You are here:

Improving ability in presentations through multivoiced mutual reviewing activity: A dialogic approach to persuasive communication

, , Faculty of Humanities, Ibaraki University, Japan ; , Information Science and Technology Center, Kobe University, Japan ; , College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University, Japan ; , National Institute of Multimedia Education, Japan

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lugano, Switzerland ISBN 978-1-880094-53-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


In this paper, a multivoiced view of presentations is proposed. From the multivoiced perspective of the presentation, the process of presentation is viewed as the process of dialogue between the speaker and the audience (both real and imaginary). Based on the multivoiced view of presentations, a “multivoiced mutual reviewing activity” is proposed as a strategy to improve ability in presenting. Multivoiced mutual reviewing is an activity in which learners mutually review their presentations/ideas not from their own viewpoint but from various viewpoints given by the instructor. A comparative study shows that presentations made by learners who went through multivoiced mutual reviewing activity were given a higher score by the evaluators including the instructors of the classes than the learners who did usual mutual reviewing that required them to review from their own viewpoint.


Suzuki, H., Funaoi, H., Mochizuki, T., Yoshino, S. & Kato, H. (2004). Improving ability in presentations through multivoiced mutual reviewing activity: A dialogic approach to persuasive communication. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3203-3208). Lugano, Switzerland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 16, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bakhtin, M. (1986) "Speech genres and other late essays", ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, trans. V. W. M. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  2. Latour, B. (1987) "Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society", Harvard University Press.
  3. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) "Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities" Cognition and instruction, Vol. 1, pp. 117- 175
  4. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988) "Teaching and practicing thinkin g skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving", RASE Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 53.59
  5. Reddy, M. J. (1979) "The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language", In Metaphor and thought, ed. A. Ortony. Cambridge University press.
  6. Suchman, L. A. (1988) "Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication", Cambridge University Press.
  7. Volosinov, V. (1926) "Discourse in Life and Discourse in Poetry: Questions of Sociological Poetics", In Shukman, A. (eds) Bakhtin School Papers, 1983, pp. 5- 30
  8. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  9. Wertsch, J. V. (1991) "Voice of mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action", Harvard University Press.
  10. Wertsch, J. V. (1998) "Mind as action", Oxford University Press .

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

Also Read

Related Collections