INFORMATIVE SPEECH #5, #6. EVALUATION

Hi, everyone!

As you remember, each week we have to evaluate informative speeches of our groupmates.

This week we have to analyze the performance of 2 people from our group, who talked about 2 parts of the speech structure (Introduction + Conclusion)

I will start with the first speech, Presented by Vika, which was devoted to building an effective Introduction.

Here’s my evaluation of the performance:

№		Very effective (10, 9, 8)	Average (7, 6, 5)	Not effective  (4, 3,2, 1)	Max points	My points
I.	Introduction				10	8
	What technique(s) was used in the introduction?	Vika started her speech with a quotation by Joanne Rowling, which, in my opinion was a bit too long and should have been shortened. The shorter quote would have produced a better effect and wouldn't have kept the listener puzzled about what it was leading to.
	Any link-element?	Vika made a reference to us, whom this topic was relevant to, claiming that even famous people had to struggle fear of speaking in public. This helped us understand what the speech would be about. Moreover, the outlining was used. Vika enumerated the aspects she was going to talk about in the body of the speech.
	Was the thesis statement given?	"An introduction can “make” or “break” you as a speaker because it sets the tone for the remainder of speech."
	How effective was the introduction?	It was effective. The introduction itself intrigued the audience and won their attention to the following text.
II.	Body				10	9
	How well structured was the information presented?	The information was well-structured. The speech was divided into four blocks (4 main elements that can help a speaker to build up an effective introduction). Each part logically succeeded the other.
	What organizational structure was used in the body of the speech?	The body was built according to the outlining, organizational and problem-solution patterns.
	How understandable was the information (was it clearly explained)?	All the four blocks of information were clearly explained.
	Quality of point-support (appropriateness, completeness, variety)	The speech had a good level of point-support. Throughout the presentation Vika referred to the audience several times, using rhetorical questions.
	Use of facts, illustrations, examples, stories.	The speech was well-illustrated. Vika attracted bright examples for every aspect of building an introduction.
	Was it coherent?	It was coherent.
III.	Conclusion				10	8
	What technique(s) was used in the conclusion?	In the conclusion Vika mentioned the aspect she covered, summarizing her speech.
	Were all the steps followed (summary, action, emotional appeal?)	There was a summary, but without an emotional appeal. She only gave a piece of advice: "Follow this and you will manage to get the audience`s interest and participation".
	How effective was the conclusion?	It was effective. The last line covered the whole idea of the speech: "A well-prepared introduction is the key to the success of the entire speech".
	Total points				30	25

The 2d speech was prepared by Alina and was devoted to the Conclusion.

№		Very effective (10, 9, 8)	Average (7, 6, 5)	Not effective  (4, 3,2, 1)	Max points	My points
I.	Introduction				10	7
	What technique(s) was used in the introduction?	Alina started her speech with a qoutation by Buddha “The wise ones fashioned speech with their thought, sifting it as grain is sifted through a sieve” I think the quotation was appropriate, it was an attention-getter to make the audience interested in the further speech. To make her introduction more effective, Alina used rhetorical questions: "What do people remember most? What they hear last." Moreover, Alina made a reference to the powerful speakers of past and present. This way she caught our attention and made us willing to get the knowledge on the topic.
	Any link-element?	Alina made an attempt to connect introduction with the body: " I'll give you some useful tips for your GREAT CONCLUSION".
	Was the thesis statement given?	It was hard to define the thesis, but I think the main idea was that the conclusion is as important as the introduction.
	How effective was the introduction?	It was quite effective. However, to my mind, it was unpredictable and, probably, inappropriate to get an advice in the introduction: "For no matter how vivid the words that came before, your conclusion is your prime time; it's what your whole speech should build toward. Don't throw it away. Instead, build up to it, and make sure it is stimulating and memorable." I suppose, this part should conclude, but not open the speech. Moreover, there was no preview of the aspects she was going to cover.
II.	Body				10	9
	How well structured was the information presented?	The information was well-structured, divided into 5 parts, according to the 5 aspects of the effective introduction .
	What organizational structure was used in the body of the speech?	Outlining and organizational patterns.
	How understandable was the information (was it clearly explained)?	The information was clearly explained.
	Quality of point-support (appropriateness, completeness, variety)	The quality of point-support was appropriate.
	Use of facts, illustrations, examples, stories.	The illustrations supported speech.
	Was it coherent?	It was coherent.
III.	Conclusion				10	7
	What technique(s) was used in the conclusion?	Rhetorical questions, reference to the audience, quotation.
	Were all the steps followed (summary, action, emotional appeal?)	There was no summary, but Alina gave a piece of useful advice.
	How effective was the conclusion?	It was  quite effective
	Total points				30	23