Skip to main content
Log in

Learning oral presentation skills

A rhetorical analysis with pedagogical and professional implications

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Oral presentation skills are central to physicianphysician communication; however, little is known about how these skills are learned. Rhetoric is a social science which studies communication in terms of context and explores the action of language on knowledge, attitudes, and values. It has not previously been applied to medical discourse. We used rhetorical principles to qualitatively study how students learn oral presentation skills and what professional values are communicated in this process.

DESIGN: Descriptive study.

SETTING: Inpatient general medicine service in a university-affiliated public hospital.

PARTICIPANTS: Twelve third-year medical students during their internal medicine clerkship and 14 teachers.

MEASUREMENTS: One-hundred sixty hours of ethnographic observation, including 73 oral presentations on rounds. Discourse-based interviews of 8 students and 10 teachers. Data were quanlitatively analyzed to uncover recurrent patterns of communication.

MAIN RESULTS: Students and teachers had different perceptions of the purpose of oral presentation, and this was reflected in performance. Students described and conducted the presentation as a rule-based, data-storage activity governed by “order” and “structure.” Teachers approached the presentation as a flexible means of “communication” and a method for “constructing” the details of a case into a diagnostic or therapeutic plan. Although most teachers viewed oral presentations rhetorically (sensitive to context), most feedback that students received was implicit and acontextual, with little guidance provided for determining relevant content. This led to dysfunctional generalizations by students, sometimes resulting in worse communication skills (e.g., comment “be brief” resulted in reading faster rather than editing) and unintended value acquisition (e.g., request for less social history interpreted as social history never relevant).

CONCLUSION: Students learn oral presentation by trial and error rather than through teaching of an explicit rhetorical model. This may delay development of effective communication skills and result in acquisition of unintended professional values. Teaching and learning of oral presentation skills may be improved by emphasizing that context determines content and by making explicit the tacit rules of presentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lipkin M Jr, Putnam SM, Lazare A, eds. The Medical Interview: Clinical Care, Education and Research. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson P. Constructing Cases. Medical Talk, Medical Work: The Liturgy of the Clinic. London: Sage Publications; 1995:107–25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hunter KM. Doctors’ Stories: The narrative Structure of Medical Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pomerantz AM, Ende J, Erickson F. Precepting conversations in a general medicine clinic. In: Morris GH, Chenail R, eds. The Talk of the Clinic: Explorations in the Analysis of Medical and Therapeutic Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates; 1995:151–69.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arluke A. Social control rituals in medicine: the case of death rounds. In: Dingwall R, Heath C, Reid M, Stacey M, eds. Health Care and Health Knowledge. London: Croom Helm; 1977:107–25.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anspach RR. Notes on the sociology of medical discourse: the language of case presentation. J Health Soc Behav. 1988;29:357–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bordage G. Elaborated knowledge: a key to successful diagnostic thinking. Acad Med 1994;69:883–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Donnelly WJ. The language of medical case histories. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:1045–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burack JH, Irby DM, Carline JD, Root RK, Larson EB. Teaching compassion and respect: attending physicians’ responses to problematic behaviors. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:49–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Winsor D. Writing like an engineer: a rhetorical education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yates J. Control Through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bazerman C. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Activity in Science. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pare A. Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In: Spilka R, ed. Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press; 1993:124–40.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hammersly M, Atkinson Paul. Ethnography: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guide to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:357–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Odell L, Goswami D, Herrington A. The discourse-based interview: a procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In: Odell L, Goswami D, eds. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford Press, 1985:221–36.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Caldicott CV. What’s wrong with this medical student today? Dysfluency on inpatient rounds. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:607–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hekelman FP, Blase JR. Excellence in clinical teaching: the core of the mission. Acad Med. 1996;71:738–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lingard L, Haber RJ. Teaching and learning communication in medicine: a rhetorical approach. Acad Med. 1999;74:507–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Perl S. Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication. 1980;31:363–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ende J. Feedback in medical education. JAMA. 1983;250:777–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ende J, Pomerantz A, Erickson F. Preceptors’ strategies for correcting residents in an ambulatory care medicine setting: a qualitative analysis. Acad Med. 1995;70:224–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eskedal GA. Symbolic role modeling and cognitive learning in the training of counselors. J Counsel Psychol. 1975;22:152–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lingard LA, Haber RJ. What do we mean by “relevance”? A clinical and rhetorical definition. Implications for teaching and learning the case presentation format. Acad Med. 1999; 74(suppl):S124–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Konner M. Becoming a Doctor: A Journey of Initiation in Medical School. New York, NY: Penguin; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stein H. American Medicine as Culture. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Novack DH, Suchman AL, Clark W, Epstein RM, Najberg E, Kaplan C, for the Working Group on Promoting Physician Personal Awareness. American Academy on Physician and Patient. Calibrating the physician: personal awareness and effective patient care. JAMA. 1997;278:502–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Giltrow J, Valiquette M. Genres and knowledge: students writing in the disciplines. In: Freedman A, Medway P, eds. Teaching and Learning Genre. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schon DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Freedman A. Do as I say: the relationship between teaching and learning new genres. In: Freedman A, Medway P, eds. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis; 1994:191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Coe RM. An arousing and fulfillment of desires: the rhetoric of genre in the process era-and beyond. In: Freedman A, Medway P, eds. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis; 1994:181–90.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Coe RM. Process, form and substance: a rhetoric for advanced writers. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Haber MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haber, R.J., Lingard, L.A. Learning oral presentation skills. J GEN INTERN MED 16, 308–314 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00233.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00233.x

Key Words

Navigation