The evaluation of informative speeches №3,4

Last week we had a zoom session where we watched performances of two speakers. This time Yanina Natasha and Podluzhnyak Nastya gave public speeches. Our task is to evaluate their work with the help of the table. Firstly, I want to start with Nastya’s performance.

1. Introduction: ( 10 points)

·        What technique(s) was used in the introduction?

·        Nastya asked a rhetorical question and it certainly caught our attention.

·        Any link-element?

·        I suppose that the link-element was that preparing a speech was also a set of certain stages of its design, structuring, presentation.

·        Was the thesis statement given?

·        The main thesis statement was that efficacy of speech depended mainly from a good preparation.

·        How effective was the introduction?

·        It  was effective, it made listeners of her speech instantly interested in the topic.

Very effective 10, 9, 8

Average 7, 6, 5

Not effective 4, 3, 2, 1

Max 10 pts ____9_____

2. Body:  (10 points)

·        How well structured was the information presented?

·        I can say that the speech was well-structured, Nastya thought carefully how her speech should look like.

Highly organized 10, 9, 8

Some organized 7, 6, 5, 4

None 3, 2, 1

·        What organizational structure was used in the body of the speech?

·        Outlining and organizational patterns were used.

·        How understandable was the information (was it clearly explained)?

·        All the information was clear.

Very good 10, 9, 8

Had some problems 7, 6, 5, 4

Had major problems 3, 2, 1

·        Quality of point-support (appropriateness, completeness, variety)

·        I guess the point-support that Nastya provided was appropriate, but I did not see variety of them.

Lots of 10, 9, 8

Some 7, 6, 5, 4

Almost no 3, 2, 1

·        Use of facts, illustrations, examples, stories.

·        I wanted more examples and illustrations.

Lots of 10, 9, 8

Some 7, 6, 5

None 4, 3, 2, 1

·        Was it coherent?

·        To be honest, I think that the speech could have been more coherent.

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Max 10 pts ____8_____

3. Conclusion: (10 points)

·        What technique(s) was used in the conclusion?

·        Nastya used a quote that expressed her main message.

·        Were all the steps followed (summary, action, emotional appeal?)

·        Yes, all the steps were followed. The speaker summarized everything she said before.

·        How effective was the conclusion?

Very effective 10, 9, 8	Average 7, 6, 5		Not effective 4, 3, 2, 1	Max 10 pts _____10____
		Total points:  30	Given points: 27

The strength of the speech: She used techniques in the introduction and conclusion of her speech. Everything was clear, the speech was well-structured.

The weakness of the speech: It was not coherent enough, there were no a lot of examples.

Now I would like to evaluate Natasha’s performance.

1. Introduction: ( 10 points)

·        What technique(s) was used in the introduction?

·        Natasha used such attention-getter as making references. She said many people do not consider themselves creative.

·        Any link-element?

·        I think that the link-element was  that unique ideas come from random connection of thoughts.

·        Was the thesis statement given?

·        The main thesis statement was that everyone can be creative.

·        How effective was the introduction?

·        It  was effective and a little bit inspiring.

Very effective 10, 9, 8

Average 7, 6, 5

Not effective 4, 3, 2, 1

Max 10 pts ____9_____

2. Body:  (10 points)

·        How well structured was the information presented?

·        the speech was well-structured, Natasha planned her speech very well.

Highly organized 10, 9, 8

Some organized 7, 6, 5, 4

None 3, 2, 1

·        What organizational structure was used in the body of the speech?

·        Outlining and organizational patterns were used. The problem-solution pattern of organization was also used.

·        How understandable was the information (was it clearly explained)?

·        Everything was explained in understandable way.

Very good 10, 9, 8

Had some problems 7, 6, 5, 4

Had major problems 3, 2, 1

·        Quality of point-support (appropriateness, completeness, variety)

·        the point-support was appropriate and complete.

Lots of 10, 9, 8

Some 7, 6, 5, 4

Almost no 3, 2, 1

·        Use of facts, illustrations, examples, stories.

·        I liked examples, they helped me understand better the material.

Lots of 10, 9, 8

Some 7, 6, 5

None 4, 3, 2, 1

·        Was it coherent?

·        Yes, it was. Natasha stated what she was going to talk about. Every part of her speech came after another part in a logical way.

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Max 10 pts_     ___9_____

3. Conclusion: (10 points)

·        What technique(s) was used in the conclusion?

·        I am not sure about it. Maybe it was a piece of advice that Natasha gave.

·        Were all the steps followed (summary, action, emotional appeal?)

·        I suppose Natasha summarized the content of her speech in the conclusion.

·        How effective was the conclusion?

Very effective 10, 9, 8	Average 7, 6, 5		Not effective 4, 3, 2, 1	Max 10 pts _____8____
		Total points:  30	Given points: 26

The strength of the speech: She sounded persuasive and everything she said was clear. Besides, her speech had a good structure.

The weakness of the speech: Maybe she should have used some technique in the conclusion.

All in all, I think both speeches were great. Girls put a lot of effort to prepare speeches, they looked confident. It was evident that they learned their topics very well. Good job!

 How did you like these speeches? Let me know in the comments down below!

Источник: Уроки ораторского мастерства: учебно-методическое пособие / С.П. Хорошилова; Мин-во образования и науки РФ, Новосиб. гос. пед. ун-т. - Новосибирск: Изд-во НГПУ, 2014. - 138с. [с. 82-83]