2001•Business Communication QuarterlyRequires access

Peer versus Self Assessment of Oral Business Presentation Performance

Kim Sydow Campbell, David L. Mothersbaugh, Charlotte Brammer, Timothy Taylor

Open publisher page 104 citations

Abstract

Pedagogical practice related to oral business presentations has received little research attention despite the pervasiveness of oral presentations in business class rooms and their perceived importance to workplace success. This study collected data on three groups (self, peers, and instructor) to address four research ques tions related to (a) the usefulness of self and peer ratings as substitutes for instruc, tor evaluation of oral business presentations and (b) the relationship between vari ous content and non-content factors on overall perceptions of presentation quality. Data from this study suggest that (1) both holistic and analytical peer assessments are reasonable substitutes for instructor assessment when raters are trained; (2) self assessment does not closely reflect either peer or instructor assessments; and (3) peer assessment of delivery characteristics, command of material, and content strongly predict peer ratings of overall presentation quality.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Pedagogical practice related to oral business presentations has received little research attention despite the pervasiveness of oral presentations in business class rooms and their perceived importance to workplace success. This study collected data on three groups (self, peers, and instructor) to address four research ques tions related to (a) the usefulness of self and peer ratings as substitutes for instruc, tor evaluation of oral business presentations and (b) the relationship between vari ous content and non-content factors on overall perceptions of presentation quality. Data from this study suggest that (1) both holistic and analytical peer assessments are reasonable substitutes for instructor assessment when raters are trained; (2) self assessment does not closely reflect either peer or instructor assessments; and (3) peer assessment of delivery characteristics, command of material, and content strongly predict peer ratings of overall presentation quality.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 104 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Pedagogical practice related to oral business presentations has received little research attention despite the pervasiveness of oral presentations in business class rooms and their perceived importance to workplace success. This study collected data on three groups (self, peers, and instructor) to address four research ques tions related to (a) the usefulness of self and peer ratings as substitutes for instruc, tor evaluation of oral business presentations and (b) the relationship between vari ous content and non-content factors on overall perceptions of presentation quality. Data from this study suggest that (1) both holistic and analytical peer assessments are reasonable substitutes for instructor assessment when raters are trained; (2) self assessment does not closely reflect either peer or instructor assessments; and (3) peer assessment of delivery characteristics, command of material, and content strongly predict peer ratings of overall presentation quality.

Key concepts: Presentation (obstetrics), Peer assessment, Psychology, Quality (philosophy), Peer evaluation, Perception, Self-assessment, Content analysis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Peer versus Self Assessment of Oral Business Presentation Performance — Research Paper | ScholarLens