As we wrap up the persuasive speeches, please feel free to share any final thoughts you may have, particularly having seen most of the speeches in class. Some ideas for thought: was the requirement for using two visual aids useful? Unnecessary? What did you notice other speakers citing as sources?
Thoughts on the Q&A sessions are also welcome. These have been, all in all, incredibly well done!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought that requiring a second visual aid was pretty reasonable. It worked better when there were two physical objects that could be brought in, like in AJ's speech about apples and oranges, but even with less tangible topics, there were lots of other media at the ready. I did think that quoting sources added a lot of credibility to the speeches, since the speaker's viewpoint was backed up by experts.
ReplyDeleteI fell like having to use two visuals was a plus as well. However, I will say that citing them in the actual speech feels alittle weird. I feel like we are advertising for them or something (just a personal thought). However, many people were able to do it seemlessly and they all went very smoothly. I was amazed by how many speeches used a second visual that was not a video found online.
ReplyDeleteMy final thoughts: I found it somewhat difficult to decide between adhering to the time limit and using only relevant information. Some people made it look easy, but I ended up trying to keep from overloading and dragging with useless information and came up a little over six minutes. I'm not sure what I could've done to extend another minute w/o trying to do too much. Any suggestions?
ReplyDeleteAs I look back on the speeches, I found that some speakers incorporated their sources into their speeches well, while others just had a slide at the end with all the sources. I think that either way was fine, but I'm not sure which is the established rule? It might even be both! I've also had trouble sticking to the time limit. Everytime, I have been on the higher boundary. Everytime, I've found it tough to adapt my speech on the fly to run more evenly and flow well within the time constraint.
ReplyDeleteNow that we are done with all the speeches, I really felt that these were much more entertaining and fun to do than the informative speeches. I thought everyone did a really good job on these speeches. Having the 2 visual aid requirement I dont think made that much of an inpact. Everyone had plenty of visual aids and used them well with their presentations. I also liked the Q&A sessions because if we didnt really agree or get persuaded we had a chance to ask or bring up something and have the speaker defend their side and try to persuade us more. Overall I enjoyed these speeches.
ReplyDeleteI think people enjoyed these speeches more than the informative speeches. There were some speeches that incorporated their sources very well, and some that need some more work. Overall, a very good job was done by all. I think the two visual aids requirement was a good thing because it allowed the audience to look at other things than a PowerPoint and the speaker.
ReplyDeleteThe second-visual-aid idea was good, I think. Encouraged people to go outside the normal routine of simply speaking and showing a PowerPoint. It also served to make the speech more interesting in general. Often, things like video clips and tangible objects used in addition to ordinary visual aids fix listeners' attention on the speech more effectively, and it's less like attending a standard sort of lecture.
ReplyDeleteI noticed a lot of effective citations. It was a good idea on the part of some people to list references at the end of their PowerPoint presentation and sometimes verbally describe said sources. Mentioning sources in mid-speech to support certain points is also a good plan.
The Q&A sessions tended to be quite interesting. People in general came off as knowledgeable regarding their source material, and audience members asked a lot of interesting questions. For one example of the latter, I remember a question asked by Kyle after my speech as being very valid and insightful.
The use of two visual aids was good to some extent. For some presenters, the second visual aid added a lot to the overall presentation, where as others only showed a quick prop to fill a requirement. I know I didn't have a second visual, but I felt lost as for what to use. The only idea I had was a physics book, but I deemed it unnecessary because it was only a piece filler, so I found it to have no value.
ReplyDeleteI did very much like the Q&A sessions that were presented. People overall did a good job fielding questions as best they could. Very few presenters actually didn't have an answer which is good.