An american and vietnamese cross cultural study on teachers criticisms to students presentations

Vietnam national university - HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES VŨ THÙY LINH AN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE CROSSCULTURAL STUDY ON TEACHERS’ CRITICISMS TO STUDENTS’ PRESENTATIONS NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT MỸ VỀ CÁCH THỨC PHÊ BÌNH CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI CÁC BÀI THUYỂT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN M.A MINOR THESIS Major: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 HANOI, 10/2009 Vietnam national university - HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES VŨ THÙY LINH AN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE CROSSCULTURAL STUDY ON TEACHERS’ CRITICISMS TO STUDENTS’ PRESENTATIONS NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HĨA VIỆT MỸ VỀ CÁCH THỨC PHÊ BÌNH CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI CÁC BÀI THUYỂT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN M.A MINOR THESIS Major: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 Supervisor: Assoc Prof VÕ ĐẠI QUANG (PhD) HANOI, 10/2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT Part I: Introduction Rationale of the Study Aims of the Study Scope of the Study Methodology Design of the Study Part II: Development Chapter 1: Literature Review 1.1 Speech acts 1.2 Speech act of criticizing 1.3 Directness and Indirectness 1.3.1 Directness and Indirectness in Language 1.3.2 Directness and Indirectness in Culture 1.4 Oral Presentation 1.4.1 Definition of Presentation 1.4.2 Class Presentation Assessment Criteria Chapter 2: The Study 2.1 Comments on Participants and Questionnaires 2.2 Data collection procedure 2.3 Data coding Chapter 3: Results and Discussion 3.1 Criticizing strategies used by American and Vietnamese teachers 3.1.1 Direct criticisms a Negative evaluation b Disapproval c Identification of problem v d Consequences 3.1.2 Indirect criticisms a Demand for change b Indicating standard c Request for change d Advice for change e Suggestion for change f Asking/ Presupposing 3.2 Similarities and differences in using direct and indirect strategies Part III: Conclusion Appendix PART I: INTRODUCTION RATIONALE The past decade has witnessed the rapid development of pragmatics and growing attention on speech acts such as apology, request, and compliment However, the speech act of criticism remains to be an area less explored by scholars at home and abroad According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 62), criticism is a face-threatening act that threatens the hearer’s positive face, which is “the want of every individual that his wants be desirable to at least some others” Therefore, the speaker tends to adopt various strategies to save face for the one being criticized However, cultural differences could result in variance in criticism strategy preferences and an interlocutor may inappropriately choose some criticism strategies according to his own culture with another interlocutor from different culture, thus leading misunderstanding in the cross-cultural communication The fact that criticism plays a very important in teaching and learning is undeniable This is because students may learn from mistakes of one another as well as from the comments that they receive Teachers, however, form different cultures have different ways of giving criticisms to their students’ presentations Some may be open and direct in their criticisms while others may resort to indirect strategies Thus, misusing this may have counter-productive effects on the relationships between the interlocutors All the aforementioned reasons have encouraged us to carry out a study entitled “An American and Vietnamese Cross – Cultural Study on Teachers’ Criticisms to Students’ Presentations” We this study with the hope of raising the awareness of crosscultural differences in American and Vietnamese ways of criticizing in general and criticizing students’ presentations in particular AIMS OF THE STUDY The study aims to make a comparison in the ways of criticizing students’ presentations between American and Vietnamese teachers To reach this aim, two objectives need to be achieved First, the study examines what politeness strategies are employed by American and Vietnamese teachers when they give criticisms to their students’ presentations Second, the study also analyzes the similarities and differences between two groups of teachers in the use of politeness strategies in their criticism to students’ presentations SCOPE OF THE STUDY The main focus of this study is the teachers’ politeness strategies in giving criticisms to students’ presentation Not everything to criticism is studied but merely negative criticisms about presentations in classroom To serve the purpose of the research, the target population is identified as American and Vietnamese college teachers who teach third-year students This selection ensures that the students of these teachers are required to make frequent oral presentations during their terms and the teachers have experience in giving comments on students’ presentations METHODOLOGY Since the main purpose of the study is to compare the ways of criticizing students’ presentations between American and Vietnamese teachers; therefore, describing, comparing and contrastive analysis prove be the best candidates of all Thus, the thesis will be oriented in the following steps: - the questionnaire - identify strategies of criticism of both English and Vietnamese teachers in the source of questionnaire result - classify the criticisms into sub-strategies - describe the criticisms in each language to find out the typical features of each substrategies - analyze, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features in the two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect - reach the comments and conclusions on the subject under research DESIGN OF THE STUDY The study is composed of three parts: Part I: INTRODUCTION Introduction describes the study’s rationale, aims, objectives, scope and methodology Part II: DEVELOPMENT There are three chapters in this part Chapter 1: Literature Review lays the theoretical foundation for the research by discussing (1) theory of speech act, (2) speech act of criticizing, (3) directness and indirectness in language and culture, and (4) an overview of presentation and criteria for a good presentation Chapter 2: Study details the methods that have been used and the procedures that have been followed by the researcher Chapter 3: Results and Discussion presents the findings from the survey and discuss them in detail Part III: CONCLUSION This part ends the study by summarizing its main points as well as points out the limitations and suggestions for further studies PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 SPEECH ATCS The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language John Austin (1962) In his very influential work, ‘How to things with words’, Austin defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language In fact, when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, making statement, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on In other words speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we when we speak Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts, namely locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary then Of these, a locutionary act is the act of saying something in the full sense of “say” An illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one of producing some kinds of effects that are produced by means of saying something Among above three kinds of acts, the illocutionary act which Austin later termed “speech act” is the core interest of Austin as well as of other pragmatists (Levinson, 1983) Meanwhile, Searle (1974) argue that each type of illocutionary acts requires certain expected or appropriate called felicity conditions These conditions relate to the beliefs and attitudes of the Speaker and the Hearer and to their mutual understanding of the use of the linguistic devices for information What is more, Searle (1965), cited by Minh, (2005: 11) emphasized that Austin’s felicity conditions are not only dimensions in which utterances can go wrong but they are also constitutive of the various illocutionary forces, and therefore, can differentiate illocutionary acts from one another Searle classified those felicity conditions into four kinds, which are: (1) Preparatory conditions: the person performing the speech acts has to have quality to so (2) Sincerity conditions: the speech act must be performed in a sincere manner (3) Propositional context conditions: The utterance must have exact content (4) Essential conditions: The speech act has to be executed in the correct manner (Searle, 1979: 44) Both Austin and Searle have paved the way to research into linguistic functions instead of linguistic forms as is often observed in earlier linguistic studies They also have tried to classify speech acts and put them under categories Austin (1962) categorizes five classes of speech ants as: (1) Verdictives: “the giving of the verdict”, e.g assess, appraise (2) Exercitives: “exercising of powers, rights, or influence”, e.g command, direct (3) Commissives: “committing the speaker”, e.g promise, propose (4) Behavitives: “reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes”, e.g apology, thank (5) Expositives: “expounding of views, the conducting or arguments and the classifying of usages and of references”, e.g accept, agree However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verb through which a speech act is expressed and having no clear or consistent principle or set of principles based on which Austin constructed his taxonomy Thus, many speech acts according to his classification, may belong to two different categories Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speech acts These speech acts are further described as follows: (1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions, conclusion, or description) (2) Directives: getting the hearer to something (e.g.: suggestion, commands or requests) (3) Commissives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g.: threats, refusals, or promises.) (4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.: apologies, compliments or congratulation) (5) Declarations: bringing about changes of some states of affairs (e.g.: resignition, declaration or baptism.) Wardhaugh (1992) summarized and explains Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1975) speech act theories and then concludes: In contrast to Austin, who focused his attention on how speakers realize their intentions in speaking, Searle focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is, how one person tries to figure out how another is using a particular utterance [ ] what we see in both Austin and Searle is a recognition that people use language to achieve a variety of objectives Wardhaugh (1992: 287) Another approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the relationship between structure and function (Yule, 1996: 54) He divided speech acts into direct speech act and indirect act and defines, “Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech acts Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.” The utterances “Turn on the fan, please”, for example, the speaker (S) has directly requested the hearer (H) to turn on the fan The syntactic structure of this utterance indicates a straightforward request in English Nevertheless, the same request can be made in a more tacit, indirect manner to achieve the same result; S may say something like “It’s hot in here” 1.2 SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING In real-life communication, the speech act of criticizing – as in the case of complaining has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk of causing face threatening act It is, therefore, suggested the studies on criticizing as a speech act across cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-cultural communication The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb( 1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz(2000) and others Tracy, et al (1987) investigated the characteristics of criticisms by people from different cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms According to him, a good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner, suggests specific changes and possible critic, states justified and explicated reasons for criticizing and does not violate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate Supporting that point of view, Wajnrub(1993) holds “an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded, linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt 34 Situation 6: What would you say to your student if you thought the visual aids s/he used distracted from the presentation? (small font size, too colorful slides, inappropriate pictures, etc.)  Similarities The first thing in common is the small proportions of teachers in two countries refused to give criticism in this situation The Vietnamese was 9.8% and 4.4% was of their counterpart Secondly, both of them preferred indirect strategies when they think the visual aids distracted from the presentation Last, but not least, the teachers in two countries both used the most of giving advice for change and suggestion for change strategies for indirect comments  Differences Apart from three strategies the two groups shared in common, each of them took advantage of some other strategies As for American teachers, they employed 4.8% demand for change strategy to criticize their students while none of Vietnamese teachers opted this strategy In contrast, none of American teachers was in favor of suggestion strategy while 3.2% of Vietnamese participants did this Situation 7: What would you say to your students if you thought s/he seemed to lack of confidence when giving answers to the audience’s questions?  Similarities The very common thing between two groups in this situation is that there were some teachers in both countries refused to comment when their student performed not very well in the handling question section Secondly, the number of teachers choosing indirectness outweighed that of teachers preferring directness in both countries This means that both American and Vietnamese teachers were inclined to be indirect when they commented their students’ lack of confidence in question and answer section In terms of strategies, both American teachers and their counterparts used the two main strategies, i.e negative evaluation and identification of problem As for indirect strategies, both of teachers in two countries were in favor of giving advice for change and suggestion for change 35  Differences In this situation, Vietnamese teacher appeared to be much more indirect than their counterparts The number of indirect strategies they used was higher than that of American teacher Vietnamese used five strategies while American resorted to four ones Additionally, indicating standard strategy was used by 7.8% of American teachers but by none of Vietnamese teachers and the strategy suggestion for change was used vice verse  SUMMARY It can be concluded that teachers in both countries American and Vietnamese paid much attention to the presentation’s organization and its arguments None of them refused to criticize in these situations They seemed to be direct when giving comments on illogical arguments and indirect when criticizing students’ handing question performance However, when students spoke not loud enough, American teachers seemed to be more direct than Vietnamese ones In terms of strategies, both teachers in two countries mainly employed four main direct strategies, i.e negative evaluation, disapproval, identification of problem and consequences They didn’t resort to expression of disagreement strategy Maybe this one is too strong and severe As for indirect strategies, American and their counterparts chose four main strategies like demand for change, advice for change, request for change and suggestion for change They were criticizing their student’s presentations so other hints such sarcasm and metaphor strategies were not their choices 36 PART III: CONCLUSION SUMMARY The aims of this study is to examine what politeness strategies are employed by American and Vietnamese teachers when they give criticisms to their students’ presentations and to analyze the similarities and differences between two groups of teachers in the use of politeness strategies The present study is involved two groups of participants, i.e American teachers and Vietnamese teachers 30 American teachers (11 males and 19 females) and 38 Vietnamese teachers (17 males and 21 females) were chosen The American participants came from a variety of university in American, i.e University of Michigan, Columbia Southern University and Troy University Meanwhile, Vietnamese participants were chosen from three universities, i.e National Economics University, Foreign Trading University and Commercial University The research was done as the following: First the researcher did the questionnaire to collect the criticisms Then we identify strategies of criticism of both English and Vietnamese teachers in the source of questionnaire result and classify the criticisms into sub-strategies The next step is to describe the criticisms in each language to find out the typical features of each substrategy We also analyze, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features in the two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect to reach the comments and conclusions on the subject under research CONCLUSION As mentioned above, the aims of this study is to examine what politeness strategies are employed by American and Vietnamese teachers when they give criticisms to their students’ presentations and to analyze the similarities and differences between two groups of teachers in the use of politeness strategies The present study has found some interesting findings First, teachers in two countries employed variety of direct and indirect strategies However, the number of strategies teachers utilized did not imply the degree of directness and indirectness 37 Secondly, Vietnamese people are inclined to be less direct than American in theory but when criticizing their students’ presentation, they appeared to be more direct than their counterparts in some situations such as when their students strayed from the topic and their presentations were not well-organized In other situation, American teachers used more direct strategies than Vietnamese ones However, it should be noted that these findings are just tentative, not conclusive affirmation of the directness and indirectness used by American and Vietnamese teachers Thus, it would be impossible to base on these results to make any generalizations about the ways teachers from two countries give their criticisms LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Although the researchers have made all the efforts to conduct the research to the best, there are still some limitations including data collection instruments, participants and the scope In terms of data collection instruments, the data of the research would be more valid and rich enough if the researchers resorted to observation methodology The data were collected only from questionnaires in which the seven situations used to elicit teachers’ criticisms were just hypothetical ones Thus, some participants either found them difficult to answer or answered them with some inauthentic criticisms As for participants, the research involved only 30 American teachers and 38 Vietnamese ones Thus, these participants’ comments by no means could present the use of criticism strategies of American and Vietnamese college teachers Worse, the research did not take account of teachers’ gender, personalities which can affect their use of criticism strategies Finally, due to time limit and the limited scope, the researchers only studied teachers’ use of criticism strategies via their verbal comments Meanwhile, non-verbal cues were not investigated SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES Although some knowledge about differences and similarities between American and Vietnamese teachers in criticizing students’ presentations have been investigated in this minor thesis, it can not cover all the aspects relating to such broad cultural and linguistic phenomena As a result, further research in this area could profitably address itself to among of the followings: 38 - First, this research can be upgraded with a more data collection instrument It means that further study can combine both questionnaire and observation to take advantages of both - Second, the study should be conducted with broader participants to increase the generalisability of the findings - Last, but not least, the use of criticism strategies should be examined in both verbal utterances and non-verbal cues The minor thesis has been completely with our greatest efforts However, shortcomings and inadequacies are unavoidable Therefore, we would be grateful for comments and criticism of readers so that we could improve it 39 I REFERENCES Austin, J (1962) How to things with words Oxford, England: Calderon Press Bum – Kulka, (1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Blum – Kulka, S., House, J, & Kasper G (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and Aplogies Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub Corp Brown P., Levision, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge Cambridge Universals Press Comfort, J (2001) Effective presentations Oxford : Oxford University Express Do, T.M.T (2000) Some English – Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in requesting, (Graduation paper, College of Foreign Language, Vietnam National University, 2000) Gels, L M, (1997) Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hall, E.T.(1976) Beyond Culture New York: Doubleday Hall, E.T, (2000) Context and meaning In L.A 10 Hareley, L (1996) What’s in a Complaint? Paper presented at the NWAV 25, Paper presented at Las Vegas, Nevada 11 Hoang, X H., & Nguyen, T.T.M (2006) Research Methodology Reading package 12 House, J., & Kasper, G (1981) Politeness market in English and German In F Coulmas (Ed), Conversational Routin Explotarion in Standardised Communication Situation and Pre-patterned Speech New York: Mouton Publishers 13 Kaplan, J (1972) Cultural thought Patterns in Intercultural Education Language Learning 16 (1-2) 14 Koch A & Felber, S B (1985) What did you say? A guide to the communication skills New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc 15 Leech, G (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman 16 Levine, R L & Adelman, M B (1993) Beyond Language – Cross- Cultural Communication, Prentice Hall Inc 17 Levinsion, S (1993) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University press 18 Mandel, S (1987) Effective presentation skills Califonia: Crisp II 17 Nguyen, Q (1996) Intercultural communication, Hanoi: Vietnam National University 18 Nguyen, Q.(1996) Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt – Mỹ cách thức khen tiếp nhận lời khen (Luận án Tiến sỹ Khoa Học ngữ văn, Đại học Khoa Học Xã Hội Nhân văn, 1999) 19 Nguyen, Q (2002) “Giao tiếp Giao tiếp văn hóa”, Hanoi: NXB Đại học Quốc Gia 20 Nguyen , Q (2004) “ Một số vấn đề giao tiếp nội văn hóa giao văn hóa” Hanoi: 21 Nguyen, T.T.M (2005) Criticizing and responding to criticism in a foreign language: A stydy of Vietnamese learners of English ( Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, 2005).[Abstrac] Retrieved November 8, 2006 form http:// www researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/dissertation/AAI3189280/ 22 Powell, M (2001) Presenting in English: How to give sucessful presentation London: Commercial Colour Press Plc 23 Searle, J (1969) Speech Acts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 24 Searle, J (1975) Indirect speech acts In P Cole & L Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics Vol 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press 25 Smith, B (2003) John Searle Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 26 Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E (1990) Giving criticisms: a multiple goals case study 27 Wierzbicka, A ( 1991) Cross- Cultural pragmatics The semantics of human interaction Mouton de Gruyter 28 Wikipedia (2007) Wikipedia 2006 Presentation Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http:// en Wikipedia.org/wiki/presentation [online] 29 Yule, g (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press III APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES FOR AMERICAN PARTICIPANTS This survey questionnaire is designed for our research on “An American and Vietnamese Cross – Cultural Study on Teachers’ Criticisms to Students’ Presentations” I would be grateful if you could spend sometime completing this survey questionnaire This is merely a scientific research so can be guaranteed that your information will not be identified under any circumstances Thank you for your assistance! PERSONAL INFORMATION  Age:  Gender:  University: WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? Instruction: Supposing that you have attended your student’s presentation What would you say in the following hypothetical situation? You are expected to give your verbal comments to the presenter in class time Your comment should in direct speech Please write your answers in the space provided under each situation  About the content of the presentation Situation 1: What would you say to your student if during the presentation, he/she sometimes strayed far from the topic he/she had identified from the beginning? (E.g He/she spent time mentioning something irrelevant to what he/she was talking about) You: ………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… Situation 2: What would you say to your student if in the presentation, he/she gave some arguments that were not logical and did not have support his/her assertion? IV You: …………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………  About the organization of the presentation Situation 3: What would you say to your student if in the presentation was not well organized so it was rather difficult to follow his or her ideas? You: …………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………  About the delivery Situation 4: What would you say to your student if in the presentation, his or her hand gestures were not natural enough and sometimes distracted the audience? You: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Situation 5: What would you say to your student if in the presentation, his or her voice was not strong and clear enough so sometimes you could not hear him or her? You: …………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………… Situation 6: What would you say to your student if you thought the visual aids she used detracted from the presentation? (E.g small font size, too colorful slides, etc.) V You: …………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………  About question – handling section Situation 7: What would you say to your student if he/she seemed to lack confidence when answering the audience’ questions? You: …………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………… Thank you for your co-operation! VI FOR VIETNAMESE PARTICIPANT PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA Phiếu điều tra thực phục vụ mục đích nghiên cứu luận văn “Nghiên cứu giao văn hố Việt - Mỹ cách thức phê bình giáo viên thuyết trình sinh viên” Xin anh/chị dành chút thời gian trả lời câu hỏi phiếu điều tra Xin khẳng định anh/chị thông tin cá nhân anh/chị không bị nêu trường hợp Xin chân thành cảm ơn bạn! THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN  Tuổi:  Giới tính:  Tên Trường đại học: ANH/ CHỊ SẼ NHẬN XÉT NHƯ THẾ NÀO? Chỉ dẫn: Giả sử anh/ chị vừa xem xong thuyết trình sinh viên Anh/ chị nhận xét tình giả định sau đây: Anh/ chị nên đưa nhận xét lời cho sinh viên vừa thuyết trình lớp Nhận xét anh/ chị phải dạng câu nói trực tiếp Xin anh/ chị ghi câu trả lời vào phần để trống sau tình Tình 1: Anh/ chị nói với sinh viên trường hợp thuyết trình họ đơi lúc bị lạc đề? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… VII Tình 2: Anh/ chị nói với sinh viên bạn nghĩ số lập luận họ thiếu logic thiếu tính thuyết phục? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Tình 3: Anh/ chị nói với sinh viên thấy thuyết trình họ có bố cục khơng hợp lý làm cho bạn thấy khó theo dõi? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Tình 4: Anh/ chị nói với sinh viên bạn thấy q trình thuyết trình họ có cử thiếu tự nhiên đôi lúc làm cho bạn lãng khỏi nội dung nói? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Tình 5: Anh/ chị nói với sinh viên trường hợp anh/ chị thấy người nói q nhỏ khơng rõ ràng khiến anh chị không nghe rõ? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Tình 6: Anh /chị nói với học viên trường hợp anh/ chị thấy hình ảnh minh hoạ mà người dùng làm giảm hiệu thuyết trình ( Ví dụ: cỡ chữ nhỏ, slide nhiều màu sắc…) ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… VIII ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Tình 7: Anh/ chị nói với học viên anh/ chị nghĩ người thiếu tự tin trả lời câu hỏi khán giả? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Xin chân thành cảm ơn hợp tác anh/chị! IX ... presentation, question -and- answer and feedback In the presentation section, students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of a topic and to explain it to an audience The question -and- answer... kept simple and made meaningful to support the content  Handling questions In Templeton and FiztGerald’s (1999) opinion, it is important to be honest, in control, and confident Mandel (1987)... participants, i.e American teachers and Vietnamese teachers 30 American teachers (11 males and 19 females) and 38 Vietnamese teachers (17 males and 21 females) were chosen The American participants