Business Communication Quarterly

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 3, 23-40 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/108056990106400303
© 2001 Association for Business Communication

Peer versus Self Assessment of Oral Business Presentation Performance

Kim Sydow Campbell

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

David L. Mothersbaugh

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

Charlotte Brammer

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

Timothy Taylor

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

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 Words: Assessment • oral presentations • self assessment • peer assessment


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Business Communication QuarterlyHome page
D. Cyphert
Integrating Communication Across the MBA Curriculum
Business Communication Quarterly, January 1, 2002; 65(3): 81 - 86.
[PDF]