Monday, March 9, 2009
Informative Critiques - Section H
Post your critiques to our first speech (informative) to this blog. Be sure to use details and illustrate to me that you understand the criteria necessary for effective speechmaking. Post three strength and three improvements. Be sure to include your suggestion for correcting the necessary improvements. Enjoy your spring break!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adam Minaya
ReplyDeleteAdam selected a very strong 'attention getter' in order to start off his portion of the speech. He used a few 'ums and uhs', but on the other aspect of his presentation skills, the pauses were needed since it was a very complicated topic. For the complexity of the topic, the content was presented in an easy-to-understand manner. The transitions were smooth, but it was still clear to give a visual of the speech's outline. A downside was the lack of integration with Powerpoint. He made decent eye contact throughout the speech and engaged the audience by leaning in and using appropriate hand gestures. The remaining problem I noticed was the lack of citations.
To improve for the next speech, cite the sources, provide more visual aid (Powerpoint), and change talking volume to continually keep the audience focused.
Like her partner, Jen maintained eye contact with the audience and presented the information in an organized manner. In addition, she was also one of the few to present using pictures in her slides. However, she showed the same weaknesses as her partner, albeit to a greater degree. Her hesitations were noticeable as seen as she started speaking, as she constantly said "um" and looked at the projection of the presentation for guidance. She was also quite nervous, as she stood very stiffly while often running her hand through her hair and even once scratched her nose. Another weakness was her lack of citations for the pictures she used, as was the case for the rest of the presentation. If Jen wants to do better on her next speech, she needs to spend more time preparing as well as rehearsing. To do this, she has to include all the important information on the slides and practice presenting it in order to remember it better and overcome her nervousness.
ReplyDeleteStephanie needed to show more enthusiasm throughout her entire speech. However, she was enthusiastic towards the end of her speech. She was very knowledgeable about her topic and it showed through her confidence. Her voice could have been a little louder and clearer, but overall her points were strong and conveyed nicely to the audience. Her transitions from point to point could have been a little stronger to set up her next point. A strength would have to be her eye contact. She did not rely on her note cards or PowerPoint slides that often. She looked at individuals in the audience and did not become reliant on looking down at her note cards. Besides a few “ums” she did not stutter through her sentences. Stephanie proficiently displayed her sources verbally and visually. The presentation went smoothly and for going first I thought Stephanie and Antonio did a great job informing us all about Social Networking in the Workplace. For next time, I would suggest that Stephanie try changing the level of her voice and smile more to better engage the audience.
ReplyDeleteAntonio Aiello
ReplyDeleteAntonio started his presentation with a great eye contact, gave his speech with confidence, and spoke with a proper tone. He used his note cards wisely and only looked at them about once every slide because he knew his information and explained it with a sense of assurance. His presentation made me really interested in knowing what he was speaking to us about because of his interest in social networking. Through the whole speech he kept good posture and also used his hands when necessary. He didn’t stutter or ramble off topic, but he did us too many ums and uhs in his speech with his transitions between some slides. Overall the presentation was wonderful both Antonio and Stephanie did a great job explaining Social Networking in the workplace. For Antonio’s next speech he should cite his sources in his slides better and use them while giving his speech when they are needed and improve on his transition words.
Elyse G
ReplyDeleteElyse established eye contact early and for the most part continued to maintain contact throughout the speech. She broke down the more technical terms very effectively making the speech on a whole more understandable and interesting. Also, she used her hand gestures effectively, like when she described the rollercoaster motion of the economy. On the other side of things, she used an um in almost every transition. Another item she can improve on is vocalizing the citations to keep up the credibility though out the speech. Also, the summary in her conclusion was too long, just get out the main thesis and wrap it up.
Dan had good eye contact. He seemed to really try to maintain his eye contact even during the quotes but seemed a little nervous. He referred to the power-points at the necessary times. Dan kept the audience's attention by using humor making his presentation more intriguing. He used a sufficient amount of good and interesting information and cited all of it well. As mentioned he had a good grasp on everyone's attention because of personality, but unfortunately he used a lot of "ums" The "ums" seemed to be frequent, so I assume he was not always aware he was using them. Also, he had a problem with standing still. In overall Dan did very well, he really only needs to work on a still posture.
ReplyDeleteYaroslav cited very well. He knew where his information came form and used the whole cite during his speech. He ha a very good loud voice easy to listen too, and easy to understand. He was entertaining to listen too. He really could have worked on not having his hand in his pocket. He started off with it in there then took it out to use while talking then it founds it way back into his pocket. He was also moving around a lot. This took away form his speech a little bit. If he hadn't moved around so much it would have been easier to understand everything he had to say. Last he could have had better eye contact. He would look up from his cards for a little bit, but not stay up to look at everyone's eyes. Overall he did well, you could understand him and he had good citing.
ReplyDeleteAndrew cited well throughout his presentation and made good eye contact. In the beginning of his speech he seemed very uneasy and nervous, but eased up after a minute or so. I liked Andrew's conversational style, it made the speech very easy to follow and to listen attentively to. I did not think that he used many um's which was good because I thought that made him seem more knowledgeable. Also, Andrew maintained his eye contact by not looking at his notecards too often, only when really necessary. Andrew also made good transitions throughout his speech.
ReplyDeleteThree improvements that Andrew could make are that he can practice a little bit more to get the um's out, practice speech making in general in front of a crowd to become more comfortable with it, and to maybe include the powerpoint a little bit more. I think that the overall presentation was a success overall and I feel as though I learned a lot from it.
ReplyDeleteDustin
ReplyDeleteDuring Dustin's speech he attempted to make eye contact with the audience. While speaking he did project his voice very well. What I did like most is he attempted to leave the podium and not, "hide behind it." Some things he may need to work on is even though he tried to make eye contact he could probably use a little more. He did a lot of stop and go talking which is he would say a few words, then stop and rethink what he just said. Last, he did not seem to know the information he was saying as well as maybe he should have. Overall, great attempt.
Amanda Piccolini did a very good job on her speech overall. Her very first word of the speech, however, was "um." The um's and uh's were scattered throughout the speech but very scarcely. Another issue was that she kept putting her hair behind her ears to get it out of the way. Unnecessary hand movements distract away from the message so she should avoid them. Her greatest downfall was that she did not have a very conversational style. She was more robotic in her speech and although her speech was well done, she did not connect quite like she needed to. On the other hand, Amanda maintained great eye contact throughout the entire speech. She did a fabulous job engaging the audience through her eyes. Another plus was that she described very well where she got her white collar crime information. At one point I didn’t understand what she meant then she proceeded to inform the class which I took notice of. Lastly, Amanda was quite knowledgeable about her topic. She spoke matter-of-factly and clearly.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Gruhler and his partner presented his speech on Workplace bullying. He introduced his topic with a thorough attention getter which immediately caught the audiences attention. He made good eye contact with the audience for the most part except in the beginning when he was looking at the computer. He had a projective voice and portrayed his message to the audience efficiently. However, he did use "um" and "uh" throughout his speech which distracts from the topic. Ultimately, Will and his partner worked together well, and you could tell their speech had been well planned and rehearsed.
ReplyDeleteChris Esposito
ReplyDeleteChris was dressed up for his speech and he looked very professional and serious in his attire. Chris started off his speech with a few ums and uhs here and there but gradually became more relaxed and comfortable as the speech continued. His tone throughout the speech was clear and powerful, and he could be heard from where I was seated. Although he looked down at his notecards a few times, he still looked up and gave good eye contact to all of the audience when he was speaking and it didn't seem as though he was looking at just one space. The slides that Chris referred to throughout the presentation were neat and organized, and he offered very insightful information on his topic. Although he failed to cite his sources on the slides, they were present, and he finished off the presentation with a solid conclusion. Chris's voice, posture, tone, and eye contact were very good throughout the presentation, and he even dressed for the occasion. Although the speech was very well executed there were a few weaknesses present that Chris may need to work on. One weakness seen throughout the speech was the sporadic eye contact, where he looked down at his note-cards a few times. This briefly drew the audience away from Chris's strong tone and voice, and sometimes made it seem as though he was relying on them a bit. Secondly, would have to be the lack of citing the sources in the presentation. Although they appeared on each of his slides, they weren't integrated into his speech and this took away from his credibility in the information gathered. Last minor weakness would have to be the ums and uhs used in the beginning, but very sparingly in the remainder of Chris's presentation. Chris seemed to have started off very tensely and many of these interruptions were heard, but as he calmed down and begin to make contact with the audience, I heard a dramatic change from these minor breaks. If Chris works on using less of the note-cards, referring to his sources and citing throughout the presentation, and coming in strongly with less ums and breaks, then his next presentation should be near perfect. Overall good job to the group and Chris as well.
Rob O
ReplyDeleteRob’s voice was clear and loud, and he explained his points very well. Him and his partner dressed professional, giving a good impression. He started his speech of by losing the effect of his attention getter by telling us what the topic was. He did not use the works sited slide in the introduction. Rob did say “um” a few times; however, as he progressed he seemed to relax making it seem like he knows his topic thoroughly. When not looking at note cards, he did have good eye contact with the audience. Although Rob did verbally cite the proper amount of times, the sources were not stated correctly. For the next speech, Rob should try to stay off his note cards more in order to maintain more eye contact with the audience. Also, he should use more enthusiasm and facial expressions. Overall, he did a good job getting the information across in an easy, understandable way.
Kimberly Reichel spoke extremely well on her speech for dating in the workplace. After Alex Post’s transition to Kim, Kim seemed a little nervous to speak. But after a minute or so of speaking, she began to open up to the class and starting speaking in a conversational style. She spoke loud and clearly through her entire speech. On top of this, Kim made great eye contact and cited her sources properly. I found Kim to relate to her power points on a regular basis and was able to keep the classes attention by doing this. Some things that Kim can improve on would include keeping her composure in the beginning of her speech. Overall, Kim did a great job and kept her speech interesting, and at the same time, gave the class vital information on her topic.
ReplyDeleteAlex Post
ReplyDeleteSeeing the speech I was impressed because there were barely any negatives if any. I think Alex did an outstanding job, it seemed that she put in a lot of time into the speech and practiced beforehand. Alex’s hand motion was relevant to her speech, whenever she said outside she would move her hand out of the center of the box. Her hand coordination followed her speech. Alex also did a good job with eye contact, she constantly kept eye contact with the audience and barely looked at the note cards. Her voice was loud and clear and there was no problem understanding her point. The voice sounded natural because she did not rely on reading of the notes. Overall I wasn’t able to find negatives
Tom
ReplyDeleteTom's speech was well presented for his first speech. He was able to speak clearly and really made an effort to obtain good eye contact. He broke down his information very well through the use of good examples. His effort to explain his powerpoint slides showed how much he wanted the audience to reflect his ideas. Only a couple of flaws were showen through his speech including a lot of ums and uhs. He was looking around at his surrounding a number of times switching between the computer, his cards, and the powerpoint slides. Also his lack of citing sources was also a problem and I felt as if he was rushing his speech. But overall a solid job.
Joe F
ReplyDeleteI think Joe did good for the first speech in this class. He had pretty good eye contact during the speech but he possibly could have done a little more. It seemed like he had a good knowledge about the information that he was saying. The tone of his voice was good and he had a good conversational style to it. He could have cited a little more during and used some more transitions as well. Overall I thought Joe did a good job.
Bryan Rose
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought that Bryan did a great job. Throughout the duration of his speech, he barely looked at his notecards. In the introduction he thoroughly explained his topic and the thesis was clear and easy to understand. Bryan stood still and did not use any hand motions that could be a distraction to the audience. It was clear that he definitely knew what he was talking about. One thing Bryan could work on would be the tone of his voice. At times it was very shaky, and I assumed it to be because of his nerves. His body language didn't reveal nervousness, however his voice did
Kevin Shoemaker did very well for his first speech. He definitely made the effort to look around at the class, but tended to look at the ceiling, back wall, or notes cards instead. His voice was loud and clear, and he spoke very confidently and knew his information well. However, he did say "um" a few times. He used his hands well do correlate with what he was talking about, and displayed good body movement and correct posture. The speech was a little long and took more time than others, but it was well thought out and he was prepared. A lot of information was researched as proven by the works cited. Overall it was a interesting and good speech.
ReplyDeleteJim B. did a great job on the informative speech. He spoke very clearly throughout the entire speech and maintained a conversational tone that made the speech very easy to follow and understand. He did really well in citing from a technical standpoint, and also maintained the flow of the speech even when citing his sources. He also did a great job at limiting his use of notecards. He could improve his speech by removing the "uhs" and "ums" and by slowing down when speaking. Overall he did a great job.
ReplyDelete