The Impromptu Gauntlet - CiteSeerX

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly2014, Vol. 77(3) 281 –296

© 2014 by the Association forBusiness CommunicationReprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2329490614537874

bcq.sagepub.com

Articles

The Impromptu Gauntlet: An Experiential Strategy for Developing Lasting Communication Skills

Robert N. Yale1

AbstractTypical business communication courses provide significantly more opportunities for students to hone their skills in writing compared with speaking. This article outlines an impromptu speech assignment and explains a course-level strategy for providing each student with more than 30 significant speaking opportunities during a term. This approach has proven to be surprisingly popular as students observe a remarkable transformation in their confidence and competence with presentational speaking. Teaching strategies, assignment guidelines, results, and additional resources are presented.

Keywordsimpromptu, business communication, pedagogy, oral communication, speech

In today’s business environment, strong written and oral communication skills are of paramount importance for success. This fact is recognized by nearly every stakeholder in the educational process, including government agencies (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013), accrediting bodies (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 2013), university instructors and administrators (Wardrope, 2002; Wardrope & Bayless, 1999), and marketplace employers (Maguire Associates, 2012; Robles, 2012). Not surprisingly, the vast majority of employers view the development of writ-ten and oral communication skills as the primary responsibility of colleges and univer-sities (Maguire Associates, 2012). Colleges and schools of business typically develop

1University of Dallas, USA

Corresponding Author:Robert N. Yale, Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, University of Dallas, 1845 East Northgate Drive, Irving, TX 75062, USA. Email: [email protected]

537874 BCQXXX10.1177/2329490614537874Business and Professional Communication QuarterlyYaleresearch-article2014

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016bcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bcq.sagepub.com/

282 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 77(3)

and offer courses in business communication as a way to meet this expectation (Sharp & Brumberger, 2013). However, recent evidence has suggested that, particularly in the area of oral communication skills, there remains a great deal of room for improvement as the vast majority of college graduates lack sufficient skill in this area (Gray, 2010).

Audits of business communication course offerings have consistently found that, on average, students receive much more practice with written communication com-pared with oral communication (Nelson, Luse, & DuFrene, 1992; Russ, 2009; Sharp & Brumberger, 2013; Wardrope & Bayless, 1999). Most recently, Laster and Russ (2010) reported that business communication courses require an average of 1.48 indi-vidual presentations, compared with 3.00 letters, 2.40 memos, 1.49 emails, 1.39 reports/papers. Certainly, there are logistical issues related to class time that likely account for this imbalance; written assignments can be completed outside of class, whereas oral presentations are typically completed during class time, leaving most students simply listening to classmates for the bulk of the period (Gobrecht, 1964). The limited number of hours in any given term necessarily reduces the amount of real speaking and presentation experience that any single course can offer.

A large content analysis of basic public speaking courses revealed that the vast majority of courses (93%) required no more than five speeches, and no courses required more than 10 (Morreale, Worley, & Hugenberg, 2010). This suggests that even in business programs where students take separate speaking and writing courses, the balance between speaking and writing practice across the curriculum is almost always strongly skewed in favor of written communication. In all cases, but especially for business programs where a single class covers both speaking and writing, this imbalance leaves students with real deficits in their oral communication abilities.

This dearth of actual speaking experience for business students is an unfortunate reality, as the latest United States Occupational Outlook Handbook highlighted the importance of oral communication skills for the current generation of students. Of the 41 occupational categories listed under business, finance, and management, only 16 specifically describe written communication skills as important to the occupation, while 30 specifically mention oral communication skills (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).

The mismatch between job-required and candidate-possessed skills has been high-lighted in a recent nationwide survey of employers commissioned by The Chronicle of Higher Education and American Public Media’s Marketplace. Of the more than 700 employers surveyed, respondents reported that the deficit between candidates’ required and actual skills was greatest for written and oral communication abilities (Maguire Associates, 2012), suggesting that the pedagogical strategies in the business commu-nication classroom might benefit from revision.

Most guidelines for evaluating presentations advocate the consideration of speech content and speech delivery separately (Locker & Kienzler, 2012; Pittenger, Miller, & Mott, 2004; Russell & Munter, 2013; Thill & Bovée, 2013), leading some instructors to develop assignments that focus exclusively on one element of the speaking process (e.g., see Hoger, 2012; Prentiss, 2004). Although the benefits of this approach are apparent, these activities still provide students with a limited amount of actual speak-ing experience with an audience.



Yale 283

Reinsch and Shelby (1997) have suggested that oral communication effectiveness might be enhanced by additional attention to the genre of impromptu speaking in the classroom. Although the pedagogical literature contained numerous examples of impromptu assignments (e.g., Balassi, 1973; Bytwerk, 1985; Dowling, 1957; Hendrix, 1968), almost invariably, these tasks viewed impromptu as merely a vehicle for pro-viding additional speaking opportunities and developing fluency; little attention has been given to the content and structural elements that would be included in a typical prepared speech.

Preston (1990) rightly noted that training in impromptu speaking offers “important practical experiences to prepare students to communicate intelligently on the spur of the moment beyond the classroom into society” (p. 14). However, the implementation of one-off impromptu speaking assignments is not likely to achieve this goal. In this article, impromptu speaking is conceptualized as an activity where a speaker has a limited amount of time to plan and organize a well-structured persuasive speech based on a prompt before delivering it to an audience. In this conception, impromptu serves as a vehicle for teaching and practicing every element of the communication process, including developing concise theses; discovering the available means of persuasion; structuring main points as arguments supported by evidence which together support the thesis; designing effective introductions and conclusions; using transitions, inter-nal previews, and signposts; and presenting with excellent vocal and physical delivery.

This article outlines an impromptu speech assignment and explains a course-level strategy for significantly increasing the number of speaking experiences each student completes during the term. This approach has proven to be extremely effective at improving students’ ability to exhibit effective vocal and physical delivery, use effec-tive speech structures, argue persuasively in support of or against a thesis, and main-tain the attention of the audience. Furthermore, students are able to observe a remarkable transformation in their confidence and competence with presentational speaking, supporting the value added by the business communication course.

The Impromptu Gauntlet: From Assignment to Completion

The impromptu speech assignment used in my business communication courses is a modified implementation of the quotation-based speech used in collegiate speech competition (American Forensic Association, 2009; National Forensic Association, n.d.). Early in the semester, I spend a full class period explaining the design and the learning objectives of the impromptu speaking assignments. This includes providing an overview of the impromptu speech assignment, viewing examples of student speeches, and explaining the group-based practice activities as they occur in the course calendar.

Over the eight semesters that I have used the impromptu gauntlet assignment, I have adjusted the assignment requirements based on student feedback and my judg-ments about the effectiveness of each variation. The general guidelines presented are




those that I have found to be most effective with my students; instructors can and should adjust these requirements to suit their particular students. The requirements are presented in the appendix as they appear on the assignment requirements document provided to students at the beginning of the term.

Unified Analysis Speech Structure

Students are instructed that all impromptu speeches should be organized using the uni-fied analysis structure, which is common for competitive impromptu speaking (Billings & Billings, 2000; Turnipseed, 2005). Essentially, unified analysis is a two-point persuasive speech structure with argument-based main points and example-based supporting evidence. Figure 1 provides the basic structure and a sample outline of a unified analysis speech. Each component of the outline will be discussed in detail along with suggestions for teaching.

Attention Getter. As with any presentation, the first task in the introduction is to gain the attention of the audience and introduce the topic. In this type of impromptu speech,

Figure 1. Basic structure and sample outline of a unified analysis impromptu speech organized on a 3-inch × 5-inch notecard.



Yale 285

the attention getter typically takes the form of a story, anecdote, or example that relates to the quotation to be analyzed.

Quotation. Once the speaker has gained the attention of the audience, the next task in the introduction is to introduce the quotation that will serve as the prompt for the speech. When teaching impromptu speaking, it is important to remind students that they must introduce the quotation and the author (if known) in the introduction. Often, students will transition directly from an attention getter into the reading of the quota-tion without introducing the idea that a quotation is the foundation of the speech they are about to deliver. Skipping this transition has the effect of confusing audience mem-bers who are unfamiliar with the idea of basing a speech on a quotation. In the sample speech in Figure 1, the speaker might deliver a transition similar to “Hershey’s persis-tence in the candy business in spite of multiple failures is reflected in the quotation from Napoleon Bonaparte: ‘Victory belongs to the most persevering.’”

As an instructor, it is important that selected quotations are adequate for the pur-pose of serving as an impromptu prompt. Sellnow (1991) advised that good impromptu quotation prompts avoid being vague, semantically difficult, or unmanageable. Essentially, good quotations should have a “clear and debatable premise” (Sellnow, 1991, p. 2), avoid using difficult words that students may not understand, and be short enough to develop a concise thesis given the time constraints of the speech.

Interpretation of the Quotation (Thesis). The student’s interpretation of the quotation, along with a statement of agreement or disagreement with this interpretation, forms the thesis for the speech. Once the thesis is identified and a student decides whether to agree or disagree with it, the remainder of the speech is constructed to convince the audience to also agree (or disagree) with the interpretation. Students who are in the early stages of learning this type of impromptu speaking spend quite a bit of time thinking about how to interpret quotations, so it is particularly important to choose clear and concise quotations for the early rounds of practice speeches.

I have found it helpful to advise that students search for a “nugget of truth” that can be extracted from the quotation, and I remind students that their interpretation need not focus on every element of the original quotation. For example, consider St. Francis de Sales’ exhortation to “Have patience with all things, but chiefly have patience with yourself. Do not lose courage in considering your own imperfections but instantly set about remedying them—every day begin the task anew.” Numerous interpretations might be extracted from this single quotation, including “Patience is important,” “Self-pity is unhelpful,” or “Self-evaluation is the key to success.” Without consistent reminders to search for a single “nugget” from each quotation, some students will find themselves developing interpretations that are essentially paraphrases of the entire quotation, leading to unfocused theses and meandering speeches.

Preview of Main Points. The final element of the speech introduction is the preview of main points. I typically encourage my students to preview only the main points in the introduction; supporting points can be previewed within each main point to provide strong internal structure throughout the speech.




Main Points. When crafted correctly, main points in a unified analysis speech are com-posed of arguments that support the speaker’s agreement or disagreement with the interpretation of the quotation. Essentially, good main points answer the “Why?” or “How?” question suggested by agreement or disagreement with the thesis. In the sam-ple speech in Figure 1, we agree that great things can be accomplished with determina-tion. Why? Because (Point I) determination overcomes obstacles, and (Point II) determination provides the will to tackle “impossible” tasks.

Supporting Examples. Evidence supporting each main point may come from movies, plays, books, biographies, current and historical events, theories, laws, poetry, phi-losophy, song lyrics, sports, or virtually any other anecdotes that students can find. When introducing the impromptu assignments, students are often apprehensive about knowing enough stories to support their speeches. However, when encouraged to take inventory of the examples they already know, most students have no problem finding enough evidence to support whatever claims they might need to defend in an impromptu speech.

Conclusion. Four elements compose the conclusion of a quotation-based impromptu speech: a review of the quotation, a review of the interpretation and statement of agreement or disagreement (thesis), a review of the main points, and a tie back to the example or anecdote that served as the attention getter. As students learn the unified analysis structure and practice developing and delivering impromptu speeches, the oft-quoted “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them” is consistently reinforced. Furthermore, the practice-based nature of this assign-ment cements in students’ minds the important elements for an introduction and con-clusion for a presentation on virtually any topic.

In-Class Impromptu Speech Logistics

One of the most challenging aspects of implementing this impromptu-based experien-tial learning strategy has been finding a way to efficiently conduct the in-class impromptu speeches. Although there are myriad methods for completing the impromptu performances, here I present the strategy that has proven most effective in my classroom.

Speech Day Flow. PowerPoint slides containing panels of quotations are prepared for the number of speakers who will present in a single class period. I provide three quota-tions in each panel and allow each student to choose the prompt for which they are best prepared to respond. Each PowerPoint slide contains the three quotations and a count-down timer starting at 3:05. Once the quotations are visible, the timer begins counting down, and once the time reaches 0:00, a student’s name is randomly drawn and it is their turn to speak. (See the Additional Resources section for a link to download a PowerPoint slide template with countdown timer.)



Yale 287

With this method of conducting the speaking days, each student prepares a speech from every panel, but only one person speaks. This provides students with additional practice crafting unified analysis outlines, which further serves to ingrain the structure in their minds for use outside the class. After each speaker’s performance, the next panel is revealed, and preparation begins again. Students who are not speaking com-plete a quartersheet–sized constructive feedback form, which is collected by the instructor at the end of the class and delivered to each speaker in the next class period.

Group Impromptu Practice Sessions

The group impromptu practice sessions are the central element of this pedagogical strategy for teaching business communication. It is in these practice sessions that stu-dents complete the bulk of their speaking activities for the class. While it is logistically impossible and practically unwise for each student to deliver 30 speeches during class time, when students are split into small out-of-class practice groups, this requirement becomes manageable, both for students and for the instructor.

Group Size. I recommend splitting students into groups of three, with one or two groups of four as necessitated by the number of students in the class. I have experi-mented with group sizes of three, four, and five, and over time have come to favor smaller groups. Although groups of three provide only a two-person audience for each speaker, the smaller groups require significantly less time for completion of the required speeches during the week compared with a five-person group. I have found that smaller groups consistently provide more and better constructive feedback to their peers compared with larger groups.

Practice Schedule. Students complete six practice impromptu speeches each week in the assigned practice groups for 5 consecutive weeks during the term, for a total of 30 practice speeches prior to the graded in-class impromptu speech. Although daunting to students at first mention (hence, the “gauntlet”), the experience of delivering 30 differ-ent speeches to a sympathetic audience is invaluable for the development of lasting communication skills. I instruct students to prepare their speeches independently and then to meet together to deliver the speeches and provide feedback (although some groups choose to do their preparation together to enforce the same preparation time limits that exist in the in-class speech). In their small groups, students constructively evaluate their peers’ structure, content, and delivery based on the feedback recommen-dations of DeNisi and Kluger (2000) that performance should be compared with a student’s past performance instead of the performance of other students. As students remain in the same group for the duration of the impromptu speaking portion of the class, they are able to see the often dramatic improvement in their own and their peers’ speaking abilities as the term progresses.

These group speaking sessions typically take 2 hours per week in addition to the time required to prepare speech outlines, so it is important that instructors take this out-of-class time into account when assigning other homework during this part of the




term. This is particularly important during the first few weeks as most students will spend significantly more than 3 minutes preparing each speech. As students become more familiar with the unified analysis structure and develop a larger base of support-ing examples, the time required to prepare each speech decreases. During the final 2 weeks of practice, I recommend that students time the preparation and advise students to prepare additional speeches beyond those required until outlines are consistently completed within the 3-minute time limit.

Quotation Prompts. Prompts are usually selected from the random quotations database at quotationspage.com, with care taken to ensure that chosen quotations meet Sell-now’s (1991) guidelines for effectiveness. Additionally, a significant number of the quotations relate to professional success or come from famous business leaders and entrepreneurs, further linking the impromptu gauntlet to their future business careers. For efficiency, all practice groups in the class receive the same set of quotation prompts, but each speaker in a group has a unique set of quotations to speak from. With practice groups of three (and a few groups of four when the class number is unevenly divisible by three), this necessitates 24 unique quotation prompts for each practice week.

Video Self-Analysis. Quigley and Nyquist (1992) have documented the benefits of using student speech videos for review and self-critique, including (a) the opportunity to become the observer, (b) the opportunity to receive feedback simultaneously as one speaks, (c) the opportunity to identify or emphasize particular skills, and (d) the oppor-tunity to compare multiple performances. It has always been my practice to record student speech performances in class and require that students write a brief self-eval-uation essay after viewing their performance.

Consistent with the experience of McCallum and Dickerson (1985), students found video self-evaluation to be so helpful that they overwhelmingly recommended the practice be completed multiple times during the semester in their groups. Based on this feedback, I now require that students video record one practice impromptu speech in Week 2 and another in Week 5. After watching each video, students prepare a brief self-evaluation memo that outlines their strengths and weaknesses in terms of delivery, organization, and content. This minor addition to the teaching strategy has signifi-cantly boosted the overall quality of the final in-class impromptu speeches. Furthermore, it provides the students with tangible evidence of the impact the practice sessions have on speaking skill.

Deliverables. On the final class day of each week in which practice impromptu speeches are due, each student turns in six notecard outlines and the brief written feedback received on each speech from other group members. In my experience, the require-ment that students submit the feedback in addition to the notecard outlines reduces the likelihood that students will turn in outlines that they prepared but failed to deliver to an audience. I have found that students provide better feedback when given examples of what good feedback looks like. During each class period in which practice outlines



Yale 289

are due, I provide an opportunity for one or two volunteers to select an outline and deliver it to the class. After each speech, I provide an oral critique to the speaker as a model of good feedback and so the students can see the things they should look for when evaluating each other, including fit of the interpretation to the quotation, appro-priateness of main points, quality of examples, and aspects of physical and verbal delivery.

Grading. I have done my best to streamline the grading practices for maximum effi-ciency for the instructor and maximum benefit for the students. To reduce anxiety as students are first learning to use the unified analysis structure, students receive full credit for completed practice outlines during the first 2 weeks. As an instructor, I spend 1 to 2 minutes looking over each student’s notecard submissions each week, looking for mistakes in the implementation of unified analysis or other areas where the student could benefit from additional guidance. Based on the issues identified on all student outlines, I send out an email to the entire class each week that summarizes the strengths of the submitted outlines and provides guidance for overcoming observed problems or weaknesses. This strategy allows the instructor to provide specific examples of weak-ness that every student can learn from without necessitating individual feedback for each student. It also allows the instructor to efficiently communicate feedback to the group without becoming overburdened by the grading demands of an assignment with so many individual deliverables.

After the first 2 weeks, students begin receiving individual grades based on the cor-respondence of their submitted outlines to the unified analysis structure. Primarily, I am concerned that each outline has a clear interpretation, argument-based main points, and four supporting examples. Weekly feedback email messages are still sent to the entire class each week, but individualized feedback is not provided aside from a score on the six outlines as a unit unless a student’s work suggests a fundamental misunder-standing of the assignment requirements. Of course, students with questions about their outlines are free to request feedback about their scores.

The self-evaluation memos in Weeks 2 and 5 are graded on a pass/fail basis; if stu-dents complete the memo, responding to each of the required elements of analysis, they receive full credit for the assignment. Of course, standard policies about gram-mar, spelling, and structure apply as they would to any written assignment.

As a unit, the impromptu speaking activities (practice impromptu speeches, self-evaluation memos, and in-class impromptu speech) account for 35% of the total course grade in the business communication class. However an instructor chooses to weight these items, it is important to provide sufficient grade-based motivation for students to take the practice speeches seriously—if they do not, the in-class impromptu speech will be an embarassing disaster.

Exercise Debriefing

Effort is made to connect the outcomes of the impromptu gauntlet to students’ profes-sional and educational goals. At the beginning of the first class period after the in-class




speeches have been completed, I conduct a debriefing session with students. During this discussion, students provide a reaction to the activity and explain the things they learned and the skills they developed during the exercise. Students are also given an opportunity to discuss how the skills honed through impromptu speaking relate to various types of speaking they might do in the professional world. This debriefing helps students connect the activity to their professional goals and aspirations.

Since the impromptu gauntlet occurs during the first third of the semester, students have the opportunity to further practice skills developed through the activity with the remaining class assignments. The written persuasive message and formal report assignments reinforce the unified analysis argument structure, and the final presenta-tion affords students the opportunity to use both unified analysis and to demonstrate their improved verbal and nonverbal delivery. More recently, other faculty members in the College of Business have begun requiring that students use unified analysis in courses that appear later in the students’ plan of study as the basic structure for both writing and presentation assignments, further reinforcing its utility.

Results

Student Evaluations of the Impromptu Gauntlet

Course and instructor evaluation surveys are completed by students during class time in the final 2 weeks of the term and are proctored by a university staff member, not the professor, so they are perhaps the best forum for measuring students’ true feelings about the course and assignments. Reactions to the impromptu gauntlet assignment have been overwhelmingly positive. Four quantitative questions from the evaluation surveys seem most likely to contain student reactions to the impromptu gauntlet activ-ity. These questions and scores are provided from the past four semesters where stu-dents have experienced the impromptu gauntlet activity exactly as explained in this article (N = 83). Scores range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. “Provides opportunities to practice/apply newly acquired skills and knowledge,” M = 4.83, range = 3 to 5. “This course covers topics that are (will be) useful to me in my career,” M = 4.65, range = 3 to 5. “This course is a valuable part of my overall business education,” M = 4.84, range = 3 to 5. “In relation to the value gained from this course, the time and effort required were reasonable,” M = 4.66, range = 3 to 5. Notably, from these four questions, not a single student indicated disagreement with any of the items, and more than 96% of students scored each of these items with a 4 or a 5, indicating agreement or strong agreement.

Open-ended feedback has also been strongly supportive of the impromptu gauntlet activity. Over the past two semesters (N = 42), students were asked to respond to the questions, “What were the 2-3 most useful things about this course?” and “What 2-3 things should the professor consider changing next time it is taught?” On the first open-ended question, 69% of students explicitly mentioned the impromptu gauntlet assignment as one of the most useful aspects of the class. Representative comments about the impact of the activity include the following: “It changed the way that I think—now everything is some sort of claim followed by supporting examples,” “I



Yale 291

have used unified analysis in written assignments in other classes very successfully,” “Practicing over and over really helped me to grow more confident in my speech abili-ties,” “Learning how to interpret information quickly and accurately . . . helped me develop a way to organize my thought process when getting ready for a presentation,” “The way we structured the speeches really influenced the way I think and prepare essays for other classes,” and “The practice in speaking and preparing impromptu speeches [was] very helpful for lowering my stress.”

In terms of changes recommended by students, no students have recommended ending the activity completely. Although several students indicated that they were “dreading” the assignment, all agreed that the benefits far outweighed the initial dis-comfort and anxiety they experienced. Perhaps the most frequent suggestion made by students is related to the composition of the practice groups. Several students (N = 6) have expressed a desire to change groups halfway through the semester so that they can get feedback from different students who might provide fresh insight into their deficiencies. This will likely be a modification that I will implement in future itera-tions of the activity.

Instructor Observations

Once students understand the “formula” for a quotation-based impromptu speech, they quickly realize that the unified analysis structure can be used in almost any spoken or written communication scenario. Throughout the term, students have learned and repeatedly practiced implementing the structure enough that it typically becomes their default structure for responding to any informative or persuasive communication exi-gency. Student feedback consistently contains narratives about how the impromptu speaking experience has drastically improved their self-efficacy and actual perfor-mance in speaking opportunities outside the business communication course. Students report that their ability to write in a focused and concise manner has also improved as a result of the impromptu exercises. The repetition of the unified analysis structure provides the students with an effective approach for virtually any persuasive or infor-mative communication task: start with a thesis, identify supporting arguments, and support the arguments with evidence and examples.

The frequency with which students practice developing coherent arguments and the speed at which they must construct them forces students to internalize an effective argument structure in a way that is unusual in a more traditionally structured course. Students recognize the flexibility and the utility of unified analysis, and many have reported numerous situations outside the class where they have successfully used the organization pattern, including job interviews, application essays, consulting reports, academic and professional presentations, and even the Graduate Record Examination analytical writing section.

Reduction of Communication Anxiety

Finn, Sawyer, and Schrodt (2009) found that the addition of just three extra speaking opportunities in a basic speech class significantly reduced public speaking state




anxiety in students with high levels of communication apprehension. As the impromptu gauntlet process includes three common methods of communication anxiety reduc-tion: systematic desensitization, skills training, and performance feedback (Bodie, 2009), it is not surprising that the exercise significantly reduces student communica-tion anxiety.

Over four semesters, students (N = 88) completed the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24; Levine & McCroskey, 1990) and the Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA; Richmond & McCroskey, 1992) during the first week of the term (Time 1) and again after the completion of the impromptu gauntlet activity (Time 2). The PRCA-24 is a widely used 24-item measure of communication apprehension, with full scale scores that range from 24 to 120. The PRPSA is a 34-item measure of public speaking anxiety, with full scale scores that range from 34 to 170.

Paired-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether or not the impromptu gauntlet activity had an effect on communication anxiety. Results revealed a signifi-cant difference in the expected direction for the PRCA-24 public speaking subscale at Time 1 (M = 20.33, SD = 3.17) and Time 2 (M = 18.28, SD = 4.36), t(87) = 5.49, p < .001, d = .54; for the full PRCA-24 scale at Time 1 (M = 63.90, SD = 12.29) and Time 2 (M = 60.53, SD = 11.65), t(87) = 4.74, p < .001, d = .28; and for the PRPSA scale at Time 1 (M = 105.89, SD = 14.33) and Time 2 (M = 94.98, SD = 17.04), t(87) = 8.00, p < .001, d = .69. This large effect size of the impromptu gauntlet intervention on public speaking anxiety suggests that the exercise is very effective at anxiety reduction.

Anecdotally, dozens of students who self-identified as highly apprehensive com-municators at the beginning of the semester reported that the continued exposure to speaking situations helped them develop a level of comfort with speaking that they believed was unattainable. Furthermore, many students who were highly anxious at the beginning of the semester reported only mild symptoms for the in-class impromptu speaking activity, despite the fact that the audience was more than 10 times as large as the practice group.

Overall student response to this impromptu-based experiential learning strategy in the business communication course has been overwhelmingly positive, as evidenced by open-ended feedback on end-of-semester course and instructor evaluations. One student commented,

Before I took this class, I thought I was a pretty good speaker. Through the impromptu group speeches, I realized that I was actually pretty mediocre. The constant practice speaking made a huge difference in my overall ability to effectively deliver a well-organized presentation.

In relation to the video self-analysis component of the class, students reported “breathtaking,” “incredible,” and “transformative” differences between their perfor-mances in Week 2, Week 5, and the in-class impromptu speech. Being able to clearly see the difference in their individual capabilities as speakers makes the value added from the business communication course plainly obvious.



Yale 293

Ultimately, I believe that this method of teaching communication skills produces vastly superior results compared with the majority of approaches that provide only a few speaking experiences. The often dramatic differences between student self-effi-cacy and skill with oral communication from the beginning of the term to the end helps students find clear value in the educational experience. Furthermore, the expertise students develop with unified analysis provides a facility with crafting cogent argu-ments that is uncommon in undergraduates and graduate students alike.

Additional Resources

Sample videos of impromptu student speeches, a PowerPoint quotation panel template with countdown timer, a semester of quotation prompts, practice session audience feedback forms, and a sample impromptu speech grading rubric are available at http://www.robertyale.com/gauntlet.

Appendix

Impromptu Speech Assignment

Assignment Overview. For this assignment, you will receive a set of three quotations. After selecting a quotation, you will provide an interpretation of the quotation, decide whether or not you agree with the idea expressed in the interpretation, and present a speech designed to convince an audience why they should agree or disagree with the interpretation. You will have approximately 3 minutes to prepare your speech. This assignment will give you valuable experience speaking with limited time for preparation.

For support, you should primarily use stories and anecdotes. This will help you develop your ability to find and cultivate examples for use in presentations. Some pos-sible sources of examples for use in this speech include personal stories, movies, plays, books, biographies, current and historical events, theories, laws, poetry, philosophy, song lyrics, and sports.

Time Limit. 5:00 to 5:30 minutes: If the speech does not fall within the time window, you will be penalized. You should practice impromptu speaking in your practice group with someone giving you time signals to get used to paying attention to your time allocation.

Speech Organization. The unified analysis structure should be used as the organiza-tional pattern for the presentation. Your interpretation and statement of agreement serve as the thesis for the speech, which should be supported with two main points phrased as arguments. Each main point argument should be supported by two examples.

Notes. During the 3-minute preparation time, you may outline your speech on one side of a 3-inch × 5-inch notecard. Take care not to rely too much on the notecard during the presentation such that it becomes distracting to the audience.




Author’s Note

This study was considered exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Dallas.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Forensic Association. (2009). AFA-NIET description of events. Retrieved from http://dworth.web.rice.edu/eventdescriptions-new09-10.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2013). 2013 Business accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/standards/2013-busi-ness/

Balassi, E. C. (1973). Changing concepts in business communications. Journal of Business Communication, 10(4), 25-32. doi:10.1177/002194367301000404

Billings, A. C., & Billings, A. C. (2000). Pedagogical and practical applications of coaching a limited preparation event. The Rostrum, 76(1), 31, 38, 67.

Bodie, G. D. (2009). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59, 70-105. doi:10.1080/03634520903443849

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Occupational outlook handbook, 2012-13. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/

Bytwerk, R. L. (1985). Impromptu speaking exercises. Communication Education, 34, 148-149.DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree apprais-

als be improved? The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139. doi:10.5465/ame.2000.2909845

Dowling, F. (1957). Teaching impromptu speaking. Speech Teacher, 6, 205.Finn, A. N., Sawyer, C. R., & Schrodt, P. (2009). Examining the effect of exposure

therapy on public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 58, 92-109. doi:10.1080/03634520802450549

Gobrecht, E. A. (1964). A method of teaching impromptu speaking to foreign students. Speech Teacher, 13, 288-292.

Gray, F. E. (2010). Specific oral communication skills desired in new accountancy graduates. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 40-67. doi:10.1177/1080569909356350

Hendrix, J. A. (1968). The impromptu classroom speech. Speech Teacher, 17, 334-335.Hoger, B. (2012). Poetry recitation for business students. Business Communication Quarterly,

75, 291-300. doi:10.1177/1080569912451116Laster, N. M., & Russ, T. L. (2010). Looking across the divide: Analyzing cross-disciplinary

approaches for teaching business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 248-264. doi:10.1177/1080569910376474


http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/standards/2013-business/


Yale 295

Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension: A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57, 62-72.

Locker, K., & Kienzler, D. (2012). Business and administrative communication (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Maguire Associates. (2012, March 2). The role of higher education in career development: Employer perceptions. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chroni-cle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers%20Survey.pdf

McCallum, K., & Dickerson, J. A. (1985). Nervous, then confident: Speech stu-dents watch themselves on tape. Business Communication Quarterly, 48(4), 9-11. doi:10.1177/108056998504800404

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. doi:10.1080/03634521003637124

National Forensic Association. (n.d.). NFA rules for individual events. Retrieved from http://www.nationalforensics.org/competition/individual-events

Nelson, B. H., Luse, D. W., & DuFrene, D. D. (1992). The structure and content of the intro-ductory business communication course. Business Communication Quarterly, 55(3), 7-14. doi:10.1177/108056999205500302

Pittenger, K. K. S., Miller, M. C., & Mott, J. (2004). Using real-world standards to enhance students’ presentation skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 327-336. doi:10.1177/1080569904268084

Prentiss, S. (2004). Fairy tales and storytelling: Impromptu speaking with a twist. Communication Teacher, 18(1), 31-32. doi:10.1080/1740462032000142185

Preston, C. T. (1990). Literal and metaphorical advocacy: Differentiating the limited prepara-tion speaking events. Argumentation and Advocacy, 27(1), 14-24.

Quigley, B. L., & Nyquist, J. D. (1992). Using video technology to provide feedback to students in performance courses. Communication Education, 41, 324-334.

Reinsch, N. L., & Shelby, A. N. (1997). What communication abilities do practitioners need? Evidence from MBA students. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 7-29. doi:10.1177/108056999706000401

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s work-place. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 453-465. doi:10.1177/1080569912460400

Russ, T. L. (2009). The status of the business communication course at US colleges and univer-sities. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 395-413. doi:10.1177/1080569909349524

Russell, L., & Munter, M. (2013). Guide to presentations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sellnow, T. L. (1991). Enhancing the educational value of impromptu speaking through the use of effective quotations. The Forensic, 76, 1-5.

Sharp, M. R., & Brumberger, E. R. (2013). Business communication curricula today: Revisiting the top 50 undergraduate business schools. Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 5-27. doi:10.1177/1080569912471187

Thill, J. V., & Bovée, C. L. (2013). Excellence in business communication (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Turnipseed, I. (2005). Understanding limited preparation events. National Forensic Journal, 23(1), 37-44.




Wardrope, W. J. (2002). Department chairs’ perceptions of the importance of business com-munication skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), 60-72. doi:10.1177/1080 56990206500406

Wardrope, W. J., & Bayless, M. L. (1999). Content of the business communication course: An analysis of coverage. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 33-40. doi:10.1177/ 108056999906200404

Author Biography

Robert N. Yale is an assistant professor in the Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business at University of Dallas. He earned a PhD from Purdue University in 2011.



The Impromptu Gauntlet - CiteSeerX

Documents