Monday, October 6, 2008
Persuasive Speeche Blog Critiques - Section H
Well, the election issues speeches are underway! Please post your critiques here for Section H class. Be sure that all critiques are detailed and make comment to how well the presenters applied their argument to Monroe's Motivated Sequence, in addition to including the supporting sources neededto provide the necessary evidence. Remember, arguments need logic and evidence every step of the way to be peruasive. Holes in the argument ( lack of evidence) need to be addressed in this critique.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Sharien’s topic was on Kosovo. Throughout the entire speech she had a loud, crisp, clear voice. Her appearance was professional and she didn’t seem intimidated by the camera. Her attention getter was great. The presentation was organized and detailed; it followed the steps and format of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence. She had consistent citing but no credibility in the beginning. The um’s are something that needs to be worked on because it can be very distracting. Also looking at the PowerPoint consistently can be distracting for the audience; cue cards for next time. The conclusion could have been stronger. Her action went well with the two website links, but she could have done more to present the websites and their valuable information.
Overall, I learned something new and think Sharien did a good job.
-Ashley Perez
My speech buddy was Diandra, she did her speech on oil and why we
shouldn't drill. In my opinion I think she did a great job, her needs and practically were on point and she had a great introduction. I
really enjoyed how she showed us that drilling for oil can greatly
affect our lives. She cited many of her sources and used quotes to
back up her opinion. I also liked how she used the slogan "drill drill drill" and fought back with facts. Her eye contact was good, however I felt that she had moved her hands too much, which distracted the audience. Other than that she had a great conversational voice, and I enjoyed powerpoint and memorable statement.
My partner was Ashley Perez, her topic was about honesty and incompetent. She was dressed professional and presented her topic well. She had a great attention getter, and that was hard because the audience was on the opposing side. She had a preview statement but it was wordy. Ashley did a good job following the format but her benefits where not clear enough. I felt she did a good job showing the sides of both party but in one way it leaned towards one side. It was great she brought Nixon Watergate scandal and Obama’s issues but I felt she needed to bring something about McCain too, for example, the Keating Five. Ashley was nervous throughout her presentation and when she messed up she did not really recover fast. She had interesting pictures and used slangs as “Rock the Vote” for her action… but it was not truly an action. I felt she could have used a PSA about voting or a site to learn about both parties as an action. Over all I think she did a great job; and her message got across.
My Speech partner was Anna Jessica (It was supposed to be Cynthia but she never showed up). Her topic was the no child left behind act. She was arguing that the no child left behind act should not be continued and the thesis statement was clear enough for me to catch onto her side of the argument in the introduction. She used an attention getter which got my attention and the entire audience. The question that she asked was relevant to her topic and it also it related to the audience. Though her introduction was well put together she forgot to mention a credibility statement. There was effort for a preview but it could have been better prepared. The central idea was clear and specific. There was adequate explanation and progression from her introduction to the main points of her speech. I could tell that she knew what she was talking about throughout her speech because she rarely looked at the PowerPoint side. Her orientation to the audience was great. She maintained eye contact from beginning to end. The body of her speech was especially good because the benefits that she gave were very relevant and well researched. Overall, she connected with the audience very well and catered to our “egotistical” needs. She also had small hand gestures, but instead of being distracting, her slight movements helped her empathize her points. Her call for action plan was good. I think that she could have put more citations on her slides because a few of them were missing cites at the bottom. I only heard her cite a couple of times verbally and I think she could work on that a little bit more. She kept a good stance while she articulated her words and also a great smile which told of her level of comfort while she was speaking.He conclusion was good and well organized, but she got too wordy at the very end. Overall her effort was great and she improved a lot from her last speech.
My Speech buddy was Jeanine. Her Topic was Honesty over Incompetence.
She was very professionally dressed for her speech. She started off with a funny attention getter, which grabbed the audience attention immediately. However her she did not have any credibility in her introduction. Her central idea was stated very clearly. She stated all the specific details of the needs she presented to her audience. She illustrated the specific needs very clearly and effectively, nonetheless she did not bring out the benefits for her plans.
Throughout her presentation she had a good conversational style even though you could tell she was nervous. The pitch of her voice was good, yet she went a little bit too fast sometimes making it hard to hear the pronunciation of the words. I loved the eye contact she maintained throughout her speech.
Her memorable quote was very interesting and fitted her topic very well.
One thing I noticed during her presentation was the few cites she included in her slide show. She did not cite enough both verbally and non-verbally.
Overall, Jeanine did a great job.
My speech partner was Brandon Diaz. His topic was on obesity and why it’s the fast food companies fault. I liked his introduction video, it gave credibility, it had a good attention getter and a preview of what the speech was about.
His PowerPoint was very well organized and really helped the visual aspect if his speech. The Monroe Sequence was followed however his lacked a call to action.
His Need, Plan, Practicality was nicely organized however I would have liked to hear more connectives, which in my opinion would have made the argument much more fluid and smooth.
Moving on to the physical aspect of his speech, Brandon was dressed very professionally and was standing up straight. He kind of shifted his weight from one side to the other at times and kept his head down for the first few minutes. Later he established a fair eye contact with the audience.
The last thing I could say that Brandon can improve on is the use of his cites and sources, if he would have put maybe two more sources in there it would have made a solid argument.
Overall he did well, and with those corrections he will be great in no time.
Shameer's topic was why we should drill for oil off our coasts. He started off very strong with the introduction and especially the attention getter. The video of a famous music artist relating to the gas prices certainly did help. The research that he did for the presentation was cited well.
He maintained good eye contact with the audience and spoke in very audible tone. He flowed through his points well, but I would like to have seen his plan and practicality developed even more. It would have been a stronger presentation with that alone.
I didn't see a thorough conclusion in his speech; that is another thing to work on for next time. Overall, I think Shameer has improved significantly in his delivery style and research. The next speech will be awesome.
-Jose
My speech buddy is Lisa. Her persuasive sppech was on abortion. Her purpose was to persuade the class that abortion should be pro-choice.
Lisa introduction was a good attention getter. I was immediatley focused for the simply fact that she started with an interesting question and replied to it with a firm answer that told me she believes strongly in her topic. Thoughout the cource of her presentionation I found her content to be very persuavie.She used the Monroe's Motivated Sequence, which organized the speech effectively. She cited when and back up alot of her information. Also, she had alot of credibility.
I also loved her speaking voice. It was loud and it was crisp, with excellect diction. I understood her main points. Her articualation was very good and she projected her voice loud enough. The only problem I had was that she kind of speed through her presention; in others word I felt as if she spoke to fast at times. Although she put in an effort to look at her audience, I felt she read from her note cards and the powerpoint to much.
Her conclusion was the best. I really liked the quotes she used. Especially about how a women, who might of experience rape, should have the right to abort her baby. It truly makes you think. And for someone who is pro-life, like me, may find it hard to judge or be against pro-choice. As an audience member I feel as if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. So, Lisa's speech effected me and persuade me to believe, maybe pro-choice isn't such a bad thing.
Overall her content, delivery, and speech in general was very well formated.
Destyne Pitts is my speech buddy. I always love to see what Destyne is going to come up with, because I love her delivery style. Destyne has an attractive speaking voice that is loud enough so that everyone can hear and she speaks in a conversational style that causes her audience to feel engaged in the speech. Her eye contact was very thorough. Destyne did use a few fillers, but nothing too bad. The video that she used as an attention getter was very interesting; it is not often that you see something documented from the point of view of an ex-convict! Her speech held lots of good information and tons of citing. Her points under the Monroe system were very organized – I knew exactly what her steps to solving this problem were. Her flyer for the Awareness Day was clever and creative. Overall, Destyne did a wonderful job.
There isn't much to say about my partner's speech rather than pure excellence. Jose is one of the best speakers in class and i am almost sure his abilities will only increase. I can admit at times he spoke alittle fast but for the most part everything he said was clear and well spoken. All of his examples were relevant and easy to relate to. He looked around the room and had good eye contact with everybody. His posture showed that he was comfortable in front of the class and his voiced made him sound confident that what he was saying was entirely correct.
My speech buddy is Stephanie. Stehanie's topic was the war on Iraq. She started her speech very strongly with an excellent attention getter. She had a very good speaking voice and had alot of facts throughout her speech.
Stephanie had a very professional look and a good posture. She appeared to be very welcoming to the audience's responses throughout the speech when she asked questions.
Stephanie cited well verbally and I saw cites on all her slides. However the presentation needed more organization so that it could flow better and be easy to follow. It was very evident that she did her reasearch due to the abundance of information she gave.
However on her slides it was a bit hard to read her slides because of the black writing on the backgrounds she had on the slides. Overrall her speech was very informative.
Harry's topic was Universal Health Care. I thought that his attention getter was great, but it would have been stronger if he had a preview and credibility statement. I felt like Harry did know the information that he had. He didn't really rely on his note cards or powerpoint too much, so that displayed that he did some practice with the information he had. Although he didn't have a professional appearance he kept eye contact throughout his speech and had a good volume. He stumbled over his words some, but maybe that was from nervousness. I liked the way he put together his slide show to back up the information that he did have. Next time I feel that his speech would be better if it is longer. It would show more dedication and the fact that he actually took time to research and find out more about the issue. That would help persuade the audience even, because the would like well the speaker took a lot of time to put this together, so maybe this is an issue i should be concerned with. In addition next time a way to stretch the length is by following Monroe's Motivated Sequence.
My speech partner was Lavenus, and she did her speech on minimum wage. Lavenus in my opinion did very well in her speech. She spoke very clearly and concise throughout her speech. She had a good attention getter that attracted her audiance. Her eye contact was great as she scanned the room. Her power-point was well organized and supported her information. She used um a lot as she did her speech but that was because she was nervous. She also needed to verbally cite more, but overall i believe that her speech was very well researched and presented.
My speech partner was Anjel Richardson. Although she wasn't dressed professional for the speech she gained her credibility throughout the speech and showed that clothes don't make the person's speech better. She stayed in her place while speaking and had a very conversational tone and had great clarity and a perfect volume level. She cited very well and her presentation was filled with information.
Her introduction caught the attention of the audience and had them captivated from the beginning to end with her many benefits and her use of facts and statistics to persuade her audience.
Although, she paused a lot and said many ummms, her powerpoint and her documentation showed more nervousness than a half-done speech presentation. Anjel has great potential and has come a long way in progression of perfecting her communication skills.
My speech buddy was Jammar Lim.
His topic was on why we need to put up a fence at the american/mexican border. Jammars speech went very well. It was also alot better during the presentation than when we originally practiced. He made much better eye contact and through the utilization of notecards was able to keep track of his information alot better, making his overall flow and effectiveness greater. He used verbal citations but perhaps a few more would have been helpful. He also read off the powerpoint a bit too much but I dont think it took away from the overall message of the speech. Jammar had impressive research and specific examples for the topic making a very convincing arguement that felt like it was designed just for this issue rather than a broad array of other issues as well. Overall I think Jammars speech was a great success and Im exicted to see what he'll be able to do for the next speech which is the humor speech I think right? Yeah... Jammers a funny guy, he's got this.
-Nick
Post a Comment