Editing Public Speaking (Summer 2019)/Impromptu Speech (section)

== 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. A speaker might have excellent invention, adequate arrangement, and good delivery; the speaker’s grade reflects this admixture.

=== Excellent impromptu speeches (54 - 60) ===

;Invention: Excellent speakers tie the support, main points, and thesis together clearly and succinctly. Excellent speakers discuss targeted main points that are neither too broad/vague, nor too specific to sustain supporting examples and discussion. The main points are specific to the thesis; that is, the main points speak to this specific agent with this specific mandate.  The supporting examples elaborate on the main points and provide greater context and detail. When discussing the examples, the excellent speaker is able to bring in the ideas and language of main point and the thesis statement.

;Arrangement: Excellent speakers deliver speeches that are easy to flow. The main points are phrased powerfully and memorably.  The speaker’s arrangement-talk (highlighting the main points and support) is clear and sounds natural. They are performing the major breaks between the sections of their speeches nonverbally as well (longer pause breaks, movement, etc.). Excellent speeches are easy to flow because the speakers highlight the organization, and because the organizational patterns are logical.

;Style and Delivery: Excellent impromptu speeches are easy to listen to. The speakers appear confident and speak with plenty of projection and vocal variety. They use pauses, rate and pitch changes, as well as other delivery devices to help the audience distinguish between high and low priority sentences and ideas. Excellent speeches appear well prepared and have good pacing (in that the speeches are neither rushed nor plodding). Excellent speakers maintain good eye contact with the entire audience.

=== Good impromptu speeches (48 - 53) ===

;Invention: Good speakers tie the support, main points, and thesis together well. Good speakers have good main points that relate clearly to the thesis statement. Whereas in an excellent speech both main points are targeted and specific, the good speaker might have one really strong point and one slightly weaker point. The main points tie to the thesis, but perhaps the link to the specific agent and mandate may not be as readily obvious to listeners. The supporting examples work well as illustrations of the main points that they are supporting. In an excellent speech, these pieces of support elaborate on the main points; in a good speech, most of the examples illustrate the key ideas. The difference being that an elaborating example extends and sharpens the main point’s ideas; whereas an illustration is simply shows how the main point operates in the world.

;Arrangement: Good speakers deliver speeches that are easy to flow. As with the excellent speeches, the main points are phrased well.  When good speakers deliver their speeches, the arrangement-talk is clear, but, at times, clunky. They are performing the major breaks between the sections of their speeches nonverbally (longer pause breaks, movement, etc.). Good speakers don’t have the clarity and conciseness of an excellent speaker’s internal arrangement. The supporting examples might not be previewed and/or the transitions between the pieces of support might also be unclear. In essence, the arrangement is clear and solid in good speeches, but not as strategic or powerful as in excellent ones.

;Style and Delivery: Good speakers sound like they are performing the speeches they have practiced a couple of times; excellent speakers sound like they are discussing an idea with the audience.  One or two of the delivery aspects discussed (rate changes, pauses, projection, eye contact) tend to need work in good speeches. The speakers might need to do more to help the audience distinguish between key and supporting sentences and ideas. The speakers might be running a bit fast, or they are blurring over major breaks in the speeches, or the speakers might simply be a bit difficult to hear.

=== Adequate impromptu speeches (42 - 47) ===

;Invention: Adequate speakers don’t provide a deep explanation of how the thesis, main points, and support tie together. Each argumentative element, while fine on its own, doesn’t have a strong relationship to the other argumentative elements. In some instances this results in main points that don’t relate the specificities of the thesis statement; they argue the general idea evoked by the thesis, rather than the thesis’s specific agent and mandate. As a result, the speaker’s argument is not rooted in the thesis and thus tends to be overly vague. The support examples tend to be illustrations rather than elaborations and the speaker doesn’t do as much as they need to explain how the examples relate to the main point. Usually, this vagueness results in a speech that struggles to fill the time with relevant content.

;Arrangement: It is generally easy to identify the basic idea of the main points in adequate speeches, but precision is lacking. Adequate speakers rarely preview or overtly discuss internal structure; rather, the listeners tend to make educated guesses at the nature of the supporting examples. After listening to an adequate speech, audience members can conceive of a few key changes to the arrangement that would probably increase the speech's clarity and argumentative force. The claims present in adequate speeches are generally fine (albeit with some clumsy wording), but often under-supported.

;Style and Delivery: Adequate speakers sound as if they have done a few practice impromptus, but the speech model is not yet second-nature. Adequate speakers tend to sound rather unenthused about their speech and its argument. If they are enthused, it often sounds rather forced. Audience members can detect that the pacing is off in adequate speeches. Adequate speakers haven't run impromptus enough to find the places where tempo shifts are needed or where pause breaks help direct their audiences' attention to key ideas. Ultimately, the delivery in an adequate speech does not contribute much to argument clarity or audience engagement. While adequate delivery may not detract much from the meaning of the speech, it adds little.

=== Poor impromptu speeches (36 - 41) ===

;Invention: Audiences listening to poor speakers are unclear as to the relationship between the thesis, main points, and supporting examples. One or both main points are unclear to the point where a listener has difficulty identify exactly what the speaker is attempting to argue. The supporting examples are unclear and/or underdeveloped and their relationship to the main points is questionable. Usually, one major speech element is missing or significantly underdeveloped (e.g., only one piece of support for an example, a main point that only runs a few sentences, etc.). As with adequate speeches, these invention problems results in a speech that struggles to fill the time with relevant content.

;Arrangement: Audience members often have a hard time flowing poor speeches. Sometimes the points are out of balance, with one huge main point and one tiny, unsupported main point. Alternatively, poor speakers may make their main points very clear, but these arguments have little clear relationship with the thesis. The supporting examples are difficult to identify.

;Style and Delivery: The delivery of poor speakers seems to actively harm the quality of their speeches. This may be because they seem apathetic towards their topic, and/or their audience, and/or the assignment. Most of the delivery tactics that can help increase the clarity and energy of a speech (pacing, vocal variety, pausing) are absent or poorly used in poor speeches.

=== Failing impromptu speeches (35 and below) ===

;Invention: Failing speakers develop and deliver speeches that have little to do with the assignment requirements. The main points have little clear relationship with the thesis statement. The supporting examples, if present, are unclear. 

;Arrangement: Failing speakers seem to have little to no sense of structure. Main points and supporting examples, if mentioned, seem disconnected from one another and the thesis.

;Style 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.