Assignment Overview
The ability to critically and effectively evaluate the remarks of others is an
important communication skill regardless of your academic area of study.
This assignment asks you to carefully and critically evaluate one of your
classmates’ presentations. Most of us engage in some type of criticism
every day. We evaluate television shows, classes, politics, and even
food! However, our criticism is not always effective or meaningful and, as
a result, has little impact on our day-to-day lives.
In order for our critique to be effective and constructive, our criticism must
be carefully thought out, well developed, and clearly communicated.
When these guidelines are you have the power to help others develop
and strengthen their oral presentation skills. Moreover, through the
critique of others you become more aware of your own strengths and
weakness as a public speaker that allows you to become a more
effective communicator.
There are many different formats that could be used to conduct a speech
critique or criticism. In order to maximize this learning experience and to
provide a robust analysis of your classmates’ work, you are expected to
follow an established standard of criticism that is detailed in the coming
pages. By responding to each question in the peer speech critique
criteria with supporting information from the speech that you observed,
you are ensuring that your analysis of the speech is comprehensive and
thorough. Please do not deviate from the established criteria.
Assignment Specifics
1. Write one peer speech critique based on one of your classmates’
proposition of policy speech. You will be assigned a speaker to
critique.
2. Respond to each question in the critique criteria using specific
supporting examples and details from the speech you observed to
support your evaluation.
3. Adhere to a minimum length of 1,000 words.
4. Turn in one printed copy of the peer speech critique (the one copy
will go to the classmate you critiqued) and the speech critique
rubric to the instructor on the assignment due date (critiques are
due one week after the speech is presented in class). Late papers
will not be accepted.
5. Turn in one copy of the peer speech critique to D2L (critiques are
due one week after the speech is presented in class). Late papers
will not be accepted.
6. Your critique will be based on the canons of rhetoric and adhere
to a topical organizational format. Please follow the format
illustrated in the critique criteria and in the sample critique.
7. You should write paragraphs responding to the questions in the
criteria.
8. The critique should be written in a standard type (Times New
Roman or Calibri), size 12, single spaced, and double-spaced
between paragraphs.
9. The purpose of the assignment is for you to engage in critical
criticism of a speech presentation. Therefore, you need to
evaluate what was said rather than summarize what was said.
You should be as specific as possible and cite numerous
examples from the speech that you observed.
10.
Please include a separate title page with your name, date,
section number, and the name of the speaker evaluated.
Furthermore, you should place the name of the speaker at the top
of each page of his/her evaluation.
11.
Use the following critique criteria to complete this
assignment.
Peer Speech Critique Criteria
I. Invention: The way in which a speaker uses their resources to
influence an audience.
A. Research resources
1. How did the speaker use research within their presentation?
2. Did the speaker carefully research their presentation? What gave
you that impression?
3. Was there an ample amount of research used to support the
points the speaker was making? Was additional supporting
material needed?
4. Did it appear that the research resources were from credible and
qualified sources? Also, do you believe that the research provided
insightful and meaningful perspectives into the issues?
5. Did you verify the sources on the reference list at the library or
online? What did you find?
6. What question did you ask the speaker? Was the speaker able to
effectively answer the question you posed at the end of their
speech?
B. Three contexts of audience influence:
1. Ethical proof:
Intellect of the speaker. Did the speaker demonstrate that she/he
knew what they were talking about? What gave you that
impression?
• Strength of character. Was the speaker genuinely interested in
persuading you on this topic? How so?
•
2. Emotional proof:
•
Did the speaker try to adapt her or his message to meet your
needs as an audience member? If so, how did the speaker adapt
their message? If they did not adapt their message what could
they have done to meet your needs as an audience member?
• Do you believe you had a need to receive the information that the
speaker shared with you? Why or why not?
• Did the speaker get you interested in their topic? Why or why not?
3. Logical proof:
The speaker’s use of evidence. Did the speaker have enough
evidence to support the points they were trying to make? Did the
speaker provide oral citations/documentation for each piece of
evidence used in the speech? Was the evidence explained and
connected back to the subpoint being discussed?
• The speaker’s use of reasoning. Did the evidence that the speaker
used actually support the argument that the speaker was making?
Give some examples of the speaker’s success or failure to do
this? What reasoning patterns did the speaker use? What gave
you this impression?
•
II. Arrangement: The organization of the speaker’s ideas.
A. Introduction
1. Did the speaker use an attention-getting device which grabbed
your attention and gained your interest in the presentation?
2. Was any background information on the topic provided? If so,
what this useful? If not, would background information have
improved the clarity of presentation?
3. Did the speaker clearly state the proposition of policy during the
introduction?
4. Was a preview statement provided which highlighted the main
points of the presentation and suggested what direction the
speech would take?
5. Did the introduction contain any other memorable moments? Be
sure to reference specific examples from the speech to support
your written analysis.
B. Body
1. Did the speaker have distinct main points that were supported
with subpoints? Were the main points and subpoints stated clearly
throughout the speech?
2. Did the speaker use well developed transitions to move between
each main point of the presentation? Were the transitions smooth
and effective? If not, what might the speaker have done to
improve the transitions?
3. What type of organizational pattern did the speaker use? Was this
appropriate for this particular speech? Was the quality and
arrangement of issues appropriate for this topic?
4. Could the audience follow along with the speech without the use
of a speech outline? Why are why not?
5. Did the body of the speech contain any other memorable
moments? Be sure to reference specific examples from the
speech to support your written analysis.
C. Conclusion
1. Did the speaker prepare the audience for the conclusion? How
so?
2. Did the speaker review all of the main points discussed during
her/his presentation?
3. Did the speaker include any new information during the
conclusion?
4. Did the speaker clearly signal the end of speech?
5. Did the conclusion of the speech contain any other memorable
moments? Be sure to reference specific examples from the
speech to support your written analysis.
III. Style: The way a speaker uses language to convey their ideas.
A. Language Usage
1. Did the speaker use vivid and emotive language, imagery, or
metaphors? Please provide some specific examples from the
speaker’s presentation.
2. Did the speaker demonstrate clarity and accuracy in their use of
language?
B. Audience Impacts
1. Was the language appropriate for this particular audience? Why
or why not?
2. Did the speaker use excess vocal clutter? If so, how did this
impact your perception of their message?
3. How did the speakers use of language and style impact your
overall impression of their presentation?
IV. Delivery: The speaker’s use of verbal and non-verbal
characteristics used to present their message.
A. Verbal Delivery
1. Did the speaker employ the use of their voice, diction, and rate to
demonstrate their interest in the topic and enthusiasm for their
presentation?
2. Did the delivery appear to be conversational and extemporaneous
or did it appear to be rigged and/or memorized?
B. Nonverbal Delivery
1. How were movement and gestures used to enhance the speech
and maintain the audiences’ attention?
2. Did the speaker maintain an appropriate amount of direct and
sustained eye contact with the members of the audience? What
gave you that impression?
C. Audience Impacts
1. Did the speaker use eye contact to gage audience feedback?
How could you tell?
2. Were any elements of the speaker’s delivery distracting or
inappropriate? How so?
3. How did the speakers use of verbal and non-verbal characteristics
impact your overall impression of their presentation?
Sample Peer Speech Critique
Peer Speech Critique
The U.S. Department of Education should enforce a mandatory
extension of
general education to help people become fully human.
Speech by: Chester Murphy
Critic: Jason Wright*
3/14/ 2019
SPCM 101
Section 32
* Paper used with the permission of Jason Wright.
I. Invention
A. Research Resources
It was evident to me that Chester had done extensive research on the
topic to fully prepare himself for the speech. I believe this because after
an examination of his sources, it is clear to see that all of his sources are
current, credible, and comprehensive. Almost all of Chester’s sources
were from scholarly, peer-reviewed journals that shows that he got his
information from very trustworthy resources. Also, all of his sources came
from the past twelve years making them current and relevant to this day.
After his speech, I asked Chester how he determined the skills to learn.
He was able promptly answer my questions and questions by others that
were asked him by giving in-depth explanations about not only his
opinion, but also why the issue is important.
B. Three Methods of Influencing an Audience
1. Ethical Proof
Chester seemed to have a lot of knowledge at his disposal when he was
discussing the topic of arrested human development. Whether he gained
this knowledge through careful research or from past experiences, it was
clear that if given more time to speak, Chester could elaborate on
multiple aspects of his indictment speech. Also, Chester gave the
audience the impression that he was extremely passionate about his
topic. One could tell that he wanted to live in a society where students
were mandated to attend classes where they would learn skills about
how to live their lives in positive and effective ways. Chester’s
enthusiasm made the speech more enjoyable for the listeners.
2. Emotional Proof
The information presented to me in this speech was very relevant and
interesting because of the reality of the situation. Chester talks about a
society where people are living disconnected and meaningless lives in
addition to not having any knowledge about the environmental footprint
they are leaving behind. In my mind, I am living in this sort of society so
the topic of Chester’s speech was very interesting to me. The speech
also did a good job of arousing my curiosity about the subject. The
statistics that Chester provided were interesting because they made me
think about the effect that arrested human development has on my life.
Finally, Chester made the speech resonate with every student in the
class by not only providing pieces of evidence that were factual, but were
also thought provoking. This made the speech very intriguing.
3. Logical Proof
As I mentioned before, Chester’s sources meet the criteria for being
current, credible, and comprehensive. Chester did a good job of providing
different types of evidence to support his claim by having a good mix of
testimonies and statistics. He also met the criteria for number of pieces of
evidence by having seven, and he did a good job of citing his sources on
his references page. Something notable that Chester did as well was
after providing the piece of evidence, he would describe what the piece of
evidence means in his own word so that the audience could develop a
deeper understanding of his claim. When referring to reasoning, Chester
made sure that the pieces of evidence that he provided supported or
related to his indictments. For example, Chester’s first indictment
involved people living meaningless lives. Therefore, Chester provided
testimonial and statistical evidence describing how people often do not
have a purpose in life; hence, they seem disconnected and develop a
sense of apathy about life. In my opinion, Chester used inductive
reasoning because of the way he developed generalized conclusions
from more specific statements.
II. Arrangement
A. Introduction
The introduction of Chester’s speech was effective in the way that it
grabbed the attention of the audience. This is because his statement
about arrested human development made people think about what
arrested human development means and why is it such a large issue
today. Although the introduction did a fantastic job of grabbing my
attention, I feel like I was unaware of what direction the speech was
going to go in because I was unsure of what Chester meant when he
said people are not being “fully human.” Despite this, Chester did state
his thesis at the end of his introduction, easily fulfilling that requirement.
In all, I feel that Chester’s introduction was strong but I think that more
detail was necessary to make his introduction perfect.Murphy
B. Body
To construct the body of his speech, Chester used the Topical method of
organization because organizing his information according to subject
matter made sense with his topic. Although the main points of the speech
were clearly stated, I do not believe they were stated more than once
which is something Chester could work on for his next speech. The
supporting points, however, were stated several times which made it
easy for the audience to understand why his main point was important
and the supporting points definitely related to his main indictments. The
transitions were clear and concise which allowed the audience to easily
follow along when Chester switched gears about what he was talking
about. Chester used the words; “next” and “also” to transition from his
pieces of evidence and therefore I found it easy to follow his speech
without looking at the outline provided to me.
C. Conclusion
The conclusion of Chester’s speech provided a helpful review of his main
points and had a restatement of his proposition. The conclusion did not
include any new information about the subject but Chester did support his
argument by asking deep psychological questions and by providing
prolonged explanations. Although Chester’s conclusion was rather
strong, to me it seemed like he had a little bit of trouble ending his
speech. The struggle was not extremely evident however and did not
have a large impact on his speech as a whole. In all, the conclusion was
good because it made me ask myself: “What is the purpose of my life?”
III. Style
Overall, Chester used clear language to explain his pieces of evidence
and he provided prolonged explanations of any technical terms that might
of came up during his presentation. However, I do remember not
completely knowing the definition of the word “apathy” and a definition of
it would have been nice but the lack of a definition did not have a large
impact on my understanding of Chester’s speech. In my opinion, the
grammar and verbiage of the speech were correct and appropriate for the
specific audience because whenever further explanation on a statement
was needed, Chester provided just that. One aspect of Chester’s speech
that could use some revision is the second supporting point of his second
indictment. The sentence is worded oddly and a simple rewording could
make the supporting point even more important and understandable. In
conclusion, I think Chester’s language and word choice positively
affected his speech and made it more enjoyable for his audience.
IV. Delivery
Chester is an extremely skilled public speaker and his note card were
solely used as a guide to help him stay on track. Chester maintained eye
contact throughout the majority of his time in front of the class and only
looked at his note cards when it was necessary to state the correct
information. The delivery style that Chester used was extemporaneous
and conversational which made the speech easy to listen to. I know that
his speech was conversational because Chester did not have many long
pauses in his statements. Chester does not physically display symptoms
of stage fright, which is excellent but one thing that could aid his delivery
would be a louder voice volume. Chester is very calm, which is great, but
I think a louder voice volume would have a positive impact on his
enthusiasm and his speech in general. Despite this, Chester seemed
enthusiastic about his speech, which made me feel more interested in the
subject matter of the speech.