived by students for their L2 may be due to the stage requiring students to process large amounts of English text and information in order to build their inventory. This process is both more challenging and time consuming if the used language is of lower proficiency, thus causing the students to gather a smaller amount of information. The affective filter may also play part in hindering the acquisition of content during this stage, low proficiency and difficulty with the assignment can cause a lowered motivation in the learner. Karl stated in his interview that he usually reads on the subject at hand to collect enough information to be able to perform the oral presentation freely and with flexibility. He focuses his resources on the stage of inventio instead of writing and memorising a script. This stage can be perfected as a way of avoiding a written script when presenting but consideration needs to be made that this stage lays the foundation for the other stages to work as effectively as possible. Preparing inventory makes the speaker have a holistic awareness of the content which enables him to use his knowledge in the creative process of inventing as Meldrum (2012) states. The teacher agrees that this stage is generally one that students struggle with. She mentions that students face difficulties initially, but finds no difference between their L1 and L2 , which does not correlate with the students’ perception of this stage. As mentioned, a greater number of students perceive this stage to heavily vary in difficulty depending on the language.

Figure 2. Efficiency of teacher’s assistance in collecting thoughts and ideas.

Figure 2 demonstrates the opinions among students regarding to what extent the teacher aids them in collecting ideas regarding what to present in both languages. The figure shows that students receive a great amount of support in the step of inventio. Students do not find the teacher’s support to differ depending on their language as the general perception indicates an adequate amount of support in both languages. One student, who provided an elaborated answer, expressed the need for support during the stage of collecting ideas for the oral presentation. Another student stated that the teacher usually helps him decide on a topic to present. When the teacher was asked to single out a stage of the work process that may be more challenging than others, she stated that the most recurring issue for students is to find a starting point. Deciding on a topic tends to be a struggle among many students and the teacher considers this to be the part where most students express their uncertainties. She states that students tend to ask her for suggestions in terms of topics and guide them on their

initial work process. Once ideas have been collected and a topic has been decided on, she notices no significant struggle along the way until the presentation is about to be held.

4.2.3 Dispositio

Figure 3. Challenge of arranging thoughts into a useful script

Figure 3 relates to the stage of dispositio and as shown in the table, students seem not to struggle tremendously with this stage in Swedish. However, the responses indicate a greater struggle among students to arrange their thoughts and ideas into a draft in English as both Grade 4 and Grade 5 have twice the number of answers regarding L2, with six answers against three for Grade 4 and two answers against one for Grade 5. Organising a speech may not seem like a more challenging stage depending on the language, but the answers provided in the questionnaire indicate that an extensive struggle during this stage in L2 is a reality. An assumption could be made that students who possess a lower proficiency in English may have a less fluent work process, generating more hesitation and additional difficulty in reaching conclusions and separating ideas to organise in different sections of the script. As mentioned

by Quintilian (in Enos, 1985, p. 109), the arrangement is a crucial part of achieving an ideal outcome of the ideas collected, and if students struggle with this, their future work process may be seriously impaired.

Figure 4. Efficiency of teacher’s assistance in arranging thoughts into a useful script.

Figure 4 represents the results in relation to how well students consider their teacher to guide them in organising their thoughts and shaping their oral presentations. The top chart displays the opinions regarding the Swedish subject, while the bottom chart illustrates the opinions regarding English. Although many answers are at Grade 3 and 4, there are cases of students finding minimal help from their teacher during this stage as one student finds the help from the teacher to be exceptionally poor in Swedish, and two students claim that this is the case in English. Additionally, three students find the teacher’s help to be relatively poor in Swedish, and four students demonstrate that this is the case in English. In general, students express that they receive a moderate amount of support in the second stage of dispositio. The difference in

this stage between the respondents’ claimed support in their L1 and L2 is greater than in the stage of invetio. While the teacher’s assistance was generally perceived as more than adequate during inventio, all students do not find this to be the case during dispositio and as shown in the students’ responses; their performance may be affected by that. If the teacher were to provide greater support during dispositio, the experienced difficulty during this stage may be reduced.

4.2.4 Elocutio

Figure 5. Challenge of deciding words and expressions.

Elocutio, the stage of expressing oneself with language relevant to the situation, is mentioned by most students as crucial in establishing a poignant speech, where their proficiency, or lack thereof, shows. As previously mentioned, Dominik and Hall (2007) stated that the elocutio stage is the most challenging step in creating an oral presentation, which aligns with the general opinion among students. The charts in Figure 5 illustrate the students’ grading the

difficulty regarding decisions of wording and expression to use in their oral presentation in their L1 and L2, respectively. As the graphs show, no student considered this stage to be of immense difficulty. However, this stage was frequently referred to in the interviews as one causing some concern during the work process. Students should be familiar with the content they convey and confident in mediating this in an effective way to succeed in formulating the language of an oral presentation. Few students expressed trouble with this stage in Swedish as seen in Figure 5 where 10 students claimed this stage to be particularly easy in their L1, but only 4 students claimed the same for their L2. While analysing the responses concerning the students’ L2, a large number shows to regard this stage as a noticeable challenge. The difficulty originates from elocutio being focused on the use of the correct language for the intended situation. Figurative language and other figures of speech can be challenging to apply for an L2 speaker, especially when the speaker’s proficiency is low. Both Erik and Elin mentioned their superiority of their L1 vocabulary compared to their L2 when asked about their self-assessed competence levels in the lengthier interviews. Erik clearly expressed his confidence to be greater in his L1, and the vocabulary is implied to be one of his greater obstacles in reaching equal competence in his L2. Elin stated that her competence is greater in her L1 as it is her native language, meaning that her L2 vocabulary is not as expansive, which may somewhat reduce her confidence. Elin subsequently stated that more effort is required from her during this stage to balance the qualitative level of her work in both languages.

Figure 6. Efficiency of teacher’s assistance in deciding words and expressions.

There is a significant difference between the perceived support regarding L1 and L2 in the elocutio stage. Despite students finding their teacher to provide a greater amount of support during this stage than the previous stages, they express a will to receive further support, especially in their L2. The elocutio stage is considerably difficult if the learner is less proficient in the target language. Some students give more general advice to the teacher and express that the need for support is equally present throughout the whole work process and that the teacher should monitor student’s progress continuously to reduce the risk of students not progressing in their work. Elaboration provided suggestions by two respondents that better guidance in word choices would be welcoming as they both struggle to vary their wordings. These two students graded the teacher’s involvement during the work process at a low level. Another student proposed that the teacher should be more helpful in suggesting specific synonyms and figures of speech to create a more accessible and informative

presentation. The desire for additional assistance in this area is granted as students generally struggle during this stage.

Although the students express the difficulty of this stage in their L2, the teacher does not seem to acknowledge the supportive needs in this stage. In the interview, she only believes that the stage of inventio is of significant difficulty for the students while the other stages are claimed to be managed self-sufficiently by the students. However, as previously mentioned, she does claim that the G2 students seek her attention throughout their entire work process, which includes this stage. Students seem to require support during this stage and Erik gives more explicit suggestions proposing that the teacher should be more helpful in suggesting specific synonyms and figures of speech to create a more accessible and informative presentation. He mainly struggles to find the right words to use and follow proper language rules while presenting, so his desire to gain additional assistance from the teacher in this area is granted.

4.2.5 Memoria

Figure 7. Challenge of memorising script.

Due to the responses received, the memoria stage was heavily focused on during the qualitative research as students were asked to elaborate on their potential strategies for memorising their material most efficiently. As shown in Figure 7, the same number of students consider this stage to be particularly challenging in both languages. Apart from this, L2 is predominantly experienced as slightly more difficult by the students with the value discrepancy of one response for Grade 4 and four responses for Grade 3. The lower end of the difficulty scale shows that more students find it is easier to memorise their speech in their L1. A brief observation of the answers provided in the quantitative research displays that a few students find this stage to be critically challenging in both languages, while most other students find little challenge in this stage. The elaborations provided in the qualitative research provide an interesting comparison in how students differently handle the challenge of memorising their material. Karl is an extreme example as he claims memorising a script will due to his inability to memorise specific sentences, prevent him from presenting ideally. He prefers to learn enough about the subject and obtain as much information as possible. He can then write keywords to remember the content of his presentation, a strategy he uses in both languages. While some may feel the need to have more accurate preparations, he considers himself to be a natural speaker and, as long as he knows what he needs to say, knows how to express himself. He considers himself to be a confident speaker who would rather rely on a few key words than longer phrases or more in-depth scripts. Karl’s memoria stage instead intertwines with the inventio stage of collecting thoughts, ideas and information to present, as he prefers to be well-read enough on the topic to speak freely about it without any restrictions. To speak freely on a topic during presentation, one would require to delve himself into the material with tremendous determination and it could be argued that the memoria stage will be more time-consuming and require more effort if this approach is taken. However, Karl is adamant in clarifying that this approach is best suited for him and makes him feel the most relaxed while presenting. As Pieper (1997) stated, continuous exposure to the topic may provide him with deeper understanding of it, while the repetition of interacting with the content may develop his memoria. While Karl does practice before presenting, it does not seem like he carefully monitors his own preparations and the monitor hypothesis mentioned in the theoretical background may not apply to him completely.

In contrast, Elin takes a different approach as she carefully writes out a script to follow and monitors her own progress with diligence. The information she gathers is compiled and structured in detail to generate both a good flow and an effective impact and the memorising

stage is an equally thorough process for her. To first repeatedly read the speech for herself to then practice in front of an audience, in the shape of family members, provides her with an ideal preparation to reach an optimal performance in class. She expresses that presenting in front of an audience is an essential aspect of her preparation and whether a family member or her peers take the role of the audience, she feels the pressure to perform well. This strategy causes her to grow accustomed to the pressure of performing in front of others, elevating her confidence in the prepared material and her delivery of it. The potential anxiety Elin may feel while performing could be diminished if she has previously spoken about the topic in a low- anxiety environment and received a potential comfort in the reaction from this setting. The affective filter hypothesis mentions how the quality of the presentation could decrease due to lack of confidence but if the student has practiced sufficiently, the student may feel less pressure and considers her competence in the topic to be enough to present at an optimal level.

While Elin expresses the most meticulous approach among the students interviewed, Simon also explains his memorisation stage as rather thorough. As previously mentioned, he explains that his anxiety is rather high if he has not properly prepared for the presentation due to his lower competence level in his L2. His preferred strategy is to record himself as he reads from a script to later listen to his own speech and detect parts that may need improvement. Listening to his recording helps him reach an impression of what the presentation will sound like, and he clarifies that it can make a difference in his L2. This approach works ideally for him as he can grow accustomed to the relevant content and its overall impact once delivered. He states that his L2 usage improves when he analyses it more critically and, as mentioned by Krashen, this monitoring process may improve competence in the target language.

4.2.6 Pronuntiatio

The presentation itself was said by the teacher to often go well and presentations tend to be performed without major struggle. However, students being too anxious to complete the presentation, leading to a recurring postponement is considered by her to be a significant issue. Once again, she emphasises that once presenting they rarely fail to the point where the presentation is below par.

Figure 7. Challenge of orally presenting the material.

Figure 8 shows significant differences between presenting in L1 and L2 as students consider this stage to be more difficult in their L2. The interviews revealed a plausible cause for this discrepancy: one of the respondents claimed that performing in his L2 made him more anxious due to the form-based nature of the presentation as compared to the content-based focus of his L1 presentations. Most students expressed that the lower proficiency of their L2 is the cause of them experiencing a higher level of difficulty in the delivery of the oral presentation in the target language. Erik, who claimed to have a superior L1 vocabulary, claimed that he struggles with the vocabulary of his L2 and that his performance is greatly affected by this. Elin also explained that she is more proficient in her L1 in all aspects, but she finds no significant difference in orally presenting, due to equal amounts of room for preparation being given. Karl also expresses this difference in perceived difficulty due to the lower proficiency of his L2 and that he finds it more challenging due to his lack of knowledge regarding rules of the language in relation to grammar. This significant obstacle in his performance may heavily hinder his potential.

These answers and descriptions correlate with the monitoring hypothesis. By having a lower proficiency of the language used in the oral presentation, monitoring becomes a more significant task and to overcome this one has to be thoroughly prepared. While she claims to be less proficient in her L2, Elin claimed that due to her ability to prepare the speech in both languages, she can overcome the difference in her level of competence, thus finding the presentation in both languages to be of equal difficulty. Simon expressed a similar conception of presenting in his L1 and L2. He claims that the level of anxiety he experiences prior to performing is closely tied to how well his preparation work has been executed. While expressing no difference in the experienced anxiety levels of performing in his L1 and L2, he stated that due to the lower proficiency of his L2, he feels the need to put more work in preparing the performance. By doing this, he equalises the difference between the two languages causing them to be of similar difficulty. Karl stated that he focuses on what he tries to mediate, letting his language come naturally. This attitude of performing closely relates to Rodenburg’s (1992) idea, that a sound that effectively communicates a thought is a good sound.

Another phenomenon that is brought up in the interviews is that the exposure of the target language prior to the delivery of the presentation can decrease the speaker’s anxiety. McNish (2017) claims that a speaker can lower his anxiety level when speaking through a fictive role in the target language. This correlates with Karl’s experience of orally presenting in his L2, stating that his motivation to perform well in his L2 is significantly enhanced due to his attended classes encouraging role-playing activities and other speaking exercises. Gardner (1985) (cited in Getie, 2020) considers that the willingness and motivation to adopt aspects of behaviour which characterises the speakers of the target language is of importance when acquiring a language. This approach of playing a role while learning a language is said by McNish to encourage students stepping away from potential mispronunciations, accents or grammatical mistakes. He claims that an environment that encourages students to communicate by rewarding risk-taking creates an environment of mutual trust.

4.2.7 Potential anxiety during pronuntiatio

Students were asked about their potential anxiety of presenting orally and a recurring opinion was that they find L2 presentations to be more anxiety-inducing. Erik explains that he used to be anxious when asked to speak or present in his L2 due to the requirement of using “proper and correct English”. However, as years have passed, he no longer feels the same anxiety as

before, but he still believes that a difference between performing in his L1 and L2 is evident. During oral presentations in his L1, the focus lies in presenting the correct facts, a factor enhancing the pressure he feels while speaking in front of an audience. Regarding his L2, he explains that his anxiety is slightly lower since he is regularly exposed to popular media, transmitted in English, making the language feel natural to him. Simon expresses that his anxiety is closely tied to how well his preparation work has been executed before the presentation is set to take place. His anxiety does not differ depending on the language, and he is adamant in pointing out that any potential concerns will only appear if proper preparation has not been made. Elin claims that she often is nervous when presenting, firmly stuck on the idea that “hundreds of things can go wrong”. However, her worries seem to settle once she starts presenting, and she often succeeds in presenting well. Elin also states that a minimal increase in anxiety exists when performing in her L2 compared to her L1, but she is clear in explaining that this difference is hardly noticeable. As previously mentioned, her thorough preparations have increased her confidence, making her less nervous. Karl claims to not experience any difference in his anxiety levels depending on the language either, and he further states that he does not feel any concern prior to presenting. However, he adds that he suffers from occasional stuttering that may unexpectedly appear and last for a shorter period of time before it disappears. This speech disorder is an obstacle for him that may affect his confidence in presenting even though he claims to never feel nervous.

When the teacher was asked about her impression of students’ potential anxiety showing while presenting, she disregards it and claims that she rarely notices any signs of discomfort even though students may claim to have been shaking during the presentation. She further explains that the modern school system is also quite sympathetic and relaxed since students are allowed to present in front of groups of varied sizes. In English, she states that there is no demand for presenting in front of an actual audience, and presentations can be performed solely in front of her if the student is adamant about refusing to speak in front of his/her peers. This correlates with the study performed by Woodrow (2006) which clarified that the highest anxiety environment according to the studied population is to present in front of one's classmates. Being granted the opportunity to perform in front of solely the teacher, or even selected peers, can therefore be considered as a reducer of anxiety, a solution that may be desired by some. Even though it is required to perform in front of an audience in Swedish, the teacher speaks highly of the flexibility shown in the Swedish school system when it comes to this matter in English presentations.

4.2.8 Similarities and differences between students’ and teacher’s perception of support

Some opinions between students and the teacher seem to align regarding the need for support during the stages of creating an oral presentation. Firstly, students consider the stage of choosing a topic to be a crucial step in the work progress, and their desire for support during this stage is evident. The teacher's perception correlates as she states that she needs to help some students overcome this task to initiate the work process. The teacher also claims that some students struggle to finish their oral presentation and never reach the point where they are satisfied enough to present. She estimates that students’ experienced anxiety usually result in this hesitation, and once they overcome their barrier of discomfort, they perform well. The teacher believes this obstacle to be the primary reason for students' underperformance. This belief correlates with Elin’s impression stated in the interview. She states that once presenting, her anxiety fades, and the performance goes well.

However, a significant discrepancy is shown between answers provided by the students and their teacher concerns how language is an apparent barrier during the different stages. The teacher does not acknowledge language to affect how students approach the various phases in their progress. The students, however, disagree as the overview of the responses received from the questionnaire indicates several impressions that all steps leading up to the presentation are more challenging in English. A noticeable disagreement can be seen in Figure 3, where several students graded English to be significantly more difficult concerning the organisation of thoughts and ideas. The teacher did not mention this stage to be of noticeable difficulty, but the received responses indicate a different reality. A visible divergence also appears in Figure 5, when observing the students’ expressed concern regarding finding the right words and figures of speech in English, while the teacher did not mention a potential conflict between the languages. Even though no student claimed this stage to be of utmost difficulty, their answers indicate a poignant struggle between the two languages that should be recognised. Erik’s answers in the qualitative research also illustrate that his L2 vocabulary is inferior to his L1, which causes him to struggle with this particular stage in English.

A difference became apparent when comparing the answers provided in the questionnaire. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, students seem to be under the impression that the teacher is particularly helpful during the inventio stage in their L1, while a smaller number claim the assistance to be equally great in their L2. The comparison is of interest due to L2 being

implied as the more challenging language, which evokes criticism regarding the teacher’s support to be more efficient in L1 as the students expressing their L2 to require greater support. It could be argued that the students find this stage to be easier in their L1 considering the plentiful assistance of the teacher. However, the observation regarding students’ approach to English may clarify that the assistance needs to be of at least equal eminence for their L2. The discrepancy between students' perceived difficulty and claimed need for support is only present during the inventio stage. The other stages follow a pattern of perceived higher difficulty level in L2, correlating with more efficient teacher support in L2.

5 Conclusion

The main purpose of this study was to understand how students approach the different stages of the work process for an oral presentation and identify potential differences depending on the language used. The results indicate that students generally view working in their L2 as more challenging during all steps of their progress. Even though prominent differences were few, it was shown that a continuous pattern existed in some students considering both preparations and presentation in English to be more difficult. One of the most significant discoveries from the quantitative research was that students generally found the arrangement of thoughts (step 2) and choice of wording and figures of speech (step 3) to be considerably more challenging in their L2. As discovered in the qualitative interviews, assumptions can be made that this is a result of students simply not having the same competence to orient themselves in this language thus causing them to struggle with successfully completing the required steps towards constructing an oral presentation.

However, another observation made from the interviews was that the population did not find English to necessarily be more demanding in school, and the lower expectations were considered to even out the challenge of performing well in the two languages. The competence among students vary depending on the individual, but the present study shows that students generally feel more fluent in their L1 with few exceptions claiming to be of equal competence in both languages. A key factor which has been highlighted in the results of this study is how students are generally more motivated to perform well in their L2 as it is considered to be a more enjoyable subject to learn due to its perceived importance. In some cases, students even considered Swedish to be the more challenging subject, regardless of their competence being superior, due to the higher demands set by both the teacher and the

course objectives. The motivation is continuously said by the students to be higher in English as the subject either feels more important or more fun.

The secondary purpose for this study was to understand the general view among both students and teachers regarding the work process and, by the collected data regarding the first research question, identify ways of ideal guidance from a teaching perspective. A compelling observation made during this study was that the teacher seems somewhat unaware of the general opinion among students. While she could account for the struggles students face in deciding on topics and collecting ideas for their work, she expressed no concerns regarding students potentially finding greater difficulties in either language nor during different stages in the middle of their preparational work. Students also seem to be under the impression that the guidance provided by the teacher is at times inadequate, particularly during the middle stages of the work process, where they find themselves left to their own devices. Students perceive greater difficulty in working in their L2 and the need for support in all the stages of the progress is greater. However, the teacher does not acknowledge this discrepancy of difficulty between the students’ languages and does not adapt her contribution of support to the students’ need of support, causing a defective teaching strategy.

The results of this study indicate that teachers need to be more aware and understanding of how their students approach and work oral assignments. Raising awareness regarding the more challenging aspects of the work process and the potential lack of teaching assistance is crucial in best guiding students forward in reaching their potential. A continuous discussion between teacher and students may be encouraged to both widen the understanding of student perspectives and begin a dialogue regarding student requirements for the process of preparation and presentation.

6 Limitations and further research

The conclusion of this study cannot be generalised due to the small scale of the project. The potential differences in perceived difficulty between the L1 and L2 of the students were the focus of the study, but this investigation solely focused on a single teacher and two classes in one school. The size of this population is a limitation as the understanding of the situation is not as wide as an ideal would suggest. The study is also limited due to the qualitative results being solely provided by students who volunteered to participate in an interview, potentially causing the results to not represent the entire population. In the future, this study may be used

as a directive to expand the field of research and further research can provide a broader understanding of the studied aspects of oral presentations by having a broader population participate, making the results more generalisable. This may also create opportunities for comparing the strategies of different schools and teachers while also comparing different class constellations in relation to working with oral presentations. Furthermore, a study that examines the potential of using role-play and theatre as a method to reduce anxiety in learners orally performing in their L2, may expand the field of research and examine if teachers may consider to normalise practicing in front of an audience to make students more comfortable with speaking their L2. The results of this study could give teachers strategies that can be applied and practiced in their own occupation, and research regarding the five canons of rhetoric in the school environment could also provide a developed understanding of how to work with rhetoric in school. To adapt and use these strategies in modern day education, there is a need to examine the applicability of the five canons of rhetoric as presented by rhetoric scholars. It is also of interest to examine if students who are not provided with the adequate tools generally have a structured approach when preparing oral presentations. Regarding the five canons of rhetoric, this study provided results stating that students generally did not acknowledge dispositio as an explicit stage in the work process, and further research could highlight if they perceive this stage to intertwine with inventio and elocutio or not.

References:

● Cicero, De Inventione, translated by H. M. Hubbell, Ashok: Free books online, p. 19-20, accessed April 29, 2021. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.189092 ● Dominik, William, J. and Hall, Jon (2007). A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Oxford: Blackwell, p. 181-183. ● Enos, Richard, L. (1985). Rhetoric Review, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 108-110, accessed April 30, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/465771 ● Getie, Addisu Sewbihon (2020). Factors affecting the attitudes of students towards learning English as a foreign language [Online], accessed on April 30, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1738184 ● Hall, Jon (2004). The Classical Quarterly 2, vol. 54, no. 1, Cambridge University Press, p. 143-160. ● Hendrickx, M., Mainhard, T., Boor-Klip, H. & Brekelmans, M. (2017). Teacher liking as an affective filter for the association between student behavior and peer status. Contemporary Educational Psychology, p. 250-262, accessed on May 4, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.004 ● Krashen, Stephen, D. (2013). Second Language Acquisiton: Theory, Applications, and Some Conjectures, Cambridge University Press, p. 2-3. ● Meldrum, Daniel R. (2012). Memory and inventio: From inventory to invention - Presidential Address to the 2012 Society of University Surgeons, Las Vegas, Nevada, Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Florida and Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL, 2012, p. 297-303, accessed on April 29, 2021. https://doi- org.ezproxy.bib.hh.se/10.1016/j.surg.2012.07.030 ● McNish, Deric (2016). The performance of fluency. Voice & speech review. [Online], p. 131- 144, accessed on May 3, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268263.2017.1305154 ● Pieper, Christoph (1997). Memoria Saeptus: Cicero and the Mastery of Memory in His (Post-) Consular Speeches. Leiden University: Netherlands. ● Plett, Heinrich, F. (2010). Literary rhetoric concepts - structures - analyses. Leiden: Brill, p. 57. ● Richards, Jack C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 155-157. ● SKOLFS 2010:261. (2010). Ämne - Engelska, Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, accessed on 26 April 2021.

● SKOLFS 2010:261. (2010). Ämne - Svenska, Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, accessed on 26 April 2021. ● Wesley, John (2015). Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 4, Cambridge University Press, p. 1265-1292.

Secondary references: ● Foer, Josh (2011). Moonwalking with Einstein, The Penguin Press, New York, p. 1-320. ● Gardner, Robert C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, GB: Edward Arnold. ● Quintilian (1920). Institutio Oratoria, translated by H.E. Butler, vol 3, Loeb Classical Library, Book VII. ● Rodenburg, Patsy (1992). The right to speak: Working with the voice, New York: Routledge. ● Woodrow, Lindy (2006). Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language, RELC Journal, 37, 3, pp. 308-328. ● Wright, Tony (2005). Classroom management in Language Education, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Appendix 1. Answers received from the questionnaire.

Appendix 2. Transcription of interviews.

ERIK

I = Intervjuare E = Elev

I: Sådär. Välkommen!

E: Tack.

I: Tack för att du ställer upp.

E: Det är ingen fara.

I: Yes, första frågan; Anser du själv att du är kompetent i engelska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ska jag prata engelska nu?

I: Nej.

E: Okej [skratt] Men då så... Ibland så är det ju svårt med ordförrådet som jag skrev i enkäten. Att det kan vara svårt att hitta ord ibland och då känner jag även i spanskan är det ännu mer så.

I: Mm…

E: Aa men hur ska jag förklara detta på ett sätt som är lätt att förstå? Så det är enklare i svenskan om man ska framställa någonting, absolut. Men jag känner mig fortfarande kompat… kompatabel, heter det det?

I: Kapabel kanske?

E: Kapabel! [skratt] till att jag kan framställa i engelskan. Ja, det känner jag.

I: Ja, om jag ställer samma fråga fast på svenska; Anser du själv att du är kompetent i svenska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ja det känner jag! Bättre än på engelska så klart.

I: Precis.

E: Som jag sa.

I: Förstås. Hur är din motivation att prestera muntligt på engelska?

E: Eh, ja… Motivationen är högre på svenska för det är mer intressant. Alltså det är lättare att uttrycka sig så att folk förstår på svenska. Sen så är det lättare även att ta med det här med att tala med händerna, liksom kroppsspråket på svenska, för det är det jag är van vid liksom.

I: Är det mer naturligt då?

E: Ja, exakt.

I: Förstås.

E: Jag pratar inte så mycket engelska till vardags, så klart. Jag tror inte att många svenskan gör det egentligen. Utan jag lyssnar mer på engelska genom filmer och serier och så där. Så det blir ju mer naturligt så klart att lyssna på engelska än att tala på engelska. Och sen är det också mer naturligt att prata på svenska än att prata på engelska.

I: Ja, så motivationen på svenska, är den högre då tänker du?

E: Ja, det är den. Det är ganska kul att tala också så min motivation är ganska hög.

I: Känner du några större krav i svenska? Alltså just från dig själv att prestera på svenska för att det är ditt modersmål eller känner du någon skillnad där?

E: Oj. Hur ska jag förklara detta då? ... Ja… eller, jag förväntar mig inte själv att tala lika bra engelska som svenska för jag är ju svensk och mitt modersmål är svenska ju. Ehm, så jag förväntar mig själv att prata bättre på svenska liksom. Fast sen så är det nog ingenting som jag tänkt på för att jag förstått att målen är högre i svenska än vad de är i engelska… om du hänger med i vad jag menar.

I: Ja precis. Blir det då mer förlåtande att inte prestera på engelska eller?

E: Nej det blir det inte, men kraven är inte lika höga. Nu pratar jag utifrån mina skolarbeten jag gjort i engelska, så även om jag liksom inte hittar ett ord eller stammar mer eller vad det nu kan vara så… ja, det är ändå mitt modersmål som du säger.

I: Okej. Vilket betyg siktar du på i svenska respektive engelska?

E: Eh, man siktar ju alltid mot A. Fast det blir ju mer arbete då så klart. Och sen så har jag ju märkt att jag inte är lika bra på att skriva som på att prata. Men B skulle jag nog sikta på.

I: I båda ämnena alltså?

E: Ja exakt.

I: Okej. Är det något mer än ordförrådet som gör att du tycker att flytet på engelska blir svårare? Eller är det något annat också?

E: Grammatiken. Det är ju ändå ganska stor skillnad från svenskan skulle jag säga. Då blir det ju svårare att uttrycka sig om det ska vara he eller has eller ja, allt det.

I: Så mer att tänka på egentligen bara? Det kommer inte naturligt?

E: Ja, exakt. Alltså engelskan kommer också ganska flytigt(?). Som jag sa får jag mycket engelska i min vardag som de flesta svenskar. Men det är ju fortfarande svårare när man inte är lika van med engelska.

I: Ja… Nästa fråga handlar om det här med att memorera. Det stadiet i arbetsprocessen; att memorera och vi vill fråga om du har några strategier för att memorera talen eller dina muntliga framställningar?

E: Hmm… Nej, jag tror att när jag skriver ner saker brukar jag komma ihåg det mesta. Så när jag ska ha tal brukar jag skriva ner allt. Allt jag ska säga, sen läser jag in det några gånger och liksom framför det och föreställer mig att jag pratar inför folk. Och sen så kör jag utifrån det och gör lite så här, lägger till lite grejer, lite spontant just i talet också. Att man kan lägga till saker. Det tänker jag även på när jag övar.

I: Mm, skriver du ner för hand eller digitalt då?

E: Det är lättare digitalt. Jag tror att jag kommer ihåg bättre för hand men jag brukar skriva ner det digitalt. Det tar för lång tid annars [skratt]

I: Men du använder samma strategier på svenska och engelska?

E: Ja, det gör jag.

I: Okej. Du tycker ju att presentationen är relativt enkel att utföra. Du har svarat lågt där. Men varför är den lite svårare just på engelska? Det kanske du har gått igenom innan men har du någonting att tillägga på den?

E: Nej, egentligen inte. Det är ju en annan grej också, jag känner ju mig inte tryggare med engelskan, och sen så ibland kan jag känna… någon dag kan jag känna eftersom jag kollat på nån serie. Ett tag så kollade jag på Vänner och då fick man ju väldigt mycket engelska. Sen så kollade jag mycket på Big Bang Theory och då fick jag också väldigt mycket engelska. Och sen så när man ska prata engelska så blir det då lättare när man hört mycket engelska.

I: Mm förstås.

E: Vissa TV-program får man ju inte alls med engelska, förstår du vad jag menar?

I: Ja...

E: Nej, men har man inte pratat engelska, eller haft engelska på ett tag och ska ha en framställning, eller föreläsning eller vad man ska säga, så blir det så klart svårare att framställa för man känner sig mer nervös över hur man ska uttrycka sig på engelska.

I: Hur nervös brukar du vara inför engelskapresentationer?

E: Det är blandat. Jag kommer ihåg en presentation jag hade om JFK och hans mord. Då var jag ganska nervös, i nian. För då kände jag att jag måste tala rätt engelska och det måste vara propert och så. Men annars brukar jag inte vara så nervös inför presentationer faktiskt.

I: Är det skillnad på svenska eller?

E: På svenska handlar det mer om faktan. Att “oj, tänk om jag inte har rätt fakta nu” så här… eller “tänk om jag säger något fel” typ. Men annars har jag… ibland också… sen så har jag både nervösheten när jag ska prata inför folk, det kan ju vara lite nervigt ibland. Då är det lika mycket i både svenska och engelska. Ja.

I: Ja, tack så mycket. Det var sista frågan.

SIMON

I = Intervjuare E = Elev

I: Såja, välkommen Viktor!

E: Tack.

I: Du sa att det bara var memoreringssteget som var svårare på svenska än på engelska. Kan du utveckla det?

E: Jo, jag tycker nog att det är mest för att… jag är nästan mer nervös när jag presenterar på svenska eftersom jag pratar svenska som mitt första språk så förväntas väl mer av mig än på engelska.

I: Okej. Anser du själv att du är kompetent i engelska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ja, det tycker jag.

I: Ja… vill du utveckla varför du känner så?

E: Ja, asså… jag har nästan alltid haft ganska lätt för mig i engelska.

I: Och samma fråga gällande svenska. Anser du själv att du är kompetent i svenska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ja, det tycker jag också. Jag har inga större problem med det eller så. Jag har haft problem med det några gånger… fast det var längesen.

I: Mm. Hur är din motivation i att prestera muntligt på engelska?

E: Ja, eftersom jag är mer utvecklad i engelskan så känner jag mig mer motiverad i det. För det är ju både väldigt bra att kunna engelska och jag tycker det är väldigt roligt.

I: Mm… Ok. Hur är din motivation till att prestera muntligt på svenska då?

E: Jo… där är det en annan sak eftersom att jag pratar flytande svenska. Så när man vill förbättra sig i svenskan vill man använda andra former av det svenska språket så det låter mer informativt eller beroende på vad man presenterar eller så.

I: Vilket betyg siktar du på i svenska respektive engelska?

E: Svenska siktar jag kanske på ett C eller B och i Engelskan siktar jag mot ett A eller B.

I: Mm… Känner du att kraven är olika mellan de två ämnena?

E: Eh, ja liksom… Svenskan och engelskan det är ju mer… kraven och kraven… Ja, man får ju lite mer poäng i engelskan för att till exempel använda svårare ord än i svenskan upplever jag.

I: Okej, så de språkliga nivåerna är lägre på engelska?

E: Nej, högre på engelska skulle jag säga.

I: Att de värderar det språkliga mer?

E: Ja, det är viktigare.

I: Ja, ok. Har du några strategier som du använder för att memorera innehållet? Alltså att komma ihåg innehållet till dina framställningar?

E: Nej, inte direkt. Jag brukar ha en lapp och så brukar jag typ läsa först lite mer än vad jag säger så jag kommer ihåg det lite. Men jag brukar öva in det också ganska mycket.

I: Läser du högt då eller läser du till någon eller hur gör du?

E: Menar du när jag presenterar eller?

I: Jag tänker när du ska göra en presentation och ska öva in den.

E: Ja, jag brukar läsa upp det högt, spela in det och lyssna.

I: Okej… du spelar in och lyssnar på dig själv?

E: Yes.

I: Använder du samma strategier på båda språken? Alltså svenska och engelska.

E: Nej, det är mest på engelska. På svenska brukar jag inte om det inte är något svårt tal eller ett visst årtal eller så som jag ska komma ihåg.

I: Varför tror du att det är så?

E: När det är viktiga namn eller sånt så brukar jag väl komma ihåg det. (3:45)

I: Varför tror du att skillnaden är så mellan svenska och engelska?

E: Det är väl för att jag vill egentligen prestera bättre på engelska.

I: Jaha, okej. Varför tror du att det är svårare att memorera på svenska än på engelska?

E: Ja asså det är ju inte svårt att memorera på svenska heller. Det är bara att jag har en tendens att bli nervös och då brukar jag komma bort mig själv.

I: Ja, på tal om det… Hur nervös brukar du vara när du ska presentera?

E: Det beror på hur förberedd jag är.

I: Mm… Beror det också på vilket språk?

E: Nja… jag minns min första presentation typ… vad var det, sexan kanske? Då kunde jag inte presentera för då hade jag knappt… eller jo, jag hade ju skrivit och så men jag hade inte övat in det. Men nu tycker jag att det är mycket lättare med presentationer.

I: Ja, kul.

ELIN

I = Intervjuare E = Elev

I: Välkommen!

E: Tack!

I: Anser du själv att du är kompetent i engelska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Eh, ja jag skulle väl säga att det är svårt ibland men det är ju att jag fortfarande klarar mig igenom det.

I: Mm, bra. Anser du själv att du är mer kompetent i svenska och klarar av framställningar bättre på svenska då?

E: Eh, alltså nej… inte direkt. Alltså det kan vara att det är lite svårare på engelska ibland med just språket. Men själva framställningen av det när man står och presenterar det tycker jag inte är mycket svårare.

I: Okej. Har det att göra med att du förbereder dig för båda?

E: Ja, jag förbereder mig för båda och då blir det att man har övat in det och är förberedd ändå.

I: Du säger att engelskan är svårare för dig i de flesta momenten av processen. Vad tror du själv att det beror på?

E: Med tanke på att det är ett annat språk som man inte lärt sig sedan man föddes i princip. Utan svenska är ju mitt modersmål och då blir det att jag hör det mer i min vardag och då har jag ju större ordförråd och kan mer om språket och jag känner mig mer säker.

I: Precis… så det är mer naturligt?

E: Ja…

I: Hur är din motivation i att prestera muntligt på engelska?

E: Jo, men det är väl som det brukar vara på alla presentationer. Jag försöker vara så motiverad som det går i allting skulle jag väl säga.

I: Mm, om vi kontrar det med svenskan då? Hur är motivationen där i att prestera väl muntligt?

E: Ja, men det är samma motivation där skulle jag säga.

I: Okej… vilket betyg siktar du på i svenska respektive engelska om jag får fråga?

E: Alltså, jag har ju lite svårt för språk personligen, men jag siktar ju alltid på A i alla ämnen, men sen kan det ju alltid gå sämre på vägen. Det skulle jag nog säga.

I: Känner du att kraven är olika mellan de två ämnena?

E: Ja, det skulle jag säga. Kraven är i princip större på svenska med tanke på att man kan mer om språket och då blir det lite svårare uppgifter medans i engelskan är det mer om språket och lite mindre svåra uppgifter skulle jag säga. Så att de blir ju ungefär lika svåra men de är svåra på olika nivåer liksom.

I: Så svenskan blir mer innehållsfokuserad då?

E: Ja, och svårare typ då man inte hör språket så mycket i vardagen.

I: Har du några strategier du använder för att memorera innehållet?

E: Tänker du när man ska presentera eller?

I: Ja precis, när du ska öva in inför ett tal eller en presentation.

E: Ja men jag försöker först att läsa texten flera gånger. Sen så brukar jag öva på mig själv, att jag spelar upp min presentation, försöker säga allt utan papper och sen så försöker jag presentera det inför någon i familjen och sen göra det i skolan.

I: Precis… så du läser upp inför någon då?

E: Ja.

I: Känns det bättre på något vis att läsa upp det för någon än för bara sig själv?

E: Ja, det blir lite mer på riktigt och man får, även fast det är för någon i familjen, pressen att man måste nästan göra det bra eftersom att det är någon annan än en själv. Då blir det kanske att man tänker “ja, men jag kan säkert det”, utan då måste man verkligen kunna det.

I: Ja, använder du samma strategier på båda språken?

E: Ja, det gör jag.

I: Hur nervös brukar du vara när du presenterar?

E: Jag är alltid nervös när jag ska presentera. Jag menar det är ju hundra saker som kan gå fel liksom. Så nervös är man ju, men när man väl har kommit igång så börjar nervositeten lätta liksom.

I: Är det någon skillnad mellan de olika språken? Svenska och engelska.

E: Alltså nej. Jag tror inte att jag skulle säga det. Om det är någonting så skulle det kanske vara lite i engelska men jag skulle säga att det är så liten skillnad att det kan knappt räknas liksom.

I: Okej, tack!

KARL

I = Intervjuare E = Elev

I: Välkommen!

E: Tack så jättemycket.

I: Du verkar inte ha det så svårt i varken svenska eller engelska, det skrev du på enkäten. Men finns det något som du tycker är lite svårare i något av ämnena?

E: Av de två skulle jag nog isåfall säga svenskan, för att grejen är att när jag pratar och skriver… jag vet inte varför man ska skriva… asså typ med grammatiken liksom. Jag vet ju inte reglerna till varför det ska vara så och i svenskan går man ju in mer på varför det är så med typ såhär… asså jag minns inte ens alla orden men man har typ subjektiv och massa såna grejer. Det är väl just det svåraste skulle jag säga, när man går in på grammatiken på ett djup.

I: På engelskan också eller?

E: Nej, mest i svenskan. För i engelskan så gör man inte det lika mycket. Vi har kanske haft en lektion där vi har snackat om det men i svenskan i nian minns jag att vi snackade om det väldigt länge och hade prov på det också.

I: Anser du själv att du är kompetent i engelska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ja, det skulle jag säga. Jag kan prata engelska väldigt flytande och skriva och stava och allt sånt där. Så det skulle jag säga faktiskt.

I: Anser du att du även är kompetent i svenska och klarar av framställningar bra?

E: Ja… för grejen är ju att jag får ändå minst C i allt så jag antar att jag är kompetent nog för att klara av det. Och jag känner inte att jag har något större “struggle” när jag väl har lektioner. Det är aldrig så att jag inte fattar eller inte klarar av någonting, utan jag klarar allting.

I: Hur är din motivation i att prestera muntligt på engelska?

E: Min motivation?

I: Ja… I att prestera bra alltså.

E: Jag vet inte riktigt, för jag tycker att det är kul att bara prata engelska. För att man känner sig som typ… ja men vad var det vi gjorde med dig? Framföra…

I: Med uppfinningarna?

E: Ja… Netflix där ju. Man lever ju sig in i typ en annan roll liksom. Det är ju inte som i vanlig svenska så att det är nog mest det som gör mig motiverad. Eftersom det är kul.

I: Så du menar att det blir som ett rollspel när man pratar engelska?

E: Ja, exakt. Alltså det är ju kul att prata engelska och därför… men det är inte heller så att jag tänker att jag ska snacka jättebra engelska, det skiter jag fullständigt i utan jag snackar ju bara så som jag pratar på engelska och det verkar vara bra så det är inte det att jag vill göra det bra som är tanken. Utan tanken är istället att jag bara ska ha kul och prata mycket.

I: Hur är din motivation att prestera på svenska då?

E: Ja, på svenska blir det ju en annan femma då det inte är ett annat språk, så där är det enbart bara att jag vet att jag kan få höga betyg i det om jag försöker. Så jag bara pratar utförligt och formellt och så och gör det bra så att jag kan få höga betyg och höga poäng sen.

I: Men då känner du att det egentligen är roligare med engelskan?

E: Ja, faktiskt. Svenska är mer så här… alltså om man har någon muntlig grej på engelskan, vi hade till exempel när man åkte i en luftballong och så skulle man argumentera för varför man skulle sitta kvar i luftballongen och det var skitkul för där levde man sig in i en roll liksom. Medans i svenskan så är det mer att… jag vet inte varför, men i svenskan känns det som att det är mer “skolgrejer”, medans i engelskan känns det mer som att ha kul med sina klasskompisar. Det är svårt att förklara men det är lite mer kul att snacka engelska med sina vänner. För det första är det roligt att vissa kanske inte kan prata engelska så bra och då blir det automatiskt kul när man hör vissa snacka. Så engelska känns mer som att man bara har kul med sina vänner. Svenska känns mer som att det bara är skola.

I: Okej, det är innehållet i svenska som gör det mindre kul?

E: Ja, det kan nog vara det. Typ läsa massa, skriva noveller, hålla på med grammatik. Medans engelskan är så här muntliga redovisningar och snacka och sånt. Sen är det ett annat språk också som gör det mer kul.

I: Vilka betyg siktar du på i svenska, respektive engelska?

E: Ja, det är ju A i båda.

I: Okej, toppen. Känner du att kraven är olika stora i de två ämnena?

E: Tänker du bara på svenska och engelska då?

I: Ja.

E: Det känns lite som att kraven är högre i svenska och det är ändå förståeligt eftersom det är vårt modersmål. Så jag fattar ju att det är mycket lättare att få högre betyg i engelska eftersom kraven är lite låga då det inte är vårt modersmål. Även om vi börjar lära oss redan i F-klassen så borde det inte vara så stor skillnad, men ändå. Svenska är det språket som vi hör varje dag och pratar hela tiden så det är klart att man ska ha högre krav i det.

I: Jag förstår. Du tycker att memorera, alltså att öva in talet, är svårare än de tidigare stegen i arbetsprocessen. Vad tror du det beror på?

E: Jo, men när jag ska ha tal… alltså, jag gillar för det mesta att köra freestyle för det har jag gjort nu senast på svenskan och även på energitekniken där vi skulle ha en muntlig redovisning om kärnkraftverk och när jag inte går efter manus så går det mycket lättare. Jag hatar att öva in specifika meningar och så, för det första har jag jättedåligt minne, för det andra är jag jättedålig på att plugga på saker för att jag kan inte hitta mitt fokus. När jag ska plugga blir det för det mesta att jag bara sitter med telefonen eller tänker på annat istället. Jag blir rastlös, så jag föredrar hellre att läsa på om ämnet, eller det jag ska prata om, kanske kollar på någon YouTube-video eller film om ämnet, och bara fundera själv och skapa mina egna tankar. Sen kanske jag har med några stödord eller punkter så blir det mycket lättare.

I: Så du blir orienterad i ämnet innan du pratar om det så det blir mer naturligt?

E: Ja exakt. Jag är väldigt bra på att prata och komma på vad jag ska säga, ord och upplägg och sånt där flytande. Nu låter det som att jag har hybris, men det är så. Så jag tycker att det är lättare ifall jag forskar lite om ämnet först och sen bara pratar om det. Att plugga in för tal har jag aldrig gjort.

I: Okej… nästa fråga berör lite det du pratat om men vilka strategier använder du när du ska memorera? Brukar du träna med någon annan eller tränar du för dig själv?

E: Det beror på. Ifall vi ska ha en gruppredovisning, kanske…

I: Jag tänker mer på ifall du brukar läsa upp tal för folk som lyssnar, familj eller liknande?

E: Jaha… nej nej. Som sagt brukar jag aldrig öva på själva talet utan jag brukar bara läsa på och sen skapa mina egna uppfattningar när jag kanske går till skolan eller bussen, eller när jag bara är själv så jag kan sitta ner och tänka om “hur kan jag lägga upp detta?” och “hur kan jag sätta detta?”. Såna grejer typ. “Vad kan jag prata om?” “Vad är relevant att prata om?”

I: Tror du att det beror på din språksäkerhet?

E: Det kan ju göra det… i svenska vet jag inte för där har jag ingen speciell språksäkerhet eller så. Men det känner jag ju i engelska… där känner jag att jag kan prata bra och då känner jag också att jag inte behöver något manus för att jag har stort ordförråd och sånt där.

I: Men du kör ungefär samma strategi på båda språken då?

E: Ja.

I: Okej… hur nervös brukar du vara när du presenterar?

E: Inte alls. Det enda är väl, ibland i vissa perioder så stammar jag och det kan vara så i kanske en vecka och sen så gör jag inte det på tre månader. Så det är väl det enda jag kan vara nervös över; ifall jag kommer att stamma typ, men jag är aldrig nervös över ifall jag ska göra fel eller glömma bort mig eller något sånt.

I: Det är ingen skillnad mellan språken heller?

E: Nä, faktiskt inte. Jag är inte nervös över att prata alls och så har det typ varit hela tiden.

I: Jag förstår…

E: Men grejen är så, för att skulle jag snacka om ett ämne som jag inte är jättesäker på, vi säger typ samhällskunskap, jag är inte rädd heller för att jag ska glömma bort vad jag ska säga eller om jag ska uttala något konstigt för jag tycker också om att bjuda på mig själv. Så ifall någon skulle skratta åt mig för att jag säger fel eller så, så är det skit samma för jag tycker om att bjuda på mig själv. Så det är väl en också en stor grej till att jag inte är nervös; att jag bryr mig inte ifall folk tänker typ “han är ju dum i huvudet, han fattar ju inte detta” eller så. Det är skit samma för att om folk blir glada så blir jag glad. Det är väl typ det.

I: Okej, tack!

LÄRAREN

I = Intervjuare L = Lärare

I: Så, välkommen!

L: Tack.

I: Hur ser du på dina elevers förmåga att presentera muntligt? Finns det någon uppenbar skillnad mellan svenska och engelska?

L: Jag tror att det beror ganska mycket på vilka elever det är. De teoretiska eleverna, tycker jag inte det känns som att de har någon skillnad, medans de i yrkesgrupper kan ha ganska stor skillnad. Väldigt många i yrkesgruppen tycker att det är väldigt, väldigt jobbigt att just behöva tala på engelska. De är rädda för att avslöja ett, som de tycker, dåligt språk. De vill inte att andra ska höra. Medans de teoretiska eleverna är så pass säkra så att jag känner inte att det är någon skillnad när de gör engelska och svenska.

I: Okej… brukar eleverna uttrycka missnöje eller ångest inför muntliga presentationer?

L: Ja, det är alltid någon som gör det.

I: Vad brukar de säga?

L: De är oftast väldigt tydliga och säger “det här gör jag inte” (skratt). De är väl också konstruktiva ofta och säger “kan jag göra detta för dig?”, “kan jag göra det på något annat sätt?”, “kan jag spela in det?”.

I: Skulle du säga att det handlar om prestationsångest?

L: Ja.

I: Känner du att elever brukar ha särskilt svårt för ett visst steg i arbetsprocessen? Vilket är det i sådant fall?

L: Dels är det ju… jag tror att själva samlandet, att komma igång över huvud taget. Jag antar att det hör till steg ett, alltså samlandet. Det värsta tycker jag är att de inte ens kommer på vilket ämne de ska syssla med. Men när de väl löst det så brukar det funka bättre tycker jag.

I: Är det någon skillnad mellan språken där? I svenska och engelska?

L: Nej, det tycker jag inte.

I: Vad anser du är den vanligaste orsaken till att vissa elever inte når optimala resultat vid muntliga framställningar?

L: Oj… Jättesvårt att säga… Jag tycker oftast att… På något sätt är det lite så “do or die”. Alltså oftast när de gör det så blir det ofta bra. Men sen så är det många som, jag vet inte om de får så mycket ångest så att det inte blir av och sen så gör de aldrig sin redovisning. Det är sällan man får en jättedålig redovisning utan antingen gör de inte alls den eller så blir den faktiskt bra. Så känner jag, det är ganska sällan det faktiskt blir dåligt. Men en del kräver ju mycket hjälp, speciellt om man ber dem skriva ett manus, då är det lätt att hjälpa dem och då brukar de inte misslyckas på det sättet för då har de ju fått hjälp. Jag tror att om man inte hjälper dem och tvingar de att skriva ett manus så förlorar man nog fler. Även om många tycker att det är jobbigt att skriva ett manus så tror jag att det är en faktor som gör att många lyckas i slutet ändå. Just för att man kan diskutera det de skriver och innehållet i det, och då brukar det bli någonting. Sen brukar de bli väldigt nöjda.

I: Mm… så att det är lite att komma över tröskeln?

L: Ja… lite så.

I: Känner du att elever aktivt söker din hjälp när de förbereder sig för sina presentationer?

L: Nej… inte särskilt ofta. Men det skiljer sig också lite mellan den teoretiska klassen och yrkesklassen. Jag tycker att yrkesklassen är duktigare på det och de vill gärna visa det de gjort och kommer med frågor och sådär. De teoretiska eleverna är mer självgående och kanske lite oroliga för att visa. De tycker liksom att det inte är så bra att be om hjälp. De kanske känner att det visar på svaghet.

I: Varierar det också beroende på svenska eller engelska?

L: Nej, jag känner inte att det är någon större skillnad där.

I: Hur märkbart anser du att elevernas nervositet brukar synas under deras presentationer?

L: Jag tycker att det syns väldigt lite men när man frågar dem efteråt tycker de själva att de har sett förfärligt nervösa ut och skakat och hackat och sådär. Det är mer deras egen upplevelse. Sen tycker jag att det är väldigt sympatiskt i skolan idag att man har den friheten att man alltid kan anpassa gruppstorleken så att det känns tryggt för eleverna. Man kan göra det bara för mig liksom… Men där är en skillnad mellan engelska och svenska faktiskt. Möjligheterna att få redovisa för en mindre grupp är hur stora som helst i engelska, det finns ingen begränsning som jag förstår det. Det finns ingenting som säger att du måste redovisa inför en grupp tror jag. Däremot i svenskan så är det ju så att det ska vara åhörare, det finns det krav på. Där har man ju lite mindre flexibilitet eftersom de ska kunna tala inför en grupp. Det står så uttryckligen.

I: Ja… Tack så mycket!

58 Harald Fried, Teacher education programme for upper secondary school with a major in Swedish and English

Nils Lundberg, Teacher education programme for upper secondary school with a major in Swedish and English

PO Box 823, SE-301 18 Halmstad Phone: +35 46 16 71 00 E-mail: [email protected] www.hh.se