need 2 double spaced pages on the attached.
majorassignment2speaking.docx
major_assignment_2_speaking_rubric_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Major Assignment 2: Speaking
Presenting Research to a Specific Audience
Worth 15% of the Overall Grade
“I am doing what I love to do, and you cannot beat that, especially when the audience appreciates
what you prepare for them. It’s very, very gratifying.” – Aretha Franklin
“Each audience is different.” – Prince
“When the audience enjoys your performance, you feel like a magician who is doing magic. It’s a
great feeling!” –Kailash Kher
Speech Dates: September 26 – 28
Be prepared to present on the day you are assigned. If you are absent with no reason on the day you are to present, you
will receive no credit for this assignment.
Assignment Overview
The work of scholars is meant to be shared. Ask any professor, and they will tell you about a
national conference they have attended to share their research. This assignment will ask you to share
your Major Writing Assignment 1: Rhetorical Analysis with your colleagues by giving a four to sixminute speech. You may share the entirety of your rhetorical analysis or a certain aspect you think
your colleagues will find interesting.
A major component of this assignment will be considering your audience. Rhetoric constantly
considers audience and audience needs. In order to be the most persuasive and interesting, you will
be evaluated on how well you maintain your audience’s attention. You will be presenting to nineteen
of your peers. What best engages people of this age range? What will keep their attention for the
duration of the speech, which should range from four to six minutes?
If you prefer to use electronic visuals such as Power Point or other platforms, please send your
slides to your instructor at dana-thomann@uiowa.edu by the appropriate date/time. Or, you may
prefer to use a thumb drive, email yourself the presentation, etc.
Presenting on Monday, September 26
Presenting on Tuesday, September 27
Presenting on Wednesday, September 28
Slides due by 10pm Sunday, September 25.
Slides due by 10pm Monday, September 26.
Slides due by 10pm Tuesday, September 27.
You will also be assigned to evaluate a presenter each class period. Failure to complete assigned
evaluations will impact your grade.
See the “Major Assignment 2: Speaking Rubric” for further evaluation criteria.
1
Major Assignment 2:
Sharing Rhetorical
Analysis
Context
Excellent
Good
(Presenter responds thoughtfully and
creatively, requiring little or no revision)
(Presenter responds fully, requiring
some revision)
Clear and engaging articulation of
context and purpose; the audience is well
oriented from the outset:
Introduction
Purpose
Substance
Details
Relevance
Length
Organization
Transitions
Conclusion
Presenter engages audience from the
outset with a hook that is captivating.
Adequate articulation of context; the
introduction is mostly engaging and
the audience is mostly well oriented
from the outset:
Hook is predictable or cliché.
Fair
(Presenter responds mostly
competently, requiring focused,
substantive revision)
Introduction is not engaging, and
orientation for the audience is
inadequate:
Lack of an engaging hook. Just
states the facts in a banal way.
Needs Work
(Presenter responds incompletely,
requiring extensive revision)
Presentation does not meet audience
needs by not providing engagement
and orientation at the outset:
No opening or introduction is present.
Presenter merely starts from nothing,
without presenting a context to the
audience.
Presenter does not mention the place.
Attitude is apathetic.
Presenter identifies place. Reason for
choosing place is clear. Background
information fills out the context for the
audience.
Content is well selected and developed;
focus is clear and audience’s needs are
accounted for:
Presenter identifies place, but reason
for choice is not clear.
Basic information about the place’s
context is lacking. Interest is not
apparent.
Content is mostly well selected and
developed to meet most of the
audience’s needs in terms of focus and
interest:
Some content is superfluous or not
clearly connected to focus.
Audience’s needs are not
consistently accounted for:
Focus of summary is unclear. Content is
not specific enough to engage audience:
In a fully developed, vivid way, the
presenter presents the place analyzed
and its ethical implications (if relevant).
Specific details are chosen to support
analysis in a creative and innovative
way.
Presenter explains the impact of the
place in a way that is relevant to the
audience. Argument is clear and
thoughtful. Leaves the audience with
something to ponder.
Presenter analyzes the place, but uses
only one or two vivid, specific details;
may/may not discuss ethical
implications. Some non-essential
details may be present.
Summary of the analysis of place
is underdeveloped; additional
specific details and supports are
needed. Analysis is surface level.
Does not discuss ethical
implications.
Examples may or may not support
the presenter’s intent. Impact of
the place may be unclear or vague.
Place is described but severely
underdeveloped. Key ideas are lacking.
Analysis is weak or missing entirely.
Does not discuss ethical implications.
Over time/under time. Needs
practice to refine message.
Severely over time/under time. Needs
practice to refine message.
Organization of paper is more
writer-oriented, creating diffuse
emphasis and some difficulty as
audience tries to follow claims:
Transitions are lacking.
Organizational strategies are not useful
for topic or audience and impede
audience movement through paper:
Conclusion consists of a cliché
such as “Thank you for listening.”
It is not a functional part of the
speech.
Lacks conclusion entirely.
Between 4-6 minutes
Presenter explains the impact of the
place in a clear way, but ideas are
basic, simple or cliché. Presenter
presents their ideas, but does not
stimulate the audience to questions
and discussion.
Over time/under time. Needs practice
to refine message.
Organization is appropriate to topic and
emphasis, with some originality; shows
attention to audience needs:
Organization is conventional, showing
some attention to audience needs:
Moving from one idea to the next is
seamless. Ideas are tied in a unique and
original way.
Presenter restates the main ideas of the
presentation and leaves the audience
with a specific mood or idea.
Transitions are predictable and
common, but effective.
Conclusion is sufficient, leaving the
audience with an idea or a mood.
May fail to restate main ideas of the
lecture.
Presenter fails to convey the impact of
the place. Too many irrelevant details
are included that do not directly relate,
causing confusion for the audience.
Transitions are lacking due to lack of
content.
Style
Style interferes with clarity in
some places:
Visual is distracting to the topic.
Presenter is constantly referencing
the presentation instead of
speaking from personal
knowledge.
Style significantly detracts from clarity:
Word choice is highly colloquial.
Presenter may have problems with
‘um’ or ‘like.’
Audience expectations and processing
are carefully accounted for:
Audience expectations and processing
are mostly accounted for:
Some problems with audience first
impressions
Eye Contact
Presenter scans back and forth across the
presentation space.
Presenter fails to make eye contact
with the audience, looks at the
powerpoint most of the time.
Voice
Diction is strong and clear. Intonation is
appropriate. Volume is used as a
rhetorical device. Self-confidence is
apparent.
Pacing is controlled.
Presenter has eye contact but often
returns to the same person or point.
Reference to the powerpoint may be
frequent.
Presenter speaks in regular
conversational tones.
Inappropriate use of humor and
language not appropriate to the
classroom.
Delivery choices distract from message
and interfere with audience
expectations and processing:
Presenter never looks up from notes.
Presenter may be caught off-guard
with pacing or timing.
Gestures are used infrequently, but
when used match the content in an
acceptable way.
Posture is upright and strong, but
presenter stays glued to one location
throughout the speech.
Presenter rushes.
Powerpoint or other supporting
visuals
Mature Word Choice
Delivery
Speed
Style is particularly well suited for topic
and audience:
Visuals are well designed and support
the speech in terms of design and style.
Quality is high and engaging. Use of the
visual is seamless and integrated into the
presentation.
Style is conventional:
Descriptive and compelling word choice.
Humor incorporated appropriately.
Gestures
Gestures are used in pointed, planned
ways that complement the content.
Posture
Posture is confident and upright.
Shoulders back. Presenter may walk
around the classroom for different
vantages.
Visual is typical, without specific
tailoring to the speech topic. Use is
functional but not seamless. Presenter
may pause with slides unnecessarily
or have minor technology glitches.
Quiet. Audience in the rear of the
room may have trouble hearing.
Some words are unclear.
Presenter may be nervous with a
repetitive motion. Motions lack
fluidity.
While presenter has glimpses of
confidence and eye contact, the
presentation lacks confidence.
Presenter:_____________________________________________________________________ Evaluator:___________________________________________________________________
Presentation Topic: ________________________________________________________________ Speaking Score: Excellent (A) Good (B) Fair (C)
How well did this presenter take into consideration the audience? Excellent (A)
Overall grade: Excellent (A)
Good (B) Fair (C)
Evaluator’s Notes/Comments/Presentation Outline:
Needs Work (D-F)
Good (B) Fair (C)
Needs Work (D-F)
Needs Work (D-F)
No visual element included.
Presenter is mumbling. Words are
incoherent.
Gestures are not attempted. Hands
clutch the podium.
Head is down. Shoulders are crumpled,
folded inward.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments