https://www.arle2019.com/ L1 Literature education: Quintessential or perhaps inconvenient for future engineers? L1 teachers often encourage their students to read as much as possible, and many good reasons can be given to support this behavior. For instance, having read a lot of fiction during childhood and adolescence should have a positive impact on academic success in higher education (Mol & Bus, 2011). However, research studies that investigated this relationship usually recruited students from social sciences, and it is thus yet unknown if this positive impact of reading can also be retrieved for students from other faculties. In this respect, this paper addresses the following research question: regarding non-social sciences students, what is the impact of a history of reading dxon their academic results? 388 first-year civil engineering students from a major university in Flanders (Belgium) completed tests on word knowledge, activity preference (Stanovich, West, & Harrison, 1995), reading enjoyment (Mol & Jolles, 2011) and print exposure, i.e. having being exposed to fiction, or more specifically an Author Recognition Test (Mol & Bus, 2011) at the beginning of the academic year 2018-2019. It is widely acknowledged that word knowledge is strongly related to reading comprehension (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997), and as a result a word knowledge test could be employed as a more feasible alternative to the more time-consuming reading comprehension tests. In addition to personal variables (such as age, gender, type of secondary education, first language, special needs), the test scores were linked to the students’ 1st term academic results from February 2019. We will examine the students’ academic results by conducting a GLM Univariate ANCOVA in which we enter word knowledge, reading motivation, and print exposure as the independent variables and the personal variables as covariates. This paper discusses the conclusions from this project and comments on the implications they have on the future of L1 literature education. References Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945. Mol, S. E., & Jolles, J. (2014). Reading enjoyment amongst non-leisure readers can affect achievement in secondary school. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1214. Mol, S., & Bus, A. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, Mar, 137(2), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. & Harrison, M.R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31, 811–826.

1. Jordi Casteleyn
Antwerp School of Education
jordi.casteleyn@uantwerpen.be
jordi_casteleyn
www.slideshare.net/jordi013
What can L1 classes learn
from professional speaking courses?

2. L1 classes in secondary education
• Limited research into training and development
of L1 public speaking
• Limited time to practice this competence
Professional speaking courses
• Highly popular
• Seemingly unlimited time to practice this competence
Wurth, Tigelaar, Hulshof, de Jong, & Admiraal, W. (2018)

4. how to battle public speaking anxiety?

5. how to battle public speaking anxiety?
systematic
desensitization
which changes the
unconscious association
between public
speaking and anxiety
cognitive
modification
which replaces
problematic public
speaking cognitions
with more positive
views on public
speaking
skills
training
Bodie (2010)

6. L1 classes in secondary education
• Limited research into training and development
of L1 public speaking
• Limited time to practice this competence
Professional speaking courses
• Highly popular
• Seemingly unlimited time to practice this competence
Wurth, Tigelaar, Hulshof, de Jong, & Admiraal, W. (2018)

8. the techniques of theatre are
the techniques of communicating
“

10. Yes, and …
Make statements
There are no mistakes
Only opportunities
“

11. Improv is an art form, not science“

12. how to battle public speaking stress?
systematic
desensitization
which changes the
unconscious association
between public
speaking and stress
cognitive
modification
which replaces
problematic public
speaking cognitions
with more positive
views on public
speaking
skills
training
Bodie (2010)
= improv (theatre)

13. Research question
What is the impact of following an improv course
on the public speaking competence
and public speaking stress of its participants?

14. Research procedure
• 3 professional improvisational workshops
10 weeks, 3.5 hours per week
• 3 groups (n=33)
Ghent 1 (n=14), Antwerp 1 (n=9), & Antwerp 2 (n=10)
• 4 test moments (week 1, 4, 7 & 10)
• Participation on voluntary basis
• Each test moment:
• Public Speaking Anxiety Questionnaire
Reliability: t1 (.92), t2 (.86), t3 (.91) and t4 (.96)
• Public Speaking Task: 1 min
• Semi-structured interviews with participants after week 10
Discussing a video
Hook, Smith, & Valentiner (2008)
Casteleyn (2018 & in press)

15. Public Speaking Task
Casteleyn (2018 & in press)

16. http://www.d-pac.be/
Comparative judgement: D-Pac

17. • 102 representations
(i.e. 102 videos of public speaking tasks)
• 5 assessors = 5 trainee teachers
same quality assessment as conducted
by well-experienced university college lecturers
• 2124 completed comparisons
• (on average) 424.8 comparisons per assessor
• (on average) 41.65 comparisons per representation
• Reliability of final ranking: 0.90
Comparative judgement: D-Pac
Casteleyn (2018)
Lesterhuis, Verhavert, Coertjens, Donche, & De Maeyer (2017)

18. -6
-4,5
-3
-1,5
0
1,5
3
4,5

19. Descriptive results
public speaking public speaking stress
n M (SD) n M (SD)
t1 30 .00 (1.58) 29 3.01 (1.12)
t2 28 -.06 (1.70) 22 2.94 (.85)
t3 23 -.33 (1.45) 19 2.78 (.86)
t4 21 .01 (1.74) 18 2.68 (.98)
Note
• as per usual, inconsistent presence during workshops
as a result, difference in number of participants per test moment
• research assistants forgot to test public public stress in one group
at t2, t3 and t4

20. Statistical analyses
• Public speaking competence
No significant difference between test moments
F(1,13)=.75, p=.40
No significant difference between between groups
F(1,12)=.16, p=.64
• Public speaking at t1 explains about 80% of variation of
public speaking at t2 and t3, but this decreases at t4.
R Change: t2: .75, t3: .84, t4: .60

21. Statistical analyses
• Public speaking stress
No significant difference between between groups
F(1,12)=1.22, p=.29
Significant difference between test moments,
F(1,13)=132.63, p=.00
more specifically between test moment 2 and 4.
t(17)=2.99, p=.008
• Public speaking stress explains about 30% of variation of
public speaking at each test moment
Change R: t1: .36, t2: .35, t3: .20, t4:.36

22. Qualitative research
• “Why did you choose to do this course?”
• “What is, according to you, the take home message of this
course?”
• “Have you had any experience with public speaking before
starting this course?”

23. Qualitative research: Three profiles
• Clear increase
“I’m in the marketing department, and it is useful to get learn
some new techniques when you have to give a presentation”
“meeting new people is difficult”
“I started this workshop to battle my fear of failure"
• No change
“I have always been interested in doing theatre since I was
young, so this is a great opportunity to kick ratio out of life”
“just having fun”
• Unsteady growth
“quality of speaking depended on the mood I was in”
“a method to get out of daily life”
“I have never been good at public speaking”

24. Limitations
• Participation on voluntary basis
• Authentic research setting: Absence of participants
• Specific focus on public speaking:
e.g. no interaction, no preparation
• Impact of professional speaking course coach?
• No control condition
• Time-consuming & difficult to fit into strict schedule of
workshops

25. Conclusions
• Public speaking stress is an important factor in the quality
of public speaking.
• Public speaking stress can be decreased, but it is a slow
process, and it does not automatically translate into an
increase in the quality of public speaking.
• Public speaking competence is slow to change,
but professional speaking courses seem to break a
pattern.
• Initial focus on public speaking by participant seems to
help to fully experience the potential impact of a
professional speaking course.

26. Jordi Casteleyn
Antwerp School of Education
jordi.casteleyn@uantwerpen.be
jordi_casteleyn
www.slideshare.net/jordi013
What can L1 classes learn
from professional speaking courses?

27. List of references
Bodie, G. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining, and
treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70-105.
Casteleyn, J. (2018). Playing with improv (isational) theatre to battle public speaking stress.
Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 1-8.
Casteleyn, J. (in press). Improving public speaking in secondary education – Exploring the potential
of an improvisation training. L1-educational studies in language and literature
Hook, J., Smith, C., Valentiner, D. (2008). A short-form of the personal report of confidence as a
speaker. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1306-1313.
Lesterhuis, M., Verhavert, S., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2017). “Comparative
Judgement as a Promising Alternative to Score Competences”. In: Cano, E. & Ion, G. (2017).
Innovative Practices for Higher Education Assessment and Measurement. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI
Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0531-0.ch007
Wurth, A., Tigelaar, D., Hulshof, H., de Jong, J., & Admiraal, W. (2018). A literature review of
feedback and teaching oracy in L1-classes in secondary education. Paper presented at ARLE
(The International Association for Research in L1 Education), SIG Literacies & Oracies, Seminar
Focus on Oracy. 2018. Leiden, Nederland.