在英語為外國語的學習環境中，教師雖肯定簡報在英語學習中的重要性，但同時表達因較少的語言接觸及過分依賴制式化的教材內容，導致教學上的困難。因此教師多由影音資料提供學生除教科書以外更為豐富的語言接觸。而TED網站多元的內容、便利的取得管道，使TED演講成為教師熱門選擇。但網路資源使用的選擇多為教師個人偏好，或建基於個人教學經驗，缺乏研究基礎。除此之外，現行研究中，探討TED演講多為內容分析，並未就其簡報技巧做深入討論。
本研究目的旨為探討簡報技巧使用中，專業講者使用技巧與口語訓練教科書內所提供之開頭簡報技巧（rhetorical technique）差異比較；並採用Andeweg和De Jong於2004年提出的「開場白模型」（exordial model）為分析架構。該模型將開頭簡報技巧分為三大主要功能：吸引觀眾注意、建立與群眾之情感連結、給予主題背景知識三類；每類型功能中各有數種技巧以達該目的。研究中共採用四本臺灣常用英語口語訓練教科書及五十一篇TED開頭，分析其文本內容及TED講者使用的開頭簡報技巧，並比較兩者使用的開頭簡報技巧類型、頻率，及使用比例。
研究指出，教科書與TED講者於三類型功能技巧分別有其相同及相異之處：兩資料來源皆強調吸引觀眾注意和給予背景知識為演講開頭的主要目的、且皆較少使用與群眾建立情感連結的簡報開頭技巧；但教科書與TED演講會使用不同開頭簡報技巧達到吸引觀眾注意和給予知識背景的相同目的。如教科書偏好以提及相關人事時地，而TED講者則較常使用視覺或聽覺輔助和幽默等演講開頭技巧以吸引觀眾。本研究結果可幫助教師更有系統了解教科書及真實語料的異同，並更有效地使用於英語口語訓練教學。

English teachers in EFL context have often regarded oral presentations skills important but difficult to teach (Bruner, Sinwongsuwat & Radic-Bojanic, 2014; Jahan & Jahan, 2013; Vederber, Verderber & Sellnow, 2012). Although many EFL teachers try to bring in online resources to supplement their teaching, to date, little has been done to examine whether oral presentations delivered in real life contexts match the way they are taught in textbooks.
The present study zooms in on the types of rhetorical techniques—strategies utilized by speakers to grab attention, build rapport, and help audience understand—found in presentations and examined whether and to what extent do techniques employed by expert presenters correspond to those taught in presentation textbooks. Introductions of 51 talks from the TED conference website and four commonly-used ESL/EFL textbooks were compiled for this study. Drawing on Andeweg and De Jong’s (2004) exordial model of introductions, the researchers analyzed the types and frequency of different rhetorical techniques taught in the selected textbooks and used in authentic presentations.
The findings illustrate similar trend of aiming to help audience understand and gain the attention between the techniques used and taught. But the two data sources present discrepant use of rhetorical techniques to achieve the two purposes. The findings of the present study suggested that researchers and practitioners can transform the learning and instruction of oral presentation skills by systematically examine and evaluate authentic language materials available online.

TABLE OF CONETENTS
摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE vi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Research Purposes 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Analyses of Oral Presentations 4
2.1.1 Moves and structure. 4
2.1.2 Elements of an effective presentation- the interaction. 6
2.1.3 Rhetorical techniques: the Exordial Model. 8
2.2 The Teaching of Oral Presentations 12
2.2.1 The challenges of teaching oral presentations. 12
2.2.2 The growing influence of spoken corpora in ELT. 14
2.2.3 The discrepancies between instructional materials and authentic language uses. 14
2.2.4 The present study. 17
Chapter 3 Method 19
3.1 Material Compilation 19
3.1.1 The TED corpus. 20
3.1.2 The textbooks. 21
3.2 Developing a Coding Scheme: The Analytical Framework 22
3.3 Data Analysis 24
3.4 Coding Consistency 25
Chapter 4 Result 26
4.1 The New Analytical Model 26
4.1.1 Results from Phase 1: Developing categories and a coding scheme. 26
4.1.2 Results from Phase 2: validating the model. 42
4.1.3 Phase 3: finalizing the analytical model. 44
4.2 Rhetorical Techniques Taught in Textbooks 45
4.2.1 The instruction of the attentive technique in textbooks. 45
4.2.2 The instruction of the sympathetic technique in textbooks. 46
4.2.3 The instruction of the understanding technique in textbooks. 46
4.2.4 Summary of the textbook analysis. 47
4.3 The Use of Rhetorical Techniques in TED Talks 48
4.3.1 Attentive techniques applied by TED speakers. 48
4.3.2 Sympathetic techniques applied by TED speakers. 49
4.3.3 Understanding techniques applied by TED speakers. 49
4.3.4 Summary of the TED talk findings. 50
4.4 Comparison between the RTs in Textbooks and TED Talks 51
4.4.1 Comparison of the use of attentive techniques. 51
4.4.2 Comparison of the use of sympathetic techniques. 52
4.4.3 Comparison of the use of understanding techniques. 53
4.4.4 Summary of the comparisons. 55
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 57
5.1 Summary of the Findings 57
5.2 Discussion of the Findings 58
5.2.1 Engineering talks v.s. presentations for general purposes. 59
5.2.2 Textbook instruction v.s. authentic language collection. 64
5.3 Implications 70
5.4 Conclusion. 72
Reference 74
APPENDIX 81

Afful, J. B. A. (2006). Introductions in examination essays: The case of two undergraduate
courses. Across the Disciplines, 3. Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/afful2006.cfm
Alavi, S., & Rajabpoor, A. (2015). Analyzing Idioms and Their Frequency in Three
Advanced ILI Textbooks: A Corpus-Based Study. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 170.
Andeweg, B. A., de Jong, J. C., & Hoeken, H. (1998). “May I have your attention?”
Exordial techniques in informative oral presentations. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(3), 271-284.
Barbieri, F., & Eckhardt, S. E. (2007). Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused
instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 319-346.
Bell, N. D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom.
Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 241-258.
Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2008). The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner
corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 33-52.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 199-208.
Bruner, D. A., Sinwongsuwat, K., & Radic-Bojanic, B. (2014). EFL oral communication
teaching practices: A close look at university teachers and A2 students’ perspectives in Thailand and a critical eye from Serbia. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 11.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring Spoken English (Vol. 2). Cambridge
University Press.
Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language
learning & technology, 9(2), 111-125.
Chang, Y., & Huang, H.-T. (2015). Exploring TED talks as pedagogical resources for oral
presentations: A corpus-based move analysis. English Teaching & Learning, 39(4), 29-62.
Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That’s it for today”: Academic lecture closings and the impact of class
size. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 234-248.
Comfort, J. (1995). Effective Presentations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conrad, S. M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language
teachers. System, 27(1), 1-18.
Donovan, J. (2013). How to Deliver a TED Talk: Secrets of the World's Most Inspiring
Presentations. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dubois, B. L. (1981). Nontechnical arguments in biomedical speeches. Perspectives in
biology and medicine, 24(3), 399-410.
Evans, S. (2013). “Just wanna give you guys a bit of an update”: Insider perspectives on
business presentations in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 195-207.
Fakhri, A. (2004). Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions.Journal of
Pragmatics, 36(6), 1119-1138.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic Listening/Speaking Tasks for ESL Students:
Problems, Suggestions, and Implications*. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297-320.
Gan, Z. (2013). Understanding English speaking difficulties: an investigation of two
Chinese populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3), 231-248.
Godó, Á. M. (2012). Are you with me? A Metadiscursive Analysis of Interactive Strategies
in College Students' Course Presentations. International Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 55-78.
Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for?. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149-161.
Hennebry, M., Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). Differing perspectives of non-native speaker
students’ linguistic experiences on higher degree courses.Oxford Review of Education, 38(2), 209-230.
Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A
comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for specific purposes, 28(4), 240-250.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hsieh, S. M. (2006). Problems in Preparing for the English Impromptu Speech Contest The
Case of Yuanpei Institute of Science and Technology in Taiwan. RELC Journal, 37(2), 216-235.
Huang, H. T., & Chang, Y. J. (2015). Applying Genre-based and L2 Pragmatic Instruction to
Teaching Oral Presentations on the Web. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 5(4), 66-82.
Jahan, A., & Jahan, N. (2013). Teaching Presentation Skills to Tertiary Students in
Bangladesh. Stamford Journal of English, 4, 41-61.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Karia, A. (2013). How to deliver a great TED talk. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international
graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 479-489.
Lam, P. W. (2010). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well.
Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 260-281.
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving
from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora.English for specific purposes, 25(1), 56-75.
Leigh, A. (2008). The Charisma Effect: How to Make a Powerful and Lasting Impression.
Harlow: Prentice Hall Life.
McCarthy, M., & O'Keeffe, A. (2004). 2. Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 26-43.
Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL
graduate program. Tesol Quarterly, 279-310.
Politi, P. (2009). One-sided laughter in academic presentations: a small-scale investigation.
Discourse Studies, 11(5), 561-584.
Powell, M. (2011). Dynamic presentations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Powell, M. (2011). Presenting in English: How to Give Successful Presentations. Heinle:
Cengage Learning.
Rahman, M. M., Thang, S. M., Aziz, M. S. A., & Abdul Razak, N. (2009). Developing an
ESP speaking course framework for the foreign postgraduates in science and technology at national university of Malaysia. The Asian ESP Journal, 5(2), 1-57.
Reershemius, G. (2012). Research cultures and the pragmatic functions of humor in academic
research presentations: A corpus-assisted analysis. Journal of pragmatics, 44(6), 863-875.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation
introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70.
Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic
speech. TESOL quarterly, 419-441.
Singh, M. K. M. (2013). Academic speaking practices of international graduate students in a
higher education institution in Malaysia: challenges and overcoming strategies. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(7), 1-14.
Spiro, R. J. Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive Flexibility
Theory: Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains (Technical Report No. 441). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED302821.pdf
Swales, John M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, John M. (2004). Research genres: Explanations and applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2009). When there is no perfect text: Approaches to the EAP practitioner's
dilemma. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 5-13.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sznajder, H. S. (2010). A corpus-based evaluation of metaphors in a business English
textbook. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 30-42.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analysing
lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
Van De Mieroop, D., De Jong, J., & Andeweg, B. (2008). I want to talk about... A rhetorical
analysis of the introductions of 40 speeches about engineering. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 186-210.
Verderber, R., Verderber, K., & Sellnow, D. (2012). The Challenge of Effective Speaking.
Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Williams, E. J. (2008). Presentations in English: Find Your Voice as a Presenter. Oxford:
Hueber.
Xu, Z. (2016). Laughing Matters: Humor Strategies in Public Speaking. Asian Social
Science, 12(1), 117.
Yakhontova, T. (2001). Textbooks, contexts, and learners. English for specific purposes, 20,
397-415.
Yeh, H., & Yang, S. (2003) Listen to their voices: expectations and experiences of Asian
Graduate students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 21.
Yeo, J. Y., & Tinh, S. H. (2012). Questions and interactivity in Arts and Science lecture
introductions. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 87-106.
Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2
academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31-48.
Yoon, H., & Jo, J. W. (2014). Direct and indirect access to corpora: An exploratory case study
comparing students’ error correction and learning strategy use in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 96-117.
Zarifi, A., & Mukundan, J. (2012). Phrasal verbs in Malaysian ESL textbooks.English
Language Teaching, 5(5), 9-18.
Zareva, A. (2009a). Lexical composition of effective L1 and L2 students' academic
presentations. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 91-110.
Zareva, A. (2009b). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance
adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 55-68.
Zareva, A. (2009c). Student academic presentations: The processing side of interactiveness.
English Text Construction, 2(2), 265-288.
Zareva, A. (2011). ‘And so that was it’: Linking Adverbials in Student Academic
Presentations. RELC Journal, 42(1), 5-15.
Zhang, Y. W., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2010). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of
Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library, 1-12.