Although oral communication skills are considered key in the academic and professional spheres, there are no data evaluating how university students achieve this competence; there are only a few local studies focusing on minimal samples of students on specific degree courses, or research carried out on other educational stages, such as primary school (Rodero & Rodríguez de Dios, 2021).

The purpose of this study is to diagnose the level of competence of university students in oral communication skills. This has involved analysis of how this competence has been worked on at each stage of their education, what the main challenges that they must face when addressing an audience are, and what their oral competence is.

To this end, a semi-structured survey (closed and open questions) was administered online to 2,400 undergraduate university students, aged between 18 and 25 years, and resident in Spain. From a gender perspective, the sample was balanced (56% were women). Furthermore, it was distributed by areas of knowledge according to the number of students enrolled in each of them: Social and Legal Sciences (46.1%), Health Sciences (19.4%), Engineering and Architecture (17.7%), Arts and Humanities (10.5%) and Sciences (6.3%).

Of the students surveyed, 77.5% state that they have not received training in oral communication in any of the different education stages. Students of Sciences (82%) are the ones who most often claim not to have received any training in public speaking, followed by students of Arts and Humanities, of Health Sciences, and of Engineering and Architecture (80%), while students of Social and Legal Sciences are in last place (74.4%). 

Ninety-three percent of students believe that they should receive training in oral communication at different stages of their educational journey, as they consider that this is a key skill for their career prospects and their professional future (6 out of 7). Specifically, students of Social and Legal Sciences (6.2) are the ones who consider it most important, followed by students of Health Sciences, and of Arts and Humanities (6.1), students of Sciences (6) and students of Engineering and Architecture (5.8).

With respect to the students who have received training in oral communication, the total number of hours taught has been very low: an average of six.

Despite these data, it is curious to note that over half of the students who have received training in public speaking (63%) consider that the know-how acquired has been sufficient; specifically, 74% of Engineering and Architecture students, compared to only 57.5% of Arts and Humanities students. The figures for the remaining areas of knowledge are quite similar: 64% of students in Sciences and Health Sciences and 60% of those in Social Sciences. 

Of all those students who have received training in oral communication for public speaking, 56% received it at secondary school, 34.5% at university, and 22% at primary school. Only on very rare occasions have they acquired it via private courses, via Vocational Education and Training schemes, via other organisations − such as the Church − or on their own account. Usually, they have received it within the framework of a subject, either at secondary school (51%), at university (32%), or at primary school (23%) and, to a lesser extent, in specific courses programmed by the education centre itself, which only represent minimal percentages in all three education stages: 16% at secondary school, 12% at university and 6.5% at school. There are also students who claim to have received it via debating unions (17%) and in Vocational and Educational Training schemes or extracurricular courses (2.7%). This means that barely any specific training in public speaking is given. By type of centre where they have usually received this training, public institutions top the list (68%), followed by private education centres (33%) and, a long way behind, at companies, employment services, and state-subsidised schools. These data may be conditioned, in part, by the fact that most of the students participating in this study attend public universities.

In terms of the type of teacher who normally provides this training, the highest percentage (61%) corresponds to non-specialised teachers of various subjects, while teaching staff specialising in oral communication represent only 23%. According to the students themselves, only 15% of the teachers taught public speaking as a specific subject. Other reference points in the teaching of this subject mentioned by the students are parish priests and other students. 

In general terms, the methodology of the courses received combines theory and practice. Of the training mentioned, 52% has this structure, followed by practical courses (46%) and, a long way behind, by theoretical courses (13%). Students also mention talks, meetings, and oral presentations in subjects.

As for specific aspects of oral communication training, the following are the most worked on, in descending order: rehearsing the content of the speech well; overcoming stage fright; studying body posture and how to move around the presentation space; practising facial and hand gestures; selecting, structuring, and writing the information given in the speech; designing good slides, and controlling the timing of the oral presentation. The students also highlight, although to a lesser extent, training in voice projection, empathy, smiling, and eye contact; improvisation, and appearance (physical appearance and clothing).

In general terms, the students surveyed consider that they have a medium-high level (4.8 out of 7) of competence in oral communication. Students of Health Sciences and of Arts and Humanities are the ones claiming to have the highest level (almost 5), along with students of Engineering and Architecture (4.8), practically equal with those of Social Sciences. Students of Science (4.7) are in last place.

Students report making few presentations per month: an average of two. By areas, significant differences are observed, given that Science students and Engineering and Architecture students make fewer presentations than the rest. In general, the topics that are usually covered in these presentations are academic in nature (81%), followed by professional topics (14%) and, a long way behind, topics related to a hobby or sport. 

The majority of students take oral presentations seriously (5.5 out of 7) and say they prepare for them and draft a presentation script (almost 87%). This is what they claim to do: develop an outline, write a script, and prepare the slides (42%); only write a script and prepare the slides (32.5%); only prepare an outline and the slides (17%), and only design the slides (8%). A marginal percentage claim to improvise entirely.

Some of the students say they rehearse the presentation by presenting the topic aloud, standing and with the script in front of them while they pass the slides (43%); they are followed by those who do the same, but sitting down (22%); those who rehearse at a whisper, sitting down (14%); those who only pass slides aloud, standing (11%); and those who do the same, but sitting down (8%). A tiny percentage (2%) say they do not rehearse at all.

According to the students surveyed, the two fundamental aspects when making a presentation are overcoming stage fright and responding clearly to questions from the audience. These are followed, to a lesser extent but significantly, by the following aspects: rehearsing the content of the speech thoroughly; selecting, structuring, and writing the speech information; knowing how to improvise; knowing what body posture to adopt and how to move around the presentation space; being trained to use one’s voice dynamically and effectively in all its aspects; designing good slides; showing empathy through smiling and eye contact with the audience, and practising facial and hand gestures. The last positions, although also with a high score, are occupied by not exceeding the allocated presentation time and having a good appearance (physical appearance and clothing).

During presentations, the majority of students (75%) have experienced their mind going completely blank, with over half (52%) saying they have found themselves in a complicated situation or embarrassing situation. In addition, around 19% have lost their voice. By areas of knowledge, the three cases present very similar percentages.

When asked about the challenges they face most often, they point to anxiety as the most significant. It is also very important not to speak too quickly, not to forget the content, to answer the audience’s questions clearly, or to know how to improvise. In an intermediate group are aspects such as explaining oneself clearly, gesturing properly and adopting a good body posture, showing empathy and smiling at the audience, or structuring the information well. Designing good slides and having a good appearance are comparatively less important challenges. 

In the survey, students also described the most problematic situations they have experienced during an oral presentation. They highlight, in a very significant way, their minds going blank; changing the words or saying incoherent things; feeling anxious and self-conscious; stuttering or getting tongue-tied; tripping or stumbling; having technical problems with slides; not knowing answers to questions from the audience; the slideshow failing, and being laughed at. 

To measure the anxiety of university students when giving an oral presentation, the Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016) Public Speaking Anxiety Scale was used. It consists of 17 items related to cognition (e.g., going blank), behaviours (e.g., trembling hands), and physiological manifestations of speech anxiety (e.g., sweating and tachycardia). Students rated these items on a seven-point scale, with the lowest value being “A little” and the highest being “A great deal”.

On the general scale, students reported having a medium level of anxiety (4 out of 7). Physiological manifestations were the most common reactions (4.2), while aspects related to cognition and behaviour obtained an average of 4 points. Arts and Humanities students reported the most anxiety problems (4.2), especially physiological reactions, followed by students of Social Sciences (4.1), Science, and Health Sciences (4) and, lastly, of Engineering and Architecture (3.8). 

Often, being able to give an effective oral presentation is perceived as key to a student’s sound performance in academic and work environments and to their effective participation in a democratic society. 

However, this study corroborates that university students do not receive adequate training in oral communication, despite the fact that they believe that it is essential for their education and professional future. The numerous problems they report having during an oral presentation, added to a medium degree of anxiety, highlight the need to act to reinforce this fundamental competence. In particular, that of Engineering and Architecture and Science students should be strengthened to a greater extent, given that they are the ones who have received the least training. 

Therefore, the main conclusion of this study is that oral communication training is failing to make the grade among university students.
 

This study has some limitations. The first is that, although the sample was configured taking into account the total number of students enrolled in each of the areas of knowledge, it cannot be considered statistically representative of the total university population. The second is the low number of questions asked in order to ensure that the survey, which was aimed at a young population and administered online, was short.

BARTHOLOMAY, E. M., & D. D. HOULIHAN (2016): «Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary psychometric data and scale validation», Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 211-215. 

RODERO, E., & I. RODRÍGUEZ-DE-DIOS (2021): «Competencias de comunicación oral en la educación primaria»,  Profesional de la información, 30(6), e300601.