Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Navigation
Main page
About
People
Publications
Teaching
Resources
Research Blog
Wiki Functions
Recent changes
Help
Licensing
Page
Discussion
Edit
View history
Editing
Public Speaking (Summer 2019)/Advocacy Speech
(section)
From CommunityData
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Grading descriptions == In addition to the above rubric, I wanted to give you a more holistic description of what the different speeches often look and sound like. What follows below is simply a discussion of some of the commonalities that occur when we see an excellent, good, adequate, or poor speech. Invention, arrangement, and delivery are all mutually dependent. So, a speaker might have excellent invention, adequate arrangement, and good delivery. The resulting grade reflects this admixture. === Excellent advocacy speeches (72 - 80) === ;Invention and Arrangement: In excellent speeches, the argument is very clear. The speaker has done a good job of making a concise case for action. The ill is well-stated and, often, well supported. The evidence merges well with the writing. By the end of the speech, the audience understands the issue’s clear and pressing need. The cure fits the need perfectly. An audience member can clearly understand how and why these particular solutions speak directly to the stated ills. Blame and consequences, when used, also work to tighten the argument. Argument congruency is an important part of excellent advocacy speeches; these stylistically written speeches stand on a foundation of crystal clear logic. Finally, the calls to action are relevant, interesting, and doable. The speaker provides sufficient information so each audience member knows what he or she must do in order to take the recommended action. Excellent speeches have a real sense of flow. None of the speech’s sections could be said to “wander” or “lack focus”; rather, each section fits perfectly with the other sections. In terms of tone, the different sections feel and sound different. The writing and delivery in the ill is different from the blame and/or calls to action. In each case, the section’s tone matches its argument. ;Style: Excellent speeches have amazingly well-crafted language. The writing and argument have merged together seamlessly. The stylistic devices are used in a way to amplify the underlying argument. Rather than having a few stylistic devices throughout the speech, the entire advocacy speech is written at a higher, grander level, thus magnifying the intensity of the argument. Yet, the stylistic devices are always appropriate to the argument and topic. ;Memory and Delivery: In excellent speeches, the delivery is additive; the delivery capitalizes on the stylistic writing and the strength of the argument to make the performance motivating and interesting. The speaker appears to command the space with presence. The speaker’s volume is appropriate for the space: loud enough to command attention, but not so loud as to reduce the range of emotion available to the speaker. The speaker’s vocal variety and pacing work to highlight the argument and the stylistic devices. The speaker builds effectively to an unmistakable conclusion. === Good advocacy speeches (64 - 71) === ;Invention and Arrangement: In good speeches, the argument is clear. Most parts of the ill are discussed well. There may be a few passages that don’t feel as if they fit the ill quite as well. The evidence is appropriate, but, at times, can take away from the speech’s momentum. As with the ills, the cures are also generally well argued. Good speeches have strong argument congruency, but the fit isn’t as perfect as in in excellent speeches. This could be because the speaker’s cures don’t cover all of the ills discussed or that the cures seem to address a related ill, but not exactly the one discussed. Finally, the calls to action are relevant and doable. While in excellent speeches, these calls are informative and concise, the class to action in good speeches aren’t quite as clear. After listening to the speech, audience members may still have some questions about what they need to do in order to take up the action. Good speeches have a strong sense of flow. That said, unlike excellent speeches, there are parts of good speeches that might “wander” or “lack focus.” The speech has a sense of forward momentum, but the overall structure simply isn’t as tight as an excellent speech. The sections have some sense of tonal difference. While there may not be as many tones and/or the differences may not be as significant as in the excellent speech, such tones are present. ;Style: Good speeches have some excellent language use. Many of the stylistic devices are integrated well into the speech. However, there are two different voices in the speech: the stylistic one and the regular one. Whereas an excellent speech has a consistent high style throughout, the good speeches tack back and forth between a rich and overly plain style. ;Memory and Delivery: In good speeches, the performer has devoted a fair bit of time and energy to finding the best delivery style. However, unlike excellent speeches, good speeches have moments of great delivery (as opposed to great delivery from beginning to end). Good speakers appear comfortable in the space, but they don’t have a consistent presence. The speaker’s volume is appropriate for the space: loud enough to command attention, but not so loud as to reduce the range of emotion available to the speaker. The speaker has some good vocal variety and pacing, but there are also some places in the speech where the delivery drags a bit. === Adequate advocacy speeches (56 - 63) === ;Invention and Arrangement: In adequate speeches, the argument is mixed. While one element (ill, blame, cure, etc.) might be very clear, the others might be lacking clarity. This has a chain effect; if the ill is unclear, the cures won’t make as much sense in the context of the speech. Thus, there tend to be a few congruency problems in adequate speeches. While some of the evidence and/or examples work well, others seem to be odd choices. Adequate speeches need a greater sense of flow. Often, the opening sections need to be clearer and name the topic sooner or more clearly. Some sections of the speech run either too short or drag on too long given what they are arguing. Similarly, there are some sections that undeniably lack focus. Adequate speeches tend to not have much appropriate variation in tone and delivery. While some delivery tones might be forced into sections of the speech, these don’t emerge organically from the argument and the writing. ;Style: Adequate speeches need a greater sense of style. Whereas good speeches tack back and forth between a rich and overly plain style, adequate speeches spend much of their time in the plain style. Stylistic devices tend to stand out as noticeably inserted into the speech in that they don’t’ seem to fit the rest of the argument and writing. ;Memory and Delivery: In adequate speeches, the performer needs to develop a clearer sense of delivery style. More often than not, adequate speakers don’t speak with enough volume for the space. While they may not be uncomfortable, adequate speakers do not have much of a sense for presence. In many ways, their delivery style seems more appropriate to the classroom than to the outdoor space. Often, adequate speakers are overly reliant on their note cards. Ultimately, adequate speeches sound like they need another couple of practices to bring the writing and delivery closer together. === Poor advocacy speeches (48 - 55) === ;Invention and Arrangement: In poor speeches, the argument is poor. Multiple argumentative elements (ill, blame, cure, etc.) are vague or unclear. At the end of the speech, the audience may still not have a sense of the exact nature of the ill discussed. In many cases, this might stem from a lack of clear examples and/or evidence (or underdeveloped examples and/or evidence). Obviously, argument congruency is a major problem in poor speeches; the argumentative elements often feel disconnected from one another. The calls to action tend to be few and poorly articulated. Poor speeches have a flawed sense of flow. Since the argumentative elements lack a compelling logic, the arrangement tends to follow suit. The speeches main sections tend to either be so underdeveloped that they fail to present enough relevant information or they drag on well past their usefulness and drain the speech of its momentum. ;Style: Poor speeches need significantly greater attention to style. The attempts at style that are present are few and, often, poorly executed. In listening to the speech, it sounds as if the speaker never devoted much time to crafting the language of the speech. ;Memory and Delivery: The delivery in poor speeches actually harms the quality and clarity of the argument.Poor speakers don’t speak with enough volume for the space. Poor speakers often don’t change their delivery at all to accommodate the outdoor space. Poor speakers often rely too heavily on their note cards. Alternatively, poor speakers have a rambling delivery since the speech wasn’t planned out sufficiently. Ultimately, poor speeches sound like they paid little attention to crafting a strong delivery style. === Failing advocacy speeches (47 and below) === ;Invention and Arrangement: Failing speakers develop and deliver speeches that have little to do with the assignment requirements. If they deal with appropriate topics, they make few if any attempts to motivate their audiences. Such speeches can be rather apathetic or, conversely, rants that relate little to the assignment design. Failing speakers seem to have little to no sense of structure. Main points and sub-points, if mentioned, seem disconnected from one another and the thesis. ;Style: Failing speakers have little to no stylistic devices in the speech. As an unprepared speech, the speakers tend to opt for an entirely plain spoken style. ;Memory and Delivery: Failing speakers have inappropriate delivery. This may mean that the speakers are clearly apathetic towards the entire act of giving a speech. This may mean that the speakers are enthused, but are doing so merely for comic effect or as a way of passionately advancing an inappropriate topic.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to CommunityData are considered to be released under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (see
CommunityData:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information