08832323.2014.968515
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
What's the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni on
the Value of Business Presentations Preparation
Mary Marcel
To cite this article: Mary Marcel (2015) What's the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni on the
Value of Business Presentations Preparation, Journal of Education for Business, 90:1, 10-17,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
Published online: 06 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 164
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 18:59
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 10–17, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
What’s the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni
on the Value of Business Presentations Preparation
Mary Marcel
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
Developing effective presentation skills is a core competence skill for business
communicators. Self-report data from a survey of 1,610 2- to 12-year business alumni show
that 37.1% present monthly and 27.9% present weekly in their current positions. Alumni
who completed a general public speaking course, or both managerial communication and a
public speaking course, reported higher current levels of confidence across 12 aspects of
business presentations than alumni who took only a managerial communication course or
who relied on embedded presentation assignments in disciplinary courses. Gains were
reported for content skills since graduation, with less confidence handling nervousness and
delivery.
Keywords: alumni, assurance of learning, business presentations, confidence, public
speaking course
The need for assurance of learning processes has assumed
central importance in business education (Rexeisen &
Garrison, 2013). A new dimension, which we may call
retention of learning, considers how long those skills may
retain their utility postgraduation. Undergraduate business
communication coursework covers a range of skills, including making presentations, interpersonal and group–team
communication, and business writing, all of which are used
by business employees (Keyton et al., 2013; Maes, Weldy,
& Icenogle, 1997). But business alumni remain largely
unutilized in evaluating the effectiveness and retention of
presentation skills learning postgraduation, as a further step
in closing the loop in assurance of learning research.
Employers view presentation skills as important. Robles
(2012) found 100% of executives he surveyed listed communication—oral, speaking capability, written, presenting,
listening—as extremely important. Stevens (2005) found
that both improved oral skills and public speaking skills
(general) were rated highest among the 104 Silicon Valley
employers she surveyed. Winsor, Curtis, and Stephens
(1997) also found top rankings for presentation skills in
their study of 1,000 human resource managers. But there
has been little research attempting to quantify how
Correspondence should be addressed to Mary Marcel, Bentley University, Department of Information Design and Corporate Communication,
175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452, USA. E-mail: mmarcel@bentley.
edu
frequently presentations are made in business settings, and
how well our courses and other approaches are preparing
graduates to deliver them.
This study investigates the frequency with which business
graduates make presentations at work, and their self-assessed
levels of comfort and confidence in doing so. It elicits feedback from business alumni to assess which preparations
have proven most lastingly useful in real-world work settings. Specifically, it compares the self-assessed effectiveness by 2- to 12-year business alumni of (a) a general public
speaking course offered by a humanities department, (b) a
managerial communications course offered by a business
communication department, (c) both courses, or (d) a communication across the curriculum (CAC) approach involving
presentations embedded in business courses.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A wide range of communication skills has been referenced
by both professionals and academics as important for the
optimal development of communication competence.
Along with presentation skills, these include interpersonal,
or one-on-one oral communication; group and team communication; meeting facilitation; and business writing. Surveys of business communication or managerial
communication courses indicate that all these areas tend to
be covered by such courses (Knight, 1999; Laster & Russ,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
2010; Morreale, Worley, & Hugenberg, 2010; Russ, 2009;
Smith & Turner, 1993; Sharp & Brumberger, 2013; Treadwell & Applbaum, 1996; Wardrope & Bayless, 1999;
Winsor et al., 1997).
There are also other pathways by which undergraduate
business students can develop their competence as presenters. Many colleges and universities offer general public
speaking courses (Morreale et al., 2010). Less frequently to
be found are undergraduate business major programs which
require a discipline-specific communication course, such as
in accounting, information systems or finance (Alshare,
Lane, & Miller, 2011; Argenti, 1986). Communication
Across the Curriculum approaches have also been deployed
(Tuleja & Greenhalgh, 2008; Dannels, 2001).
One aspect of presenting, public speaking anxiety, has
been well studied in undergraduates (Ayres & Ayres
Sonandre, 2002; Dwyer, 2000; Elias, 1999; Ellis, 1995;
Hsu, 2009; Hunter, Westwick, & Haleta, 2014; Lucchetti,
Phipps, & Behnke, 2003; MacIntyre, Babin, & Clement,
1999; McCroskey, 2009; McKinney, 2009; Stanga & Ladd,
1990). But we know little about the persistence of this phenomenon in business graduates’ working careers. Fordham
and Gabbin (1996) found that levels of communication
apprehension did not substantially decrease between sophomore and senior years despite business students having
taken a communication course. Borzoi and Mills (2001)
found that communication apprehension in upper level
accounting students exceeded that of other majors. Hodis,
Bardhan, and Hodis (2010), however, found increases in
willingness to communicate over a semester-long undergraduate public speaking course. The relevant question concerns anxiety levels postgraduation, where the incentives of
a real-life work situation could change graduates’ willingness to communicate. Thus an alumni study potentially
answers questions about the persistence of findings concerning undergraduates’ anxiety and willingness to communicate into the early career.
Beyond these studies, little research has been devoted to
questions of how well the alumni of undergraduate business
programs feel they are faring with respect to their overall
presentation skill set postgraduation. Homer Cox (1976)
surveyed a group of alumni from the University of Colorado, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, and
Bowling Green State University who had taken a business
communication course, but his results centered on writing.
Thaddeus McEwen (1998) surveyed 82 managers who had
graduated from a public Midwestern university. He found
no correlation at all between level of business education
(none, bachelor’s, or master’s degree) and communication
competence. His respondents reported being weakest in
public speaking competence, but McEwen did not correlate
competence with prior course work. More recent surveys of
alumni have not been reported. Thus, while research on
what business communication courses do and should
include have queried educators, business professionals and
11
business press (Keyton et al., 2013; Waldek, Durante, Helmuth, & Marcia, 2012; Ulinski & O’Callahan, 2002;
Wardrope, 2002; Peterson, 1997; Reinsch & Shelby, 1997;
Waner, 1995), alumni of existing courses represent an
underutilized source of information regarding the frequency
of their actual use of this skill set, and the usefulness and
effectiveness of their presentation preparation vis-a-vis
their self-perceived levels of confidence in presenting once
they have entered their careers.
One final rationale for conducting research on alumni
has to do with assurance of learning and retention of learning concerns. These include requirements for institutional
accreditation, as well as optimizing long-term formation of
students’ capacities to learn, perform, and reflect on practices which they study as undergraduates (Hunter, Westwick,
& Haleta, 2014; Rexeisen & Garrison, 2013; Marshall,
2007; Martell, 2007). To date, research on retention of
learning effects has focused on enrolled students. Zhao and
Alexander (2004) assessed the performance of a cohort of
students during their sophomore- and senior-year business
courses who had taken a comprehensive business communication course as sophomores. They found that, while students benefited in their self-assessed skill development and
grade outcomes across a variety of measures, the positive
effects of the second-year course lessened over time. Since
all business students at the university were required to take
both courses, a blind comparison with a cohort of students
who did not take the sophomore course was not possible.
Marcal, Hennessey, Curren, and Roberts (2005) found that
completing a communications course prior to taking a
junior-level marketing course was associated with higher
grades in the course, even when other factors such as prior
GPA, age, socioeconomic status and major were controlled
for. Kerby and Romine (2009) used a case-study of embedded oral presentation instruction and assessment in three
levels of accounting courses, and found improvement in
oral presentation competency over time. Hunter, Westwick,
and Haleta (2014) found that a wide range of majors
decreased in public speaking anxiety over the semester of a
public speaking course. But these effects were measured
during the undergraduate program. So while the results
have been mixed for research conducted on business undergraduate students, outcomes have not been studied over an
extended period of time for retention postgraduation.
STUDY DESIGN
This study surveyed bachelor’s degree graduates of business
departments from a private New England university from
2002–2012 who had taken (a) a general public speaking
course offered by the English department, COM 210; (b) a
managerial communications course offered by a business
communication department, IDCC 320; (c) both these two
courses; or (d) no course which focused on presentations,
12
M. MARCEL
TABLE 1
Population and Email Samples
Major groups
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
Total
Population n
Surveys sent n
Email as % of population
Respondents n
Email response rate
4335
2845
400
278
7858
3022
2003
284
167
5476
69.4
70.4
71
60.1
69.7
842
645
66
57
1,610
27.9
32.2
23.2
34.13
29.4
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer Science;
A&S: Arts and Sciences.
business or otherwise, while they were undergraduates. Data
were collected between July and September 2013.
The number of individual presentations varies sufficiently between the two courses to create a meaningful difference in focus. Based on a review of syllabi for these
courses, COM 210 sections ranged between five and six
individual graded presentations per semester for the years
studied. IDCC 320 sections, by contrast, ranged from one
to three individual presentations per semester, since this
course is also required to offer the other traditional elements of business or managerial communication, including
business writing, group communication, meeting facilitation, and interpersonal communication.
All students at this university are required to take two communication intensive (CI) courses as part of their bachelor’s
degree program: one from among their general education
courses and one within their major. These courses, which represent one aspect of a university-wide CAC approach, are
reviewed by a faculty committee, and must include explicit
instruction in writing and/or presenting elements, the ratio of
which is determined by the offering faculty and/or department. In addition, many general business and business major
courses require oral presentations, often by groups. Thus,
while some students take one or both courses, no student in a
business discipline would graduate without some exposure to
presentations pedagogy or practice. But among non–course
takers, there is wide variation in how much instruction on oral
presentations was received, and how much individual presenting each student may do. For example, some CI courses
focus on writing or interpersonal communication. In classes
requiring presentations, each member of the team may not be
required to actually speak in a group presentation, resulting in
uneven levels of assured learning.
This study encompassed alumni who completed the following undergraduate majors: Accountancy (AC);
Accounting Information Systems; Computer Science (CS);
Economics and Finance (ECOFI); Finance (FI); Corporate
Finance and Accounting (CFA); Information Design and
Corporate Communication (IDCC); Management (MG);
Marketing (MK); Managerial Economics; and Arts and Sciences (A&S) majors. The registrar supplied the list of students who met the study’s requirements, totaling 7,858
names. Of these, 571 international students were removed
from the list, for a separate study underway involving these
and additional questions concerning English as a second or
other language (ESOL) issues. Of the remaining list, the
alumni relations office provided current email addresses for
5,478 names. The relationship between the original list and
the email list is reflected in Table 1. The AC/FI group
includes CFA as well as ECOFI, while the IDCC/MG/MK
group also includes managerial economics. The proportion
of alumni receiving emails tracks at approximately 70% for
all groups of majors.
Among the alumni targeted for the study, two majors are
required to complete one of the two courses being studied.
The CFA is required to take IDCC 320 as a major course,
and IDCC majors are required to take COM 210 as a major
course. Thus, within the IDCC 320 respondent cohort,
80.8% of the sample is comprised of CFA majors, while
within the COM 210 cohort, 6.6% comprised IDCC majors.
CFA and IDCC majors therefore are underrepresented in
the no course samples. Otherwise, there are no structural
skews in students’ self-selection into or out of these
courses. The percentages are captured in Table 2.
The survey was conducted via email using Qualtrics
(Qualtrics, LLC, Provo, UT) survey software. Minimum
response rates were calculated based on the expected eligible percentage of respondents, excluding those not currently employed, using the unemployment rate for recent
business graduates of 7.4% found by Carnevale and Cheah
(2013). Required minimum completed responses were calculated using Cochran’s rules for both continuous and categorical data collection, as Likert-type scales were
employed and different course-taking populations would be
compared (Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001). Given the
somewhat lower expected response rates to email surveys
TABLE 2
Emails by Course and Major Group
Emailed to
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
No course %
COM 210 %
IDCC 320 %
Both %
55
33
7.7
4.1
44
47
5.7
3.7
86
13.5
0.3
0.5
47
51.4
0.9
1
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design
and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer
Science; A&S: Arts and Sciences.
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
13
TABLE 3
Response Rates by Major and Course Group
Major group
No course (n D 548)
COM 210 (n D 581)
IDCC 320 (n D 264)
Both courses (n D 218)
Overall (N D 1,611)
Major group
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
as % of sample
52.72
35.39
6.75
4.56
43.42
47.89
4.47
4.47
81.85
17.38
0.38
0.38
38.08
59.17
0.92
1.38
52.2
40.2
4.0
3.4
55.2
36.6
5.2
3.1
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer Science;
A&S: Arts and Sciences.
in general (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levina, 2004), one additional step was taken to address possible nonrespondent
bias (see Table 3). We performed t-tests comparing overall
grade point averages (GPAs) of respondents and nonrespondents by course group. The average overall GPA for all
respondents was 3.12, while for all nonrespondents it was
3.41. Differences were statistically significant for COM
210 and no course takers at p < .05 but not for IDCC 320
course takers.
RESULTS
Respondents were 52% women and 48% men, which differed from the university’s undergraduate population for
the years studied. From 2002–2012, the female to male
ratio was approximately 40:60 for undergraduates, so these
numbers represent a disproportionate female response rate.
Age-wise, 42% were 26 years old or younger, 36% were
27–30 years old, and 22% were 31 years old or older.
By course group, responses reached the numbers
required according to Bartlett et al. (2001) for a .03 margin
of error for continuous data and a .05 margin of error for
categorical data. For all course groups, for continuous data,
the alpha value achieved was .01, t D 2.58. For categorical
data, the no course and COM 210 groups achieved p D 2.58
and p D .5, respectively. For the IDCC 320 cohort, categorical data reached p D .5, t D 1.96. For the both courses
cohort for categorical data, we are slightly under (by four
of 222 needed) to reach p D .5, t D 1.96. These differential
response rates were noted in order to better assess the
possible effects of major choice on outcomes (No€el,
Michaels, & Levas, 2003).
Frequency of Presenting
Respondents were asked how often they present. Weighted
averages were calculated using a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). Table 4 shows that a weighted
average of 9.7% of respondents reported never making presentations in their current position, and 25.3% making presentations less than once per month. Of the remaining
respondents, 37.1% reported presenting 1–3 times per
month, and about 27.9% doing so 1–5 times per week. The
weighted average was 3.57, which equates to 1–3 times per
month. The weighted median was somewhat higher, 3.83,
but still fell within the 1–3 times per month range of selfreports.
Regarding the different organization levels to which
they present, about 92% reported presenting to persons
above their level; 62% to below their level; and 81% to
their same level.
Confidence in Presenting
Using a 12-item instrument and a 5-point Likert-type scale,
all respondents were asked to assess their current levels of
comfort and confidence in presenting at work. The 12 items
were derived from the syllabi teaching objectives for COM
210 and IDCC 320 as they relate to presentations. They
incorporate the elements of the Competent Speaker Speech
Evaluation Form (Morreale, 1990), with some additional
TABLE 4
Respondents’ Frequency of Presentations
Percent
Never
Less than once per month
1–3 times per month
1–5 times per week
M
Median
a
Weighted median.
No course
COM 210
IDCC 320
Both
Weighted average
10.5
24.7
35.9
28.7
3.57
3.88
8.8
21.3
37.8
31.8
3.75
4.07
11.6
34.8
32.7
20.2
3.13
3.26
7.7
25.0
42.0
23.5
3.45
3.58
9.7
25.3
37.1
27.9
3.57
3.83a
14
M. MARCEL
TABLE 5
How Confident and Comfortable Do You Feel in These Aspects?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Item
Deciding on what to cover
Organizing my material
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Knowing how to present business data visually
Delivering the presentation
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Feeling that I understand my audience and their needs
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
Dealing with nervousness
No course
(n D 546)
IDCC 320
(n D 267)
COM 210
(n D 581)
Both
(n D 219)
Average
(N D 1,613)
4.46*
4.46
4.40*
4.36
4.08
4.05
3.80
4.11
3.82
3.86
3.08
3.56
4.36
4.46
4.34
4.39*
4.16*
3.93
3.65
3.98
3.73
3.76
2.95
3.39
4.47*
4.43
4.35
4.30
4.08
4.18*
3.91*
4.16*
3.94*
3.92*
3.13*
3.69*
4.46*
4.56*
4.48*
4.47*
4.09
4.18*
3.80
4.13
3.93*
3.87
3.10*
3.65*
4.45
4.46
4.38
4.36
4.09
4.09
3.81
4.11
3.86
3.87
3.08
3.57
Note: * indicates that the value exceeds the average.
dealing with nervousness, (c) feeling that they understand
their audience, (d) word choice, (e) preparing for Q&A,
and (f) having to present on topics outside their expertise.
In terms of learning retention, Table 7 shows gains and
losses for course takers versus alumni who took no course
(s). Statistically significant gains were made in organizing,
preparing slides and delivery by both course takers. COM
210 course takers made significant gains in delivery, holding the audience’s attention, preparing for Q&A, and dealing with nervousness compared to present self-assessments
by no course takers. By the same token, IDCC 320 course
takers significantly lagged the no course group currently in
deciding what to cover, preparing for Q&A, understanding
their audience, and word choice.
categories. The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (not
at all comfortable and not very confident) to 5 (very comfortable and confident). Table 5 shows that alumni who
took both courses exceeded the average in eight categories,
as did COM 210 course takers. Both IDCC 320 and no
course takers exceeded the average in only two.
The same Likert-type scale asked respondents in the
COM 210, IDCC 320, and both course groups to assess
how well the courses in question had prepared them to
make effective business presentations immediately upon
graduation (past). When weighted average scores for both
sets of results are rank-ordered, Table 6 reveals some
disparities.
Across all three course-taking cohorts, based on rank
ordering, course alumni reported greatest gains in confidence in (a) finding relevant facts and research, (b) preparing slides, (c) knowing how to present business data
visually, (d) knowing how to hold their audience’s attention, (e) deciding what to cover, and (f) organizing their
material. On the other hand, alumni reported lower levels
of confidence regarding (a) delivering the presentation, (b)
DISCUSSION
In answering the primary research questions, we come to
some interesting conclusions. Early-career business undergraduates report making presentations with sufficient
TABLE 6
Current Levels Compared to Past at Time of Class for Course Takers
How confident and comfortable do you feel currently with. . . ?
Score
Change in rank
Past score
Past rank
Organizing my material
Deciding on what to cover
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Feeling I understand my audience and their needs
Delivering the presentation
Knowing how to present business data visually
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Dealing with nervousness
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
4.47*
4.45*
4.38*
4.37*
4.12*
4.12
4.11*
3.89*
3.88*
3.83*
3.58
3.08
C1*
C3*
C5*
C5*
¡1
¡5
C4*
C4*
¡3
¡3
¡8
¡2
4.12
3.84
3.78
3.72
3.85
4.34*
3.61
3.16
3.81
3.80
3.97*
3.66*
2
5
8
9
4*
1*
11
12
6*
7*
3*
10*
Note: *indicates higher values.
15
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
TABLE 7
Comparison of Means of Gains and Losses: Course Takers Versus Non–Course Takers
Both
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Item
Deciding on what to cover
Organizing my material
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Knowing how to present business data visually
Delivering the presentation
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Feeling that I understand my audience and their needs
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
Dealing with nervousness
COM 210
IDCC 320
No course
Now
Past
Now
Past
Now
Past
Now
Past
4.46*
4.56yy*
4.48*
4.47y*
4.09*
4.18y
3.8
4.13*
3.93
3.87
3.1
3.65
4.13
4.35
3.99
4.05
3.87
4.48*
3.97*
3.93
4.06*
3.94*
3.72*
4.07*
4.47*
4.43*
4.35*
4.30*
4.08*
4.18yy
3.91y
4.16*
3.94yy
3.92*
3.13
3.69yy
3.77
4.05
3.68
3.5
3.43
4.44*
3.83*
3.88
4.11*
3.80
3.67*
4.10**
4.36y*
4.46*
4.34*
4.39*
4.16*
3.93
3.65y*
3.98yy*
3.73*
3.76y*
2.95
3.39yy
3.73
4.07
3.79
3.91
3.76
3.97*
3.59
3.69
3.65
3.57
3.55*
3.56*
4.46*
4.46
4.40*
4.36
4.08
4.05
3.8
4.11
3.82
3.86
3.08
3.56
4.28
4.53*
4.31
4.36
4.65*
4.69*
4.43*
4.44*
4.58*
4.28*
4.21*
4.43*
Note: * indicates higher values.
y
p D .10. yyp D .05.
frequency to make this skill set important: 37.1% make presentations 1–3 times per month, while a separate 27.9%
present 1–5 times per week. Thus 65% of respondents are
presenting on a monthly to weekly basis. This finding confirms the centrality of the presentation skill set, across all
business majors studied.
In terms of the most lasting and effective preparation
route, those reporting the highest levels of confidence in
eight of 12 categories were alumni who took the basic public speaking course. Those who took both courses supersede
the no course group in 10 of 12 categories. This suggests,
overall, that the groups who took both courses and those
who took COM 210 alone have fared better, in terms of
their self-rated comfort and confidence levels, than the no
course group. However, the latter have fared better than the
IDCC 320 group, who self-rated the lowest of all four
groups in every category except preparing slides and having
to present on a topic outside their expertise.
Investigating specific levels of communication anxiety
and their correlation to current confidence levels was
beyond the scope of this survey. But decision-tree analysis
revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship among undergraduate major and current levels of confidence in presenting in terms of the full scale. Thus for
alumni, the relationship between their specific major and
public speaking anxiety, which has been identified as significant in some studies on undergraduates, may be moderated over time.
A final consideration concerns the study population
itself, who entered their business studies in the first semester of their first year, and whose SAT scores and family
incomes are above national averages. Per Elias (1999), it
would be useful to compare these findings with alumni
from large state-supported universities, and who came from
a more diverse range of precollege preparations. A current
study is underway to assess possible effects of ESOL on
building durable presentation skills.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show that alumni two to 12 years
out present frequently enough to warrant pedagogical attention to developing this skill set. Those who took the general
education public speaking or both that class (COM 210) and
the managerial communication class (IDCC 320) fared better
in terms of their current self-reported confidence levels than
those who took the managerial communication class alone
or who took no course at all. Across all majors, the greatest
gains in confidence relative to levels at graduation occurred
in the areas of organizing material, finding supporting data,
presenting business data visually, and understanding audiences’ needs. The greatest losses in confidence occurred in
terms of delivering the speech, handling nervousness, preparing for questions and answers, and word choice. Thus while
some business experience skills improved, self-management
skills declined, suggesting the need for increased attention in
these areas for all business majors.
It appears, then, that alumni of all majors studied who
took coursework dedicated to improving their presentation
skills did indeed reap the greatest and longest-lasting
rewards, in terms of their self-reported levels of confidence
and comfort across 12 dimensions of making business presentations. In seeking to achieve a range of communication
objectives in a managerial communication course, including writing and interpersonal skills, we should not lose sight
of the lasting benefits of instruction and graded performance in presenting.
16
M. MARCEL
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
REFERENCES
Alshare, K. A., Lane, P. L., & Miller, D. (2011). Business communication
skills in information systems (IS) curricula: Perspectives of IS educators
and students. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 186–194.
Argenti, P. (1986). Advanced management communication: An elective
course in corporate communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 23(4), 69–73.
Ayres, J., & Ayres Sonandre, D. (2002). The Stroop test for public speaking apprehension: Validity and reliability. Communication Research
Reports, 19, 167–174.
Bartlett, J. E. II, Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational
research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19, 43–50.
Borzoi, M. G., & Mills, T. H. (2001). Communication apprehension in
upper level accounting students: An assessment of skill development.
Journal of Education for Business, 76, 193–198.
Carnevale, A. P., & Cheah, B. (2013). Hard times: College majors, unemployment and earnings. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Public
Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/
hpi/cew/pdfs/HardTimes.2013.2.pdf
Cox, H. (1976). The voices of experiences: The business communication
alumnus reports. The Journal of Business Communication, 13(4), 35–46.
Dannels, D. (2001). Taking the pulse of communication across the curriculum: A view from the trenches. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 30, 50–70.
Dwyer, K. K. (2000). The multidimensional model: Teaching students to
self-manage high Communication Apprehension by self-selecting treatments. Communication Education, 49, 72–81.
Elias, R. Z. (1999). An examination of nontraditional accounting students’
communication anxiety and ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Education
for Business, 75, 38–41.
Ellis, K. (1995). Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher
immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course: Trends
and relationships. Communication Education, 44, 64–77.
Fordham, D. R., & Gabbin, A. L. (1996). Skills versus apprehension: Evidence on oral communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 59
(3), 88–97.
Hodis, G. M., Bardhan, N. R., & Hodis, F. A. (2010). Patterns of change in
willingness to communicate in public speaking contexts: A latent growth
modeling analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38,
248–267.
Hsu, C.-F. (2009). The relationships of trait anxiety, audience nonverbal
feedback, and attributions to public speaking state anxiety. Communication Research Reports, 26, 237–246.
Hunter, K. M., Westwick, J. N., & Haleta, L. L. (2014). Assessing success:
The impacts of a fundamentals of speech course on decreasing public
speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 63, 124–135.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levina, R. (2004). A comparison of
web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68,
94–101.
Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2009). Develop oral presentation skills through
accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 172–179.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. A., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., . . .
Wu, C. (2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. The Journal of Business Communication, 50, 152–169.
Knight, M. (1999). Writing and other communication standards in
undergraduate business education: A study of current program
requirements, practices, and trends. Business Communication Quarterly, 62, 10–28.
Laster, N. M., & Russ, T. L. (2010). Looking across the divide: Analyzing
cross-disciplinary approaches for teaching business communication.
Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 248–264.
Lucchetti, A. F., Phipps, G. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2003). Trait anticipatory
public speaking anxiety as a function of self-efficacy expectations and
self-handicapping strategies. Communication Research Reports, 20,
348–356.
Maclntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clement, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly,
47, 215–229.
Maes, J. D., Weldy, T. G., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). A managerial
perspective: Oral communications competency is most important for
business students in the workplace. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 67–80.
Marcal, L. H., Hennessey, J. E., Curren, M. T., & Roberts, W. W. (2005).
Do business communication courses improve student performance in
Introductory Marketing? Journal of Education for Business, 80,
289–294.
Marshall, L. L. (2007). Measuring assurance of learning at the degree program and academic major levels. Journal of Education for Business, 83,
101–109.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 187–195.
McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Communication apprehension: What have we
learned in the last four decades. Human Communication: A Publication
of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 12, 157–171.
McEwen, T. (1998). The impact of type and level of college degree on
managerial communication competence. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 352–358.
McKinney, B. C. (2009). Communication apprehension in Asia. Asian
Profile, 37, 201–207.
Morreale, S. P. (1990, November). The competent speaker. Paper presented
at the Speech Communication Association Conference on Assessment of
Communication Competency, Denver, CO.
Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities:
Study VIII: The 40th anniversary. Communication Education, 59,
405–430.
No€el, N. M., Michaels, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self-monitoring behavior to choice of business major.
Journal of Education for Business, 78, 153–157.
Peterson, M. S. (1997). Personnel interviewers’ perceptions of the importance and adequacy of applicants’ communication skills. Communication Education, 46, 287–291.
Reinsch, N. L. Jr., & Shelby, A. N. (1997). What communication abilities
do practitioners need? Evidence from MBA students. Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 7–29.
Rexeisen, R. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2013). Closing the loop in assurance of
learning programs: Current practices and future challenges. Journal of
Education for Business, 88, 280–285.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills
needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75,
453–465.
Russ, T. L. (2009). The status of the business communication course at
U.S. colleges and universities. Business Communication Quarterly, 72,
395–413.
Sharp, M. R., & Brumberger, E. R. (2013). Business communication curricula today: Revisiting the top 50 undergraduate business schools. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 5–27.
Smith, J. H., & Turner, P. H. (1993). A survey of communication department curriculum in four-year colleges and universities. Journal of the
Association for Communication Administration, 1, 34–49.
Stanga, K. G., & Ladd, R. T. (1990). Oral Communication Apprehension
in beginning accounting majors: An exploratory study. Issues in
Accounting Education, 6, 180–199.
Stevens, B. (2005). What communication skills do employers want? Silicon
Valley recruiters respond. Journal of Employment Counseling, 42, 2–9.
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Treadwell, D., & Applbaum, R. (1996). The basic course in organizational
communication: A national survey. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 1, 12–24.
Tuleja, E. A., & Greenhalgh, A. M. (2008). Communicating across the curriculum in an undergraduate business program: Management 100- Leadership and communication in groups. Business Communication
Quarterly, 71(1), 27–43.
Ulinski, M., & O’Callaghan, S. (2002). A comparison of MBA
students’ and employers’ perceptions of the value of oral communication skills for employment. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
193–197.
Waldeck, J., Durante, C., Helmuth, B., & Marcia, B. (2012). Communication in a changing world: Contemporary perspectives on business communication competence. Journal of Education for Business, 87,
230–240.
17
Waner, K. K. (1995). Business communication competencies needed by
employees as perceived by business faculty and business professionals.
Business Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 51–56.
Wardrope, W. J. (2002). Department chairs’ perceptions of the importance
of business communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly,
65(4), 60–72.
Wardrope, W. J., & Bayless, M. L. (1999). Content of the business communication course: An analysis of the coverage. Business Communication
Quarterly, 62(4), 33–40.
Winsor, J. L., Curtis, D. B., & Stephens, R. D. 1997. National preferences
in business communication education: A survey update. Journal of the
Association for Communication Administration, 3, 170–179.
Zhao, J. J., & Alexander, M. W. (2004). The impact of business communication education on students’ short- and long-term performances. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 24–40.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
What's the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni on
the Value of Business Presentations Preparation
Mary Marcel
To cite this article: Mary Marcel (2015) What's the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni on the
Value of Business Presentations Preparation, Journal of Education for Business, 90:1, 10-17,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
Published online: 06 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 164
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 18:59
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 10–17, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.968515
What’s the Best Course? Evidence From Alumni
on the Value of Business Presentations Preparation
Mary Marcel
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
Developing effective presentation skills is a core competence skill for business
communicators. Self-report data from a survey of 1,610 2- to 12-year business alumni show
that 37.1% present monthly and 27.9% present weekly in their current positions. Alumni
who completed a general public speaking course, or both managerial communication and a
public speaking course, reported higher current levels of confidence across 12 aspects of
business presentations than alumni who took only a managerial communication course or
who relied on embedded presentation assignments in disciplinary courses. Gains were
reported for content skills since graduation, with less confidence handling nervousness and
delivery.
Keywords: alumni, assurance of learning, business presentations, confidence, public
speaking course
The need for assurance of learning processes has assumed
central importance in business education (Rexeisen &
Garrison, 2013). A new dimension, which we may call
retention of learning, considers how long those skills may
retain their utility postgraduation. Undergraduate business
communication coursework covers a range of skills, including making presentations, interpersonal and group–team
communication, and business writing, all of which are used
by business employees (Keyton et al., 2013; Maes, Weldy,
& Icenogle, 1997). But business alumni remain largely
unutilized in evaluating the effectiveness and retention of
presentation skills learning postgraduation, as a further step
in closing the loop in assurance of learning research.
Employers view presentation skills as important. Robles
(2012) found 100% of executives he surveyed listed communication—oral, speaking capability, written, presenting,
listening—as extremely important. Stevens (2005) found
that both improved oral skills and public speaking skills
(general) were rated highest among the 104 Silicon Valley
employers she surveyed. Winsor, Curtis, and Stephens
(1997) also found top rankings for presentation skills in
their study of 1,000 human resource managers. But there
has been little research attempting to quantify how
Correspondence should be addressed to Mary Marcel, Bentley University, Department of Information Design and Corporate Communication,
175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452, USA. E-mail: mmarcel@bentley.
edu
frequently presentations are made in business settings, and
how well our courses and other approaches are preparing
graduates to deliver them.
This study investigates the frequency with which business
graduates make presentations at work, and their self-assessed
levels of comfort and confidence in doing so. It elicits feedback from business alumni to assess which preparations
have proven most lastingly useful in real-world work settings. Specifically, it compares the self-assessed effectiveness by 2- to 12-year business alumni of (a) a general public
speaking course offered by a humanities department, (b) a
managerial communications course offered by a business
communication department, (c) both courses, or (d) a communication across the curriculum (CAC) approach involving
presentations embedded in business courses.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A wide range of communication skills has been referenced
by both professionals and academics as important for the
optimal development of communication competence.
Along with presentation skills, these include interpersonal,
or one-on-one oral communication; group and team communication; meeting facilitation; and business writing. Surveys of business communication or managerial
communication courses indicate that all these areas tend to
be covered by such courses (Knight, 1999; Laster & Russ,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
2010; Morreale, Worley, & Hugenberg, 2010; Russ, 2009;
Smith & Turner, 1993; Sharp & Brumberger, 2013; Treadwell & Applbaum, 1996; Wardrope & Bayless, 1999;
Winsor et al., 1997).
There are also other pathways by which undergraduate
business students can develop their competence as presenters. Many colleges and universities offer general public
speaking courses (Morreale et al., 2010). Less frequently to
be found are undergraduate business major programs which
require a discipline-specific communication course, such as
in accounting, information systems or finance (Alshare,
Lane, & Miller, 2011; Argenti, 1986). Communication
Across the Curriculum approaches have also been deployed
(Tuleja & Greenhalgh, 2008; Dannels, 2001).
One aspect of presenting, public speaking anxiety, has
been well studied in undergraduates (Ayres & Ayres
Sonandre, 2002; Dwyer, 2000; Elias, 1999; Ellis, 1995;
Hsu, 2009; Hunter, Westwick, & Haleta, 2014; Lucchetti,
Phipps, & Behnke, 2003; MacIntyre, Babin, & Clement,
1999; McCroskey, 2009; McKinney, 2009; Stanga & Ladd,
1990). But we know little about the persistence of this phenomenon in business graduates’ working careers. Fordham
and Gabbin (1996) found that levels of communication
apprehension did not substantially decrease between sophomore and senior years despite business students having
taken a communication course. Borzoi and Mills (2001)
found that communication apprehension in upper level
accounting students exceeded that of other majors. Hodis,
Bardhan, and Hodis (2010), however, found increases in
willingness to communicate over a semester-long undergraduate public speaking course. The relevant question concerns anxiety levels postgraduation, where the incentives of
a real-life work situation could change graduates’ willingness to communicate. Thus an alumni study potentially
answers questions about the persistence of findings concerning undergraduates’ anxiety and willingness to communicate into the early career.
Beyond these studies, little research has been devoted to
questions of how well the alumni of undergraduate business
programs feel they are faring with respect to their overall
presentation skill set postgraduation. Homer Cox (1976)
surveyed a group of alumni from the University of Colorado, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, and
Bowling Green State University who had taken a business
communication course, but his results centered on writing.
Thaddeus McEwen (1998) surveyed 82 managers who had
graduated from a public Midwestern university. He found
no correlation at all between level of business education
(none, bachelor’s, or master’s degree) and communication
competence. His respondents reported being weakest in
public speaking competence, but McEwen did not correlate
competence with prior course work. More recent surveys of
alumni have not been reported. Thus, while research on
what business communication courses do and should
include have queried educators, business professionals and
11
business press (Keyton et al., 2013; Waldek, Durante, Helmuth, & Marcia, 2012; Ulinski & O’Callahan, 2002;
Wardrope, 2002; Peterson, 1997; Reinsch & Shelby, 1997;
Waner, 1995), alumni of existing courses represent an
underutilized source of information regarding the frequency
of their actual use of this skill set, and the usefulness and
effectiveness of their presentation preparation vis-a-vis
their self-perceived levels of confidence in presenting once
they have entered their careers.
One final rationale for conducting research on alumni
has to do with assurance of learning and retention of learning concerns. These include requirements for institutional
accreditation, as well as optimizing long-term formation of
students’ capacities to learn, perform, and reflect on practices which they study as undergraduates (Hunter, Westwick,
& Haleta, 2014; Rexeisen & Garrison, 2013; Marshall,
2007; Martell, 2007). To date, research on retention of
learning effects has focused on enrolled students. Zhao and
Alexander (2004) assessed the performance of a cohort of
students during their sophomore- and senior-year business
courses who had taken a comprehensive business communication course as sophomores. They found that, while students benefited in their self-assessed skill development and
grade outcomes across a variety of measures, the positive
effects of the second-year course lessened over time. Since
all business students at the university were required to take
both courses, a blind comparison with a cohort of students
who did not take the sophomore course was not possible.
Marcal, Hennessey, Curren, and Roberts (2005) found that
completing a communications course prior to taking a
junior-level marketing course was associated with higher
grades in the course, even when other factors such as prior
GPA, age, socioeconomic status and major were controlled
for. Kerby and Romine (2009) used a case-study of embedded oral presentation instruction and assessment in three
levels of accounting courses, and found improvement in
oral presentation competency over time. Hunter, Westwick,
and Haleta (2014) found that a wide range of majors
decreased in public speaking anxiety over the semester of a
public speaking course. But these effects were measured
during the undergraduate program. So while the results
have been mixed for research conducted on business undergraduate students, outcomes have not been studied over an
extended period of time for retention postgraduation.
STUDY DESIGN
This study surveyed bachelor’s degree graduates of business
departments from a private New England university from
2002–2012 who had taken (a) a general public speaking
course offered by the English department, COM 210; (b) a
managerial communications course offered by a business
communication department, IDCC 320; (c) both these two
courses; or (d) no course which focused on presentations,
12
M. MARCEL
TABLE 1
Population and Email Samples
Major groups
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
Total
Population n
Surveys sent n
Email as % of population
Respondents n
Email response rate
4335
2845
400
278
7858
3022
2003
284
167
5476
69.4
70.4
71
60.1
69.7
842
645
66
57
1,610
27.9
32.2
23.2
34.13
29.4
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer Science;
A&S: Arts and Sciences.
business or otherwise, while they were undergraduates. Data
were collected between July and September 2013.
The number of individual presentations varies sufficiently between the two courses to create a meaningful difference in focus. Based on a review of syllabi for these
courses, COM 210 sections ranged between five and six
individual graded presentations per semester for the years
studied. IDCC 320 sections, by contrast, ranged from one
to three individual presentations per semester, since this
course is also required to offer the other traditional elements of business or managerial communication, including
business writing, group communication, meeting facilitation, and interpersonal communication.
All students at this university are required to take two communication intensive (CI) courses as part of their bachelor’s
degree program: one from among their general education
courses and one within their major. These courses, which represent one aspect of a university-wide CAC approach, are
reviewed by a faculty committee, and must include explicit
instruction in writing and/or presenting elements, the ratio of
which is determined by the offering faculty and/or department. In addition, many general business and business major
courses require oral presentations, often by groups. Thus,
while some students take one or both courses, no student in a
business discipline would graduate without some exposure to
presentations pedagogy or practice. But among non–course
takers, there is wide variation in how much instruction on oral
presentations was received, and how much individual presenting each student may do. For example, some CI courses
focus on writing or interpersonal communication. In classes
requiring presentations, each member of the team may not be
required to actually speak in a group presentation, resulting in
uneven levels of assured learning.
This study encompassed alumni who completed the following undergraduate majors: Accountancy (AC);
Accounting Information Systems; Computer Science (CS);
Economics and Finance (ECOFI); Finance (FI); Corporate
Finance and Accounting (CFA); Information Design and
Corporate Communication (IDCC); Management (MG);
Marketing (MK); Managerial Economics; and Arts and Sciences (A&S) majors. The registrar supplied the list of students who met the study’s requirements, totaling 7,858
names. Of these, 571 international students were removed
from the list, for a separate study underway involving these
and additional questions concerning English as a second or
other language (ESOL) issues. Of the remaining list, the
alumni relations office provided current email addresses for
5,478 names. The relationship between the original list and
the email list is reflected in Table 1. The AC/FI group
includes CFA as well as ECOFI, while the IDCC/MG/MK
group also includes managerial economics. The proportion
of alumni receiving emails tracks at approximately 70% for
all groups of majors.
Among the alumni targeted for the study, two majors are
required to complete one of the two courses being studied.
The CFA is required to take IDCC 320 as a major course,
and IDCC majors are required to take COM 210 as a major
course. Thus, within the IDCC 320 respondent cohort,
80.8% of the sample is comprised of CFA majors, while
within the COM 210 cohort, 6.6% comprised IDCC majors.
CFA and IDCC majors therefore are underrepresented in
the no course samples. Otherwise, there are no structural
skews in students’ self-selection into or out of these
courses. The percentages are captured in Table 2.
The survey was conducted via email using Qualtrics
(Qualtrics, LLC, Provo, UT) survey software. Minimum
response rates were calculated based on the expected eligible percentage of respondents, excluding those not currently employed, using the unemployment rate for recent
business graduates of 7.4% found by Carnevale and Cheah
(2013). Required minimum completed responses were calculated using Cochran’s rules for both continuous and categorical data collection, as Likert-type scales were
employed and different course-taking populations would be
compared (Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001). Given the
somewhat lower expected response rates to email surveys
TABLE 2
Emails by Course and Major Group
Emailed to
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
No course %
COM 210 %
IDCC 320 %
Both %
55
33
7.7
4.1
44
47
5.7
3.7
86
13.5
0.3
0.5
47
51.4
0.9
1
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design
and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer
Science; A&S: Arts and Sciences.
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
13
TABLE 3
Response Rates by Major and Course Group
Major group
No course (n D 548)
COM 210 (n D 581)
IDCC 320 (n D 264)
Both courses (n D 218)
Overall (N D 1,611)
Major group
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
% of responses
as % of sample
52.72
35.39
6.75
4.56
43.42
47.89
4.47
4.47
81.85
17.38
0.38
0.38
38.08
59.17
0.92
1.38
52.2
40.2
4.0
3.4
55.2
36.6
5.2
3.1
AC/FI
IDCC/MG/MK
CS
A&S
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Note: AC/FI: Accounting/Finance; IDCC/MG/MK: Information Design and Corporate Communications/Managmenet/Marketing; CS: Computer Science;
A&S: Arts and Sciences.
in general (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levina, 2004), one additional step was taken to address possible nonrespondent
bias (see Table 3). We performed t-tests comparing overall
grade point averages (GPAs) of respondents and nonrespondents by course group. The average overall GPA for all
respondents was 3.12, while for all nonrespondents it was
3.41. Differences were statistically significant for COM
210 and no course takers at p < .05 but not for IDCC 320
course takers.
RESULTS
Respondents were 52% women and 48% men, which differed from the university’s undergraduate population for
the years studied. From 2002–2012, the female to male
ratio was approximately 40:60 for undergraduates, so these
numbers represent a disproportionate female response rate.
Age-wise, 42% were 26 years old or younger, 36% were
27–30 years old, and 22% were 31 years old or older.
By course group, responses reached the numbers
required according to Bartlett et al. (2001) for a .03 margin
of error for continuous data and a .05 margin of error for
categorical data. For all course groups, for continuous data,
the alpha value achieved was .01, t D 2.58. For categorical
data, the no course and COM 210 groups achieved p D 2.58
and p D .5, respectively. For the IDCC 320 cohort, categorical data reached p D .5, t D 1.96. For the both courses
cohort for categorical data, we are slightly under (by four
of 222 needed) to reach p D .5, t D 1.96. These differential
response rates were noted in order to better assess the
possible effects of major choice on outcomes (No€el,
Michaels, & Levas, 2003).
Frequency of Presenting
Respondents were asked how often they present. Weighted
averages were calculated using a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). Table 4 shows that a weighted
average of 9.7% of respondents reported never making presentations in their current position, and 25.3% making presentations less than once per month. Of the remaining
respondents, 37.1% reported presenting 1–3 times per
month, and about 27.9% doing so 1–5 times per week. The
weighted average was 3.57, which equates to 1–3 times per
month. The weighted median was somewhat higher, 3.83,
but still fell within the 1–3 times per month range of selfreports.
Regarding the different organization levels to which
they present, about 92% reported presenting to persons
above their level; 62% to below their level; and 81% to
their same level.
Confidence in Presenting
Using a 12-item instrument and a 5-point Likert-type scale,
all respondents were asked to assess their current levels of
comfort and confidence in presenting at work. The 12 items
were derived from the syllabi teaching objectives for COM
210 and IDCC 320 as they relate to presentations. They
incorporate the elements of the Competent Speaker Speech
Evaluation Form (Morreale, 1990), with some additional
TABLE 4
Respondents’ Frequency of Presentations
Percent
Never
Less than once per month
1–3 times per month
1–5 times per week
M
Median
a
Weighted median.
No course
COM 210
IDCC 320
Both
Weighted average
10.5
24.7
35.9
28.7
3.57
3.88
8.8
21.3
37.8
31.8
3.75
4.07
11.6
34.8
32.7
20.2
3.13
3.26
7.7
25.0
42.0
23.5
3.45
3.58
9.7
25.3
37.1
27.9
3.57
3.83a
14
M. MARCEL
TABLE 5
How Confident and Comfortable Do You Feel in These Aspects?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Item
Deciding on what to cover
Organizing my material
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Knowing how to present business data visually
Delivering the presentation
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Feeling that I understand my audience and their needs
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
Dealing with nervousness
No course
(n D 546)
IDCC 320
(n D 267)
COM 210
(n D 581)
Both
(n D 219)
Average
(N D 1,613)
4.46*
4.46
4.40*
4.36
4.08
4.05
3.80
4.11
3.82
3.86
3.08
3.56
4.36
4.46
4.34
4.39*
4.16*
3.93
3.65
3.98
3.73
3.76
2.95
3.39
4.47*
4.43
4.35
4.30
4.08
4.18*
3.91*
4.16*
3.94*
3.92*
3.13*
3.69*
4.46*
4.56*
4.48*
4.47*
4.09
4.18*
3.80
4.13
3.93*
3.87
3.10*
3.65*
4.45
4.46
4.38
4.36
4.09
4.09
3.81
4.11
3.86
3.87
3.08
3.57
Note: * indicates that the value exceeds the average.
dealing with nervousness, (c) feeling that they understand
their audience, (d) word choice, (e) preparing for Q&A,
and (f) having to present on topics outside their expertise.
In terms of learning retention, Table 7 shows gains and
losses for course takers versus alumni who took no course
(s). Statistically significant gains were made in organizing,
preparing slides and delivery by both course takers. COM
210 course takers made significant gains in delivery, holding the audience’s attention, preparing for Q&A, and dealing with nervousness compared to present self-assessments
by no course takers. By the same token, IDCC 320 course
takers significantly lagged the no course group currently in
deciding what to cover, preparing for Q&A, understanding
their audience, and word choice.
categories. The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (not
at all comfortable and not very confident) to 5 (very comfortable and confident). Table 5 shows that alumni who
took both courses exceeded the average in eight categories,
as did COM 210 course takers. Both IDCC 320 and no
course takers exceeded the average in only two.
The same Likert-type scale asked respondents in the
COM 210, IDCC 320, and both course groups to assess
how well the courses in question had prepared them to
make effective business presentations immediately upon
graduation (past). When weighted average scores for both
sets of results are rank-ordered, Table 6 reveals some
disparities.
Across all three course-taking cohorts, based on rank
ordering, course alumni reported greatest gains in confidence in (a) finding relevant facts and research, (b) preparing slides, (c) knowing how to present business data
visually, (d) knowing how to hold their audience’s attention, (e) deciding what to cover, and (f) organizing their
material. On the other hand, alumni reported lower levels
of confidence regarding (a) delivering the presentation, (b)
DISCUSSION
In answering the primary research questions, we come to
some interesting conclusions. Early-career business undergraduates report making presentations with sufficient
TABLE 6
Current Levels Compared to Past at Time of Class for Course Takers
How confident and comfortable do you feel currently with. . . ?
Score
Change in rank
Past score
Past rank
Organizing my material
Deciding on what to cover
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Feeling I understand my audience and their needs
Delivering the presentation
Knowing how to present business data visually
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Dealing with nervousness
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
4.47*
4.45*
4.38*
4.37*
4.12*
4.12
4.11*
3.89*
3.88*
3.83*
3.58
3.08
C1*
C3*
C5*
C5*
¡1
¡5
C4*
C4*
¡3
¡3
¡8
¡2
4.12
3.84
3.78
3.72
3.85
4.34*
3.61
3.16
3.81
3.80
3.97*
3.66*
2
5
8
9
4*
1*
11
12
6*
7*
3*
10*
Note: *indicates higher values.
15
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
TABLE 7
Comparison of Means of Gains and Losses: Course Takers Versus Non–Course Takers
Both
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Item
Deciding on what to cover
Organizing my material
Finding facts and relevant research
Preparing slides
Knowing how to present business data visually
Delivering the presentation
Preparing for questions and answers (Q&A)
Feeling that I understand my audience and their needs
Knowing how to hold my audience’s attention
Word choice
Having to present on a topic outside my expertise
Dealing with nervousness
COM 210
IDCC 320
No course
Now
Past
Now
Past
Now
Past
Now
Past
4.46*
4.56yy*
4.48*
4.47y*
4.09*
4.18y
3.8
4.13*
3.93
3.87
3.1
3.65
4.13
4.35
3.99
4.05
3.87
4.48*
3.97*
3.93
4.06*
3.94*
3.72*
4.07*
4.47*
4.43*
4.35*
4.30*
4.08*
4.18yy
3.91y
4.16*
3.94yy
3.92*
3.13
3.69yy
3.77
4.05
3.68
3.5
3.43
4.44*
3.83*
3.88
4.11*
3.80
3.67*
4.10**
4.36y*
4.46*
4.34*
4.39*
4.16*
3.93
3.65y*
3.98yy*
3.73*
3.76y*
2.95
3.39yy
3.73
4.07
3.79
3.91
3.76
3.97*
3.59
3.69
3.65
3.57
3.55*
3.56*
4.46*
4.46
4.40*
4.36
4.08
4.05
3.8
4.11
3.82
3.86
3.08
3.56
4.28
4.53*
4.31
4.36
4.65*
4.69*
4.43*
4.44*
4.58*
4.28*
4.21*
4.43*
Note: * indicates higher values.
y
p D .10. yyp D .05.
frequency to make this skill set important: 37.1% make presentations 1–3 times per month, while a separate 27.9%
present 1–5 times per week. Thus 65% of respondents are
presenting on a monthly to weekly basis. This finding confirms the centrality of the presentation skill set, across all
business majors studied.
In terms of the most lasting and effective preparation
route, those reporting the highest levels of confidence in
eight of 12 categories were alumni who took the basic public speaking course. Those who took both courses supersede
the no course group in 10 of 12 categories. This suggests,
overall, that the groups who took both courses and those
who took COM 210 alone have fared better, in terms of
their self-rated comfort and confidence levels, than the no
course group. However, the latter have fared better than the
IDCC 320 group, who self-rated the lowest of all four
groups in every category except preparing slides and having
to present on a topic outside their expertise.
Investigating specific levels of communication anxiety
and their correlation to current confidence levels was
beyond the scope of this survey. But decision-tree analysis
revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship among undergraduate major and current levels of confidence in presenting in terms of the full scale. Thus for
alumni, the relationship between their specific major and
public speaking anxiety, which has been identified as significant in some studies on undergraduates, may be moderated over time.
A final consideration concerns the study population
itself, who entered their business studies in the first semester of their first year, and whose SAT scores and family
incomes are above national averages. Per Elias (1999), it
would be useful to compare these findings with alumni
from large state-supported universities, and who came from
a more diverse range of precollege preparations. A current
study is underway to assess possible effects of ESOL on
building durable presentation skills.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show that alumni two to 12 years
out present frequently enough to warrant pedagogical attention to developing this skill set. Those who took the general
education public speaking or both that class (COM 210) and
the managerial communication class (IDCC 320) fared better
in terms of their current self-reported confidence levels than
those who took the managerial communication class alone
or who took no course at all. Across all majors, the greatest
gains in confidence relative to levels at graduation occurred
in the areas of organizing material, finding supporting data,
presenting business data visually, and understanding audiences’ needs. The greatest losses in confidence occurred in
terms of delivering the speech, handling nervousness, preparing for questions and answers, and word choice. Thus while
some business experience skills improved, self-management
skills declined, suggesting the need for increased attention in
these areas for all business majors.
It appears, then, that alumni of all majors studied who
took coursework dedicated to improving their presentation
skills did indeed reap the greatest and longest-lasting
rewards, in terms of their self-reported levels of confidence
and comfort across 12 dimensions of making business presentations. In seeking to achieve a range of communication
objectives in a managerial communication course, including writing and interpersonal skills, we should not lose sight
of the lasting benefits of instruction and graded performance in presenting.
16
M. MARCEL
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
REFERENCES
Alshare, K. A., Lane, P. L., & Miller, D. (2011). Business communication
skills in information systems (IS) curricula: Perspectives of IS educators
and students. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 186–194.
Argenti, P. (1986). Advanced management communication: An elective
course in corporate communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 23(4), 69–73.
Ayres, J., & Ayres Sonandre, D. (2002). The Stroop test for public speaking apprehension: Validity and reliability. Communication Research
Reports, 19, 167–174.
Bartlett, J. E. II, Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational
research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19, 43–50.
Borzoi, M. G., & Mills, T. H. (2001). Communication apprehension in
upper level accounting students: An assessment of skill development.
Journal of Education for Business, 76, 193–198.
Carnevale, A. P., & Cheah, B. (2013). Hard times: College majors, unemployment and earnings. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Public
Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/
hpi/cew/pdfs/HardTimes.2013.2.pdf
Cox, H. (1976). The voices of experiences: The business communication
alumnus reports. The Journal of Business Communication, 13(4), 35–46.
Dannels, D. (2001). Taking the pulse of communication across the curriculum: A view from the trenches. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 30, 50–70.
Dwyer, K. K. (2000). The multidimensional model: Teaching students to
self-manage high Communication Apprehension by self-selecting treatments. Communication Education, 49, 72–81.
Elias, R. Z. (1999). An examination of nontraditional accounting students’
communication anxiety and ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Education
for Business, 75, 38–41.
Ellis, K. (1995). Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher
immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course: Trends
and relationships. Communication Education, 44, 64–77.
Fordham, D. R., & Gabbin, A. L. (1996). Skills versus apprehension: Evidence on oral communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 59
(3), 88–97.
Hodis, G. M., Bardhan, N. R., & Hodis, F. A. (2010). Patterns of change in
willingness to communicate in public speaking contexts: A latent growth
modeling analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38,
248–267.
Hsu, C.-F. (2009). The relationships of trait anxiety, audience nonverbal
feedback, and attributions to public speaking state anxiety. Communication Research Reports, 26, 237–246.
Hunter, K. M., Westwick, J. N., & Haleta, L. L. (2014). Assessing success:
The impacts of a fundamentals of speech course on decreasing public
speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 63, 124–135.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levina, R. (2004). A comparison of
web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68,
94–101.
Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2009). Develop oral presentation skills through
accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 172–179.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. A., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., . . .
Wu, C. (2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. The Journal of Business Communication, 50, 152–169.
Knight, M. (1999). Writing and other communication standards in
undergraduate business education: A study of current program
requirements, practices, and trends. Business Communication Quarterly, 62, 10–28.
Laster, N. M., & Russ, T. L. (2010). Looking across the divide: Analyzing
cross-disciplinary approaches for teaching business communication.
Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 248–264.
Lucchetti, A. F., Phipps, G. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2003). Trait anticipatory
public speaking anxiety as a function of self-efficacy expectations and
self-handicapping strategies. Communication Research Reports, 20,
348–356.
Maclntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clement, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly,
47, 215–229.
Maes, J. D., Weldy, T. G., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). A managerial
perspective: Oral communications competency is most important for
business students in the workplace. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 67–80.
Marcal, L. H., Hennessey, J. E., Curren, M. T., & Roberts, W. W. (2005).
Do business communication courses improve student performance in
Introductory Marketing? Journal of Education for Business, 80,
289–294.
Marshall, L. L. (2007). Measuring assurance of learning at the degree program and academic major levels. Journal of Education for Business, 83,
101–109.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 187–195.
McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Communication apprehension: What have we
learned in the last four decades. Human Communication: A Publication
of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 12, 157–171.
McEwen, T. (1998). The impact of type and level of college degree on
managerial communication competence. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 352–358.
McKinney, B. C. (2009). Communication apprehension in Asia. Asian
Profile, 37, 201–207.
Morreale, S. P. (1990, November). The competent speaker. Paper presented
at the Speech Communication Association Conference on Assessment of
Communication Competency, Denver, CO.
Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities:
Study VIII: The 40th anniversary. Communication Education, 59,
405–430.
No€el, N. M., Michaels, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self-monitoring behavior to choice of business major.
Journal of Education for Business, 78, 153–157.
Peterson, M. S. (1997). Personnel interviewers’ perceptions of the importance and adequacy of applicants’ communication skills. Communication Education, 46, 287–291.
Reinsch, N. L. Jr., & Shelby, A. N. (1997). What communication abilities
do practitioners need? Evidence from MBA students. Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 7–29.
Rexeisen, R. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2013). Closing the loop in assurance of
learning programs: Current practices and future challenges. Journal of
Education for Business, 88, 280–285.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills
needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75,
453–465.
Russ, T. L. (2009). The status of the business communication course at
U.S. colleges and universities. Business Communication Quarterly, 72,
395–413.
Sharp, M. R., & Brumberger, E. R. (2013). Business communication curricula today: Revisiting the top 50 undergraduate business schools. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 5–27.
Smith, J. H., & Turner, P. H. (1993). A survey of communication department curriculum in four-year colleges and universities. Journal of the
Association for Communication Administration, 1, 34–49.
Stanga, K. G., & Ladd, R. T. (1990). Oral Communication Apprehension
in beginning accounting majors: An exploratory study. Issues in
Accounting Education, 6, 180–199.
Stevens, B. (2005). What communication skills do employers want? Silicon
Valley recruiters respond. Journal of Employment Counseling, 42, 2–9.
VALUE OF BUSINESS PRESENTATIONS PREPARATION
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 18:59 11 January 2016
Treadwell, D., & Applbaum, R. (1996). The basic course in organizational
communication: A national survey. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 1, 12–24.
Tuleja, E. A., & Greenhalgh, A. M. (2008). Communicating across the curriculum in an undergraduate business program: Management 100- Leadership and communication in groups. Business Communication
Quarterly, 71(1), 27–43.
Ulinski, M., & O’Callaghan, S. (2002). A comparison of MBA
students’ and employers’ perceptions of the value of oral communication skills for employment. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
193–197.
Waldeck, J., Durante, C., Helmuth, B., & Marcia, B. (2012). Communication in a changing world: Contemporary perspectives on business communication competence. Journal of Education for Business, 87,
230–240.
17
Waner, K. K. (1995). Business communication competencies needed by
employees as perceived by business faculty and business professionals.
Business Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 51–56.
Wardrope, W. J. (2002). Department chairs’ perceptions of the importance
of business communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly,
65(4), 60–72.
Wardrope, W. J., & Bayless, M. L. (1999). Content of the business communication course: An analysis of the coverage. Business Communication
Quarterly, 62(4), 33–40.
Winsor, J. L., Curtis, D. B., & Stephens, R. D. 1997. National preferences
in business communication education: A survey update. Journal of the
Association for Communication Administration, 3, 170–179.
Zhao, J. J., & Alexander, M. W. (2004). The impact of business communication education on students’ short- and long-term performances. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 24–40.