Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Peruasive Speaking - Evening Class
Please post your critiques here for our persuasive speeches. The comments must address the argument and include comments on the steps to the motivated sequence and the evidence used to support them. Do not only address delivery. I want you to really analysis the argument in both verbal and visual forms. What kinds of evidence was used? What was the quality of the sources chosen? What specifically moved you or did not move you to take action? What kinds of areas does the speaker need to continue improving upon? These are some important points that need to be addressed in your blog posting with any other comments that you wish to include.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I critiqued Rebecca's speech on violence in video games. I felt her speech was very well put together and informative, you can tell she did her research. She had a really engaging attention getter and introduction. Her transitions ran smoothly. Her problems, solutions and gains for each point really stood out. She had a very creative powerpoint with a lot of good sources. I feel she was very persuasive and I would certainly make sure my own child doesn't play such violent video games as a result of this speech. She could have walked us through the site so we can see what we have to do to take action. There were a few ums and ahs, and she stumbled with some words but it was a very good speech overall.
I am critiquing Courtney’s speech on violent television. Her speech had a lot of good points to it. First off she had a good opening meeting all four points (Attention getter, thesis, credibility, and preview). The motivated sequence was used fairly well however it was sometimes difficult to tell what the gains were. Her ideas on how to fix the problem were excellent; the idea of using the v-chip is a great idea because it’s a simple thing everyone can do. She also had a good argument on why violent TV is so bad for children and now I think that it can really have bad effects. Her power point was well organized and was easy to follow with her speech, it made a great impression on me because now I don’t want my younger cousins watching violent television. The speech was overall good but she could improve on citing her sources better both verbally and on the power point, and there was a lot of note card reading so that could also be improved on. But overall good job!
I critiqued Kendyl’s speech on violent video games. Her speech had great points throughout her presentation. In the beginning, she covered all the four objectives. She had a great attention getter in the beginning to catch our attention. From point to point she had great transitions that flowed very nicely into the speech. Also another thing that was great was her citing. She cited verbally and visual on the power point. She had good needs and gains to what the problem is. Throughout the speech Kendyl had great body language and eye contact. Her action and memorable statement really ended her speech great. One improvement for next time is to not use “like” and “ums and ohms” so much. Overall she did a great job on her speech!
I am critiquing Courtney’s speech on violent television. She had a very good attention getter so right off the bat she had the audiences attention. Next, she had facts and verbally cited for every point she made in here speech. By doing this it help her keep her creditability with the audience. She had a very good format of her speech she would list the problems then say what the plan was and then what gains you would receive. She had a little too much reading off her note cards for her speech besides the citations and her action was a little weak. Maybe she should have had us go to the web site to see what it was a bout. Overall she did an excellent job on her presentation.
I critiqued Erins speech on Social Networking. Erin did a great job putting together her speech. Her Introduction was outstanding. She started off with a great attention grabber. Her transitions all interacted with what she was going to speak about next. She found great information to back up her thoughts and feeling about social networking and did a great job citing her work. A few times she got a little caught up on what she was going to say next but she kept calm took a glance at her notecards and was right back on. Overall Erin did a great job. I feel it was her best speech yet.
I am critiquing Josh's speech on athletes as role models. I really liked his attention getter and all the videos he showed through out the presentation. He showed knowledge of the problems this issue brings up but I had a hard time following his solutions. However his gains were very evident. He did not do a very good job citing especially due to his use of Wikipedia. His speech was good and he did not use very maybe ums or ahs. He also made good I contact. One thing I would also work on if I was him would be transitions.
Before I start, I do not mean anything personal in what I am about to say.
I am critiquing Chelsea on her speech about celebrities and the papparazzi. I agree with her point of view regarding the viciousness of papparazzi and the mercilessness that they show to get a shot, but I was slightly confused during the speech. The research was very good. There was a lot of information and it was well cited on the power point (not aloud), but it did not flow as well as it could have. The speech was a good attempt at following the outline sequence, but it was lacking one more practicality, and the two actions that were provided were not very clear. During the speech, it was obvious that she was nervous in that she had no eye contact, read off of the projector and index card, and was generally showing poor body language.
I was confused during most of this speech because I was being given a lot of information but did not know what exactly the point was.
Post a Comment