a toastmaster approach

Article

The Toastmasters Approach: An Innovative Way to Teach Public Speaking to EFL Learners in Taiwan Sun Yu-Chih Institute of TESOL National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan [email protected] Abstract ■ Toastmasters is a widely recognized international club that aims to develop and enhance the art of public speaking by offering participants educational programmes and chances to speak before groups. This article reports on the inte-gration of the Toastmasters approach to an EFL oral-communication class in Taiwan. As both the author of this study and the teacher of an EFL course, I organ-ized the course content and the course delivery that this paper describes. At the end of the semester, the participants completed a written questionnaire that asked their opinions about the effectiveness of this unorthodox teaching approach. Students enthusiastically reported that they had improved their proficiency in public speaking and that they had made gains in various skill areas. Drawing on these experiences, this article addresses the value of a Toastmasters approach to foreign-language curricular design. Keywords ■ EFL speaking, oral communication, public speaking, speech communi-cation, Toastmasters International.

Introduction Learning to speak and communicate are major reasons for learning English worldwide (Bassano and Christison 1987; Nunan 2003; Richards and Renandya 2002). Communication is often a basic factor that employers consider when evaluating job applicants (Osborn and Osborn 1991; Huckin and Olsen 1991). Studies show that oral-communication skills correlate highly with employment success (Huckin and Olsen 1991; Osborn and

Vol 39(1) 113-130 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091143 © 2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singaporehttp://RELC.sagepub.com

at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 8, 2015rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rel.sagepub.com/

114 Regional Language Centre Journal 39.1

Osborn 1991). Because speaking is used for many different purposes, and each purpose requires different skills (Richards and Renandya 2002), it is important to teach students of ESL/EFL (English as a second language/ English as a foreign language) how to use English in both formal settings and informal settings. Public-speaking skills are keys to success in workplaces that span many different disciplines (Payne and Carlin 1994). For example, in Huckin and Olsen (2001), public speaking was ranked fourth out of 38 categories of the most-needed skills for an engineering career, as identified by partici-pants in the engineering discipline. The major benefits of public speaking can be divided into the following three areas: (1) personal and social bene-fits, (2) academic benefits, and (3) career benefits. For personal benefits, public-speaking skills enable a person to com-municate more effectively, to influence others’ beliefs and behaviour, and to build self-confidence (Verderber and Verderber 2003; Osborn and Osborn 1991). Furthermore, public-speaking skills can provide positive social benefits to a person by strengthening, in general, his or her impact on society and, in particular, his or her ability to voice opinions (Payne and Carlin 1994; Osborn and Osborn 1991). In an academic setting, first-year college students usually arrive on campus with little or no formal public-speaking experience (Verderber and Verderber 2003). Thus, appropriate public-speaking training can yield appropriate public-speaking skills and, together, can help students succeed academically. After all, public presentations and group discussions are common activities in academic settings. In addition, Bygate (1987) pointed out that public speaking can help students (1) improve memory retention, (2) make appropriate adjust-ments to public speaking on the basis of feedback received from others, and (3) enhance motivation for learning. Public speaking can also pro-mote learners’ speaking and listening abilities (Jaffe 2001). Research indicates that public-speaking skills offer important career benefits. Good communication skills aid in job searches and in promo-tion to leadership positions (Verderber and Verderber 2003; Huckin and Olsen 1991; Ping and Weiping 2004). Speech instruction for employees is sometimes required for those who want to advance to higher positions (Payne and Carlin 1994). In short, mastery of public speaking can help people become more capable, more active, and more responsible in careers, academics, and socialization (Osborn and Osborn 1991; Zarefsky 1996).



115 The Toastmasters Approach

Despite these many advantages that derive from the development of effective public-speaking skills, most students view public speaking as the most anxiety-provoking classroom activity (Payne and Carlin 1994). For ESL/EFL learners, the situation may be even worse because the public speaking is in a foreign language. As revealed in Young’s (1990) study, the student’s primary source of anxiety is not speaking in a foreign lan-guage (a task that is, itself, highly conducive to anxiety) but speaking in front of the class. Therefore, knowing how to help non-native speakers of English deal with speech anxiety has long been a major concern of teachers of public speaking (Ellis 1994; Young 1990; Verderber and Verderber 2003). Toastmasters International is a non-profit organization that offers an educational programme in which students can develop and enhance their public speaking. The first Toastmasters programme was founded in the United States in 1924. To date, there are nearly 200,000 members, spanning 10,000 clubs in more than 90 countries worldwide. Among the 10,000 clubs, about 115 clubs are in Taiwan (Toastmasters 2006). Most of these clubs, including those clubs located in EFL regions, use English as a communication language. Therefore, the club serves two main pur-poses: it is a place in which students not only undergo public-speaking training but also practice their skills in English oral communication. The average number of Toastmasters participants per club ranges from 20 to 30, with two-hour meetings held weekly or twice a month. Participants proceed through a series of ten speaking assignments de-signed to develop a basic foundation in public speaking. There is no instructor in a Toastmasters club. Instead, members ‘learn-by-doing’; that is, members learn autonomously by hosting a variety of sessions in the meeting, by delivering prepared speeches, and by evaluating each other’s oral presentations. Each meeting offers each member different roles to play, including (1) officiator of meetings, (2) joke teller, (3) pre-senter of impromptu speeches, (4) presenter of prepared speeches, and (5) speech evaluator. This Toastmasters design of roles and of agendas rests on an environment that is cooperative, supportive, and dynamic. It would be, therefore, interesting to apply this design to EFL speech classes in Taiwan. Even though the Toastmasters programme offers systematic training for effective public-speaking skills, there is a paucity of research on the integration of the Toastmasters approach into the language classroom




and, in particular, on the efficacy of this integration. The current study examines and reports on how the Toastmasters training model can be effectively integrated into an EFL speech class.

Method Participants Eighteen undergraduate students (nine males and nine females) who were not English majors and who were attending a research-oriented university in Taiwan participated in the study. The university’s language require-ments for students who are not English majors include a four-credit freshman-level English course and a two-to-four-credit elective language course. (The specific requirements depend on the specific school in ques-tion.) For the elective courses, students are offered a variety of options: literature; news; academic writing; oral-communication skills; advanced listening; and survival English, as well as corresponding courses in Japa-nese, French, German, and so on. This study’s participants enrolled in a course on English oral-communication skills. In fact, more than 40 students attended the first class meeting. However, after the instructor briefly introduced the course objective (public-speaking training), more than half of the students withdrew from the class. The final class size of 18 turned out to be an ideal class size for a Toastmasters-based speech class because this size enabled each student to play at least one role at each class meeting. Course Description The primary objective of this course was to enable students to improve their public-speaking skills. Students were expected to complete assigned speaking tasks, visit one of the local Toastmasters clubs, and then submit an observation report. In each weekly two-hour class meeting, the first hour was devoted to the development of public-speaking skills and of related knowledge. The course content and the course activities were such that students read articles about public speaking, watched video demon-strations of speech delivery, discussed related issues, and role-played. The second hour was based on the Toastmasters meeting agenda (see Appen-dix). The Toastmasters meeting agenda identifies ten different roles, and in this course, the students were assigned their weekly role at the beginning of the semester. Table 1 describes each role.




Table 1. Roles in Toastmasters Meetings

Role Description of Role

1. Sergeant-at-Arms Serves as master host and arranges room and equipment for each meeting.

2. Toastmasters of the Day

Act as the host and conduct the entire meeting. Introduce participants and each session Master. Give concluding remarks at the end of the meeting.

3. Joke Master Tells a one-minute memorized humorous story. 4. Master of Table Topics

Prepares and issues a topic and randomly selects meeting attendees who then respond to the topic in an impromptu manner. Collects and calculates voting for the Best Table Topic Speaker of the Week.

5. Prepared Speech Speaker

Presents a prepared speech on a given topic.

6. General Evaluator Evaluates incidents that take place throughout the meeting.

7. Speech Evaluator Gives an oral evaluation of one of the prepared speeches.

8. Timer Explains the timing rules and keeps track of time for each participant throughout the meeting.

9. ‘Ah’ Counter Notes words and sounds that speakers use as a pause filter during a meeting.

10. Grammarian/Word Master

Shares new words, phrases, or grammar rules with students and encourages students to use them during the meeting.

Basically, the meeting proceeds as follows: (1) Introduction Session—Sergeant-at-Arms calls meeting to order (30 seconds); (2) Rules Session—Timer reports the time requirement for each session (1 minute); (3) Joke Session—Joke Master invites 3 or 4 students to tell a joke (7 minutes); (4) Prepared Speech Session—each speaker presents a prepared speech for 4 or 5 minutes (17 minutes); (5) Table Topics Session—the Master of Table Topics invites 3 or 4 speakers to present impromptu speeches (9 minutes); and (6) Evaluation Session—members consider three speech evaluations, the ‘Ah’ Counter’s report, the Grammarian/Word Master’s report, the Timer’s report, the Master of Table Topics’ report, and the General Evalua-tor’s report (10 minutes). Figure 1 illustrates the Toastmasters meeting procedures and the interactions among the different roles.




Toastmastersof the Day

Sergeant-at-Arms

Joke Master

Prepared Speaker (1)



Master of Table Topics

General Evaluator ‘Ah’ Counter

Grammarian

Timer

Master of Table Topics

Presenter 1, 2, 3, 4

Presenter 1, 2, 3, 4

Speech Evaluator (1)



Figure 1. Procedures and Roles in a Toastmasters Meeting Most students were assigned to at least one role per meeting. For those who did not have any assigned role to play on a specific week, it was still likely that the Table Topic Master or Joke Master would call upon them during the Table Topics Session (impromptu speeches) or the Joke Session. The following specific practices characterized this study’s in-class Toastmasters meeting. First, at the end of each Table Topic Session, the participants voted for the Table Topic Speaker of the Day and the




instructor awarded the winner with a certificate as an encouragement. Second, after students delivered their prepared speeches, the instructor gave each speaker individualized written comments on areas that needed further improvement. Third, students were required to attend at least one Toastmasters club meeting outside of class, to write down their observations of the meeting, and to hand in the written observations. Finally, each in-class Toastmasters session was videotaped. Each student reviewed the video recordings of himself or herself and, during mid- terms and finals, submitted written self-observations about his or her strengths and weaknesses. This study’s expectations were that such a well-structured and interactive procedure would help students to over-come their stage fright, to enhance their public-speaking skills, to practice oral-communication skills in English, to improve self-confidence, and to develop leadership skills. Evaluation Instruments I created a questionnaire to gather information on student attitudes and student perceptions relative to the Toastmasters-based speech class. The questionnaire was a 33-item, 5-point Likert scale whose responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Also, the questionnaire contained 2 ranking questions and 1 open-ended question. The 33-item Likert-scale questions corresponded to one of the fol-lowing five subscales: (1) English-language improvement; (2) public-speaking improvement; (3) affective perspective; (4) social perspective; and (5) overall evaluation. Below is a brief explanation of each of the five subscales. The first subscale measured whether or not the Toastmasters approach improved the participants’ language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, and pronunciation). A high score on these items indi-cates that the participants considered the approach helpful in improving their English abilities. The second subscale measured participants’ perception of how their experience of the Toastmasters approach benefited their public speaking. Questions in this category addressed five topics: stage manner; stage fright; expression; organization skills; and critical thinking. A high score on this scale indicates that the students considered the Toastmasters approach beneficial to public speaking.




The third subscale measured students’ affective perspective. A high score on this subscale indicates that the Toastmasters approach created a supportive and warm atmosphere in which students could develop self-esteem and self-confidence. The fourth subscale measured students’ perceptions of social factors relative to the Toastmasters approach. A high score on this subscale indi-cates that the students considered the Toastmasters approach a strength-ener of leadership skills and of social skills. The fifth subscale measured whether the participants held positive overall attitudes toward the Toastmasters approach or negative overall attitudes toward the approach. A high score on this subscale indicates that the students held positive attitudes toward the approach. The last part of the questionnaire contained two types of questions: the ranking type and the open-ended type. For the two ranking questions, students were asked to rank both their role preferences for the Toast-masters meeting and the degree to which the roles were helpful. As for the open-ended question, the students were asked to summarize their experience of the Toastmasters approach. All items on the questionnaire measured student perceptions of the effectiveness of the Toastmasters approach.

Results Figure 2 illustrates how the Toastmasters approach enhanced students’ learning. Table 2 reports each subscale’s descriptive statistics for the effec-tiveness of the Toastmasters approach. Overall, the students responded positively to the in-class Toastmasters approach. Among the five sub-scales, the subscale measuring affective impact received the highest mean score. That is, the participants believed that their use of the Toastmasters approach promoted confidence, reduced speech anxiety, and encouraged further practice and learning. Next to affective factors, improvement of public-speaking skills scored second highest. The following section pro-vides a closer analysis of each subscale.




Affective Impact Enhance self-confidence

Reduce speech anxiety

Feel safe and supported

Social Skills Promote leadership skills

Develop bonds with classmates

Conduct meetings competently

Public-speaking Skills Reduce stage fright

Improve body language

Be able to express oneself

Language Skills Improve speaking skills

Hone listening skills

Boost vocabulary/writing skills

Toastmasters Approach

Figure 2. Effects of Toastmasters Approach on Public-speaking Development

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Effectiveness of the Toastmasters Approach in Language Learning

Subscale Mean SD

Language skills 3.94 0.42 Public-speaking skills 4.51 0.54 Affective impact 4.53 0.40 Social impact 4.13 0.62 In terms of language-skills improvement, speaking and listening skills received higher mean scores than did other skills. The least improved skills were writing, grammar, and reading skills (see Table 3). The results indicate that a Toastmasters approach improves oral production and oral communication.




Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Improvement of Language Skills

Items Mean SD

Speaking skills 4.53 0.52 Listening-comprehension skills 4.13 0.64 Vocabulary skills 4.00 0.53 Pronunciation skills 3.93 0.88 Reading skills 3.47 0.83 Grammar ability 3.47 0.74 Writing skills 3.40 0.74

With regard to public-speaking improvement, as shown in Table 4, students rated public-speaking skills higher than 4.0 on the 5-point Likert scale. Overcoming stage fright, using body language, and learning to express oneself received mean scores higher than 4.6. These results indicate that the Toastmasters approach, which involves hands-on public-speaking experience, improves public-speaking skills.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Improvement of Public-speaking Skills Items Mean SD

I have learned to overcome stage fright. 4.80 0.41 I have learned to use body language in public speaking.

4.73 0.46

I have improved my ability to express ideas. 4.60 0.63 I have learned to organize speech writing. 4.27 0.80 I have improved spontaneous speech skills. 4.27 0.80 I have learned to listen effectively. 4.25 0.56 I have learned to give an evaluation. 4.18 0.45 I have learned to deliver different types of speeches. 4.11 0.65 I have learned to use vocal variety in speech. 4.02 0.48 In terms of affective impact, results show that the Toastmasters ap-proach boosted student confidence relative to students’ presentation of public speeches (see Table 5). All items in this category received scores of 4.00 or greater on the 5-point Likert scale. The students reported increases in confidence, in interest, and in emotional support among classmates.




Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Affective Impact

Items Mean SD

I have developed confidence in my public speaking skills.

4.80 0.41

I have become interested in public speaking. 4.67 0.49 Toastmasters has taught me how to encourage others. 4.53 0.52 My experience of the Toastmasters approach has boosted my self-confidence.

4.47 0.52

My anxiety toward public speaking has lessened. 4.40 0.74 Toastmasters is beneficial for my future career development.

4.40 0.74

Public-speaking experience will increase the likelihood that my public speaking is successful.

4.13 0.64

Toastmasters gives me a sense of achievement. 4.07 0.70 Student responses to general questions about their experience of the Toast-masters approach (see Table 6) indicate that the experience was valuable, enjoyable, and helpful. Most of them stated that, in the future, they might participate in a Toastmasters club and would encourage others to join similar activities. Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Overall Perception of the Toastmasters Approach Items Mean SD

I consider Toastmasters to be a valuable experience. 4.87 0.35 Overall, the Toastmasters approach helped me. 4.73 0.46 I will encourage others to join similar activities. 4.60 0.51 Overall, I enjoyed the Toastmasters-based speech class. 4.53 0.64 I intend to continue with Toastmasters club meetings after the class is finished.

4.33 0.72

On the basis of the students’ responses, Table 7 lists the rank order of two areas of interest: students’ preferences for roles in the in-class Toast-masters meetings, and students’ perception of these roles’ helpfulness. Regarding the students’ preferred roles to play, the rankings are, in descending order, Prepared Speech Speaker, Master of Table Topics, Toastmasters of the Day, General Evaluator, and Speech Evaluator.




Regarding the students’ perception of degree of helpfulness, the rankings are, in descending order, Prepared Speech Speaker, Toastmasters of the Day, Speech Evaluator, and Master of Table Topics. General Evaluator. It is interesting to note that the rankings for the sixth, seventh, and eighth least favorite roles are in the exact same order as the corresponding rankings for least helpful roles: Joke Master (ranked in sixth place), ‘Ah’ Counter/Grammarian (ranked in seventh place), and a tie between Sergeant-at-Arms and Timer (each ranked in eighth place).

Table 7. Rank Order of Preferences for and Helpfulness of Toastmasters Roles Toastmasters Roles Degree of Preference Degree of Helpfulness

Prepared Speech Speaker 1 1 Master of Table Topics 2 4 Toastmasters of the Day 3 2 General Evaluator 4 6 Prepared Speech Evaluator 5 3 Joke Master 6 6 ‘Ah’ Counter/Grammarian 7 7 Sergeant-at-Arms 8 8 Timer 9 9 The results reveal that students ranked the Prepared Speech Speaker as the most popular and the most helpful post even though it involved the most pressure and the most preparation time. One plausible explanation for this role’s popularity is that the prepared speech is the most common speech genre encountered by most students in their current academic and future career endeavours. Therefore, opportunities to practice prepared speeches helps fulfill the students’ instrumental motivation to learn to speak in public. The role of Master of Table Topics (spontaneous presentation) ranked second in terms of preference and fourth in terms of helpfulness. Two interrelated factors may explain the overall popularity of the role: first, the Master of Table Topics enjoyed the ‘privilege’ of selecting a topic for each impromptu speech, and second, the Master of Table Topics could choose the classmates who would deliver a one-minute speech on the topic. Impromptu speeches always evoked lots of fun and laughter, and this fact, too, may explain why students enjoyed the role so much. The




‘Toastmasters of the Day’ role ranked second in terms of helpfulness and third in terms of preference. This role was the leading emcee for the entire meeting. Students who assumed the role had to introduce each session’s master, wrap up the meeting, and make comments about spontaneous happenings throughout the meeting. In general, this role is very challeng-ing and requires the role-player to be a critical listener, a critical thinker, a reflective observer, and a strong leader. The role of Prepared Speech Evaluator ranked third in terms of help-fulness and fifth in terms of preference. The person who assumes this role should be able to listen critically and intensively to speeches and should provide insightful comments about the speeches. Students viewed this role as stressful but helpful.

Qualitative Results The qualitative data results of the Toastmasters-approach survey have yielded findings similar to those in the quantitative survey. I placed those responses into the following four categories: (1) public-speaking skills; (2) language-learning skills; (3) leadership; and (4) affective relationships and social relationships. Public-speaking Skills Most students mentioned that the Toastmasters approach helped them acquire skills needed for public speaking. Those skills were (1) over-coming stage fright, (2) preparing a speech, (3) delivering an impromptu speech, (4) realizing the importance of body language, (5) speaking naturally, (6) interacting with the audience, and (7) presentation style. Language-learning Skills The responses indicate that students held positive attitudes toward the Toastmasters approach in nearly all areas of language learning, including (1) opportunities to speak English, (2) ability to carry on a conversation or a discussion, (3) speech delivery, and (4) daily-life uses of English speaking. Regarding listening ability, students seem to have believed that the Toastmasters approach provided them with a rich environment because they had to listen critically to classmates’ presentations in order to provide oral comment. As for writing ability, the Toastmasters approach offered students the chance to organize and write speeches.




Leadership One of the major purposes of Toastmasters is to provide leadership training. The current study’s participants indicated that they made progress in leadership in terms of (1) learning how to conduct a meeting, (2) devel-oping courage as the Toastmasters of the Day, and (3) becoming more observant. Affective Relationships and Social Relationships In terms of affective relationships and social relationships, evaluation responses suggest that the greatest student satisfaction from the course was a feeling of increased confidence in public speaking. Moreover, Toast-masters provided the students with an environment in which they could interact socially and could form new friendships. Several students com-mented that the class was memorably enjoyable, and some of these stu-dents stated that the class was their best college experience. In addition to in-class relationships, students appreciated the encouragement that they received while attending a formal off-campus meeting of a Toastmasters club. Some students reported that they were surprised to learn that there were so many local people enthusiastic about public speaking in English and so willing to share this enthusiasm with others. One student even mentioned, ‘I think students in our university can learn a lot from those Toastmasters club members off campus because their attitude about learning English and public speaking is much better than ours’.

Conclusion Results of the study indicated that students consider public speaking a learnable skill. The results that support this generalization are manifold: after one semester of using the Toastmasters approach to public speaking, this study’s students exhibited an overwhelmingly positive response to the approach. Because the Toastmasters approach integrates various tasks into each meeting, this study’s students reported improvement not only in their public-speaking skills but also in their English proficiency, their affective competence, and their social competence. Results concerning language-skills progress (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, pro-nunciation, and communication) indicate that the students considered the Toastmasters approach an effective facilitator of their English abilities. Students also reported improvement in public-speaking issues (i.e. body language, stage fright, expression, idea development, organization, and




vocal variety). The Toastmasters approach also helped students develop self-confidence and motivation for public speaking by fostering suppor-tive, warm interpersonal relationships. Students also developed better leadership skills by acting as the host of a meeting or as a speech evalua-tor. Similar findings are also evident in the qualitative data concerning student attitudes toward the Toastmasters-based approach to the speech class. On the basis of this study’s results, I propose that the Toastmasters-based speech class differs from traditional speech classes in the following ways. 1. Cooperative Learning. In a Toastmasters-based speech class, learners work together by playing different roles at a meeting. This cooperation leads to a learning environment that is more positive and more facilitative than the learning environment in traditional speech classes. And among the learners in a Toastmasters-based speech class, this cooperation pro-motes social relationships that are more positive than those that are char-acteristic of traditional speech classes. 2. Autonomous Learners. In a Toastmasters meeting, students need to consider how to perform their role on their own and even need to conduct research that strengthens the content of their speeches. Self-directed learning activates learner motivation, but this learning is uncharacteristic of traditional speech classes. In other words, Toastmasters-based instruc-tion empowers students to become independent learners whereas tradi-tional speech classes transform students’ learning into an outcome that depends chiefly on a single instructor or a single text. Indeed, owing to recorded video clips of in-class speeches, the Toastmasters approach can transform students into their own instructors by enabling students to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses. Such transformations are absent from most traditional speech classes. 3. Student-centered Approach. Students in this study’s class reported that they preferred student-directed, student-centered learning over teacher-dominated instruction. This dramatic finding consequently suggests that, unlike traditional speech classes, the Toastmasters approach meets the needs of students. In the latter setting, learners lead the class according to their meeting roles while the teacher serves only as a facilitator and mentor.




4. Authentic Learning Environment. A Toastmasters-based speech class creates an authentic meeting environment that helps learners transfer what they have learned to real-life situations. By being exposed to an authentic meeting of a Toastmasters club, this study’s students learned how to make formal presentations, conduct a meeting, and even respond to a request for an impromptu speech. These students clearly recognized and highly appreciated this kind of authentic exposure, which does not feature promi-nently in traditional speech classes. For future applications of this model, I would suggest that ESL/EFL programmes in colleges or universities not limit their speaking classes to conversation alone. A Toastmasters-based speech class can significantly reduce stage fright and can significantly promote active learning in public speaking. Educators could adopt the mentor system used in some Toast-masters clubs and could apply it to classroom practices. Some of these mentors could be students in the class, members of local Toastmasters clubs, other skilled public speakers, or native English speakers. In summary, public speaking is important not only for native English speakers but also for those learning English as a foreign language. Incor-porating the Toastmasters approach into speech classes provides them an effective means for training students. Students not only glean the benefits of better public-speaking skills but also grow in English proficiency, moti-vation, and interpersonal relationships. Further replication of this study in other foreign-language classes is highly recommended.

REFERENCES Bassano, S., and M. Christison 1987 ‘Developing Successful Conversation Groups’, in M. Long and J. Richards

(eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Readings (Boston: Heinle & Heinle): 201-207.

Bygate, M. 1987 Speaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ellis, R. 1994 The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Huckin, T., and L. Olsen 1991 Technical Writing and Professional Communication: For Non-native Speakers

of English (Singapore: McGraw Hill). Jaffe, C. 2001 Public Speaking: Concepts and Skills for a Diverse Society (Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson). Nunan, D. 2003 ‘The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and

Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region’, TESOL Quarterly 37(4): 589-613.




Osborn, M., and S. Osborn 1991 Public Speaking (Boston: Houghton Mifflin). Payne, U., and D. Carlin 1994 Getting Started in Public Speaking (Chicago, IL: National Textbook

Company). Ping, D., and G. Weiping 2004 ‘Teaching Trial and Analysis of English for Technical Communication’,

Asian EFL Journal 6(1). At http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/04_pd_wg.php. Richards, J., and W. Renandya 2002 Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Toastmasters International 2006 All about Toastmasters. At http://www.toastmasters.org. Verderber, R., and K. Verderber 2003 The Challenge of Effective Speaking (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson). Young, D.J. 1990 ‘An Investigation of Students’ Perspectives on Anxiety and Speaking’,

Foreign Language Annals 23: 539-53. Zarefsky, D. 1996 Public Speaking: Strategies for Success (Boston: Allyn & Bacon).




APPENDIX

Meeting Agenda

Time Speaker Task Duration

16:40 Sergeant-at-Arms Call meeting to order Introduce Toastmasters

1 Minute

16:41 Toastmasters Call on Timer to explain today’s time requirements

1 Minute

16:42 Toastmasters Call on Joke Master 7 Minutes

16:49 Toastmasters Introduce Speaker 1 30 Seconds

16:50 Speaker 1 Prepared speech 1 4-5 Minutes





17:06 Master of Table Topics

Conduct Table Topics (impromptu speaking) Call on Timer to announce qualifiers for voting Conduct vote for best Table Topics

7 Minutes 30 Seconds 30 Seconds

17:14 Toastmasters Introduce General Evaluator 30 Seconds

17:15 General Evaluator Call on Speech Evaluator 1 Call on Speech Evaluator 2 Call on Speech Evaluator 3 Call on “Ah” Counter or Grammarian/Word Master Call on Grammarian/Word Master Call on Timer Call on Master of Table Topics (announce winner and give overall evaluation of meeting)

1 Minute 1 Minute 1 Minute 1 Minute 1 Minute 1 Minute 2 Minutes

17:23 Toastmasters Turn meeting over to the Presiding Officer (the Teacher)

5 Minutes

