Due to space limitations, further detailed information about subjects and instruments is provided in this complementary webpage regarding points 4.1 (subjects), 4.2 (instruments) and the appendices

Subjects (continuation of section 4.1 in the article)

All students were asked to complete an online test in order to establish their level of proficiency in the English language (Cambridge Assessment, https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/es/test-your-english/‌general-english/).

As Table 1 summarises, in the experimental group, there were 54 students with levels of English ranging from A2 (54%) to B1 (26%) and B2 (15%), and C1 (5%), according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). The control group consisted of 110 students in two different groups, and their levels of English were A1 (3.6%), A2 (56.3%), B1 (31%), B2 (6.4%), C1 (1.8%) and C2 (0.9%). This means that most students had a lower-intermediate level of English (A2-B1) and all class activities needed to be adapted to this level. The majority of them were local students except for 10 of the members of the experimental group, who were exchange students, mostly participating in a European Erasmus programme, and came from Germany, The Netherlands and Italy.

Of the 54 students that made up the experimental group, 42 (75%) answered the pre-test and 38 (67.8%) answered the post-test. In the control group, all 110 students (100%) answered the pre-test, although only 80 (72.7%) answered the post-test. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the subjects.

As regards the activities implemented, the experimental group carried out a product pitch whereas the control group created a traditional business presentation. According to the pedagogical model adopted, the product pitch is based on a multimodal approach, whereas the business presentation is focused almost exclusively on verbal discourse (with non-verbal resources scarcely mentioned). Moreover, the assessment activity for the business presentation was the sole responsibility of the teacher and was carried out face to face, whereas the product pitch had to be recorded in order to be assessed by both the teacher and the rest of the students (peers).

Table 1. Comparative view of implementation-related aspects of the experimental and control groups

Instruments (continuation of section 4.2 in the article)

All the instruments used for the implementation were agreed on by both authors of this paper, as well as with the other three teachers of the Business English subject. They were intended to analyse, in every case, the relevance of the aspects of a presentation related to the modes used: language (register and use of business discourse and terminology), prosodic features (intonation, pitch or stress and pauses), embodied modes (gestures, body posture, facial expression, and eye rapport, that is, looking at the audience or interlocutors) and physical appearance. The reason for somehow artificially dividing the rubric into what seem to be “watertight” modes is merely for practical and pedagogical purposes, that is, to make analysis and data presentation/explanation easier. Although some preeminence has been given to language in this analysis because of the primary objectives of the ESP course, the aim was to show students how meaning is created by harmoniously combining complementary modes that are considered “all equal, potentially, in their capacity to contribute meaning to a complex semiotic entity, a text or text-like entity” (Kress, 2011: 242), as well as to evaluate them accordingly.

The pre- and post-activity tests (see Appendix A below) were created as Google Forms, which made it easier to collect and analyse the answers. By means of Likert scales (5 maximum relevance and 1 minimum relevance), students were asked about their perception of the relevance of the semiotic resources studied (see Table 5 in the main text). These tests were administered to both the control group (referring to the genre of presentations) and the experimental group (referring to the genre of PPs). In the pre-test for the control group, the students’ rating was based on the previous knowledge they had about presentations. In the post-test, students in the control group were asked about the relevance of the several modes at interplay in business presentations after the input they had received on this genre. In the experimental group they were asked the same questions about product pitches (in parenthesis in Appendix A), as a specific type of presentation. By contrasting the pre- and the post-activity tests, we were able to compare the information about students’ multimodal awareness after the traditional instruction on business presentations (control group) and after doing the activity following the pedagogical model explained above (RQ2) (experimental group). A final open question asked students in the experimental group about the relevance of learning the genre of product pitches in the Business English subject.

The second instrument used was the “all-mode-inclusive” rubric (see Appendix B below). This rubric was crucial for the approach, as it had to be used by students not only as a way to do peer-assessment, but also for self-awareness. With the rubric, students had the opportunity to rate their classmates according to the expected goals of the task, as all the modes involved in a PP and dealt with during deconstruction (language, posture, gestures, facial expression, eye rapport and pauses, intonation and stress) were presented in an integrated but detailed fashion for the sake of clarity and reflection. In this way, they could also critically reflect on their own performance and become increasingly aware of their own prospective assessment. The language in the tests and in the rubrics was adapted, as the participants were Business Administration students with no specific background knowledge in linguistics terminology and with an overall A2-B1 level of English. Therefore, only the terms used to explain the several modes in class were employed, so that the resulting rubric was user-friendly and comprehensive, that is, convenient for the assessment stage and adequate as regards complexity.

Appendix A

PRE-ACTIVITY TEST

Rating 1: Not important at all; 5: Very important

In a business presentation, how important are the following elements?

• • • • polite language
      • physical appearance
      • business discourse and terminology
      • right tone of voice
      • emphasis on key words or important parts of speech
      • facial expression
      • body posture
      • gaze (looking at the audience or interlocutors)
      • other (please describe)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWERS

POST-ACTIVITY TEST

Rating 1: Not important at all; 5: Very important

1. After what you have learned in this unit, how important are the following elements in a business presentation (such as the product pitch)?

• • • • polite language
      • physical appearance
      • business discourse and terminology
      • right tone of voice
      • emphasis on key words or important parts of speech
      • facial expression
      • body posture
      • gaze (looking at the audience or interlocutors)
      • other (please describe)

2. Did you like the activity (about Product Pitches)?

Why? Why not?

3. Did the knowledge acquired in other subjects help you to do this activity?

Yes

No

Other:

4. How?
5. Did you have any previous knowledge about business sales or product promotion from work/work placement experience?

Yes

No

Other:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWERS

Appendix B

Rubric for product pitches

NAME OF YOUR GROUP:

PRODUCT PITCH PRODUCT:

PRODUCT PITCH AUTHORS:

PLEASE PROVIDE A VALUE BETWEEN 1 (VERY LOW) AND 5 (VERY HIGH) FOR EACH OF THESE ITEMS