Editing Public Speaking (Summer 2019)/Impromptu Speech

In business, in school, and in public life, you are often called upon to “make a few comments.” Though these are not as formal as some of your other speeches, they are speeches nonetheless. Often, people so tasked with a short speech become flummoxed. The impromptu speech assignment is designed to help you shine where others falter. Impromptu speaking reinforces all aspects of good public speaking: quick thinking, sound argumentation, strategic word choice, and engaged delivery.

This speech does not reward those who simply fill air with words for a few minutes. My main goal for this speech is that you are able to quickly arrange and deliver a clear and well-supported argument. Each one of these words is important to this assignment. You must act quickly, which requires a sense of speech arrangement. Your speech must be clear, which requires you to include previews, reviews, and transitions. Your speech needs to have, at its heart, a well-organized and solid argument. This means that you must practice impromptu speeches many times before you deliver your speech in class.

== Objectives ==

After completing the impromptu speech, students should be able to:

* quickly develop and deliver clear and well-reasoned arguments.
* craft well phrased main points that support and advance the main argument.
* use evidence that clarifies and supports the main points.
* deftly explain how the main points and evidence all work to advance the thesis.
* use previews, reviews, and signpost words to clarify argument structure.
* speak confidently with appropriate rate and projection.
* use delivery to distinguish between key ideas and elaborating detail.
* move, gesture, and use notes appropriately and effectively.

== Procedure ==

For the impromptu, you will have six minutes of prep time and be expected to deliver a four to five minute speech.

Each student will receive two thesis statements on a slip of paper. You can speak on either one of the thesis statements. You do not have to agree with the thesis statement; you can argue against it. Next you should support the thesis statement with two main points. For each main point, you need two pieces of elaborating support.

== Arrangement ==

At minimum, your speech should include the following elements:

=== Introduction ===
* State your thesis
* Preview of your main points

=== First main point ===
* Statement of your first main point
* Provide two pieces of evidence
* Conclude your first main point

=== Second main point ===
* Statement of your first main point
* Provide two pieces of evidence
* Conclude your first main point

=== Conclusion ===
* Restate the your thesis statement and review your two main points
* Conclude your speech

=== Typically, your card looks like this ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Intro
:Thesis
I. Claim 1
:A. Evidence 1
:B. Evidence 2
II. Claim 2
:A. Evidence 1
:B. Evidence 2
|}

== Requirements ==

=== Time ===
Your preparation time cannot exceed time allotted. If you finish your preparation before the time limit is up, you can use the remaining time to think more about the speech. Once you begin the speech, you have four to five minutes to deliver your speech. Your assignment grade will be lowered by five points for every 45 seconds you speak under or over the target time range. For example:

* A 3:15 speech would receive no grade penalty
* A 3:05 speech would receive a five point penalty
* A 2:15 speech would receive a ten point penalty, and so on.

Similarly,
* A 5:45 speech would receive no grade penalty
* A 5:55 speech would receive a five point penalty
* A 6:45 speech would receive a ten point penalty, and so on.

=== Notes ===
You may use a notecard to prepare and deliver your speech.

=== Arrangement ===
Your speech must include a thesis statement supported by two main points. Each main point should be supported by two pieces of evidence.

=== Evidence ===
You should use concrete examples to explain and support your main points. In essence, your examples should demonstrate why your main point is valid.

== Hints on doing well ==

=== PRACTICE!!! ===
I cannot stress this enough. While practicing is always the surest way to get better at something, this is particularly true in the case of the impromptu speech. I assume that you have not performed something like this previously. This is a skill building assignment to get you ready for more formal speeches later in the quarter. You should practice developing thesis statements, main points, and evidence whenever you have the opportunity. Pick a few statements to work with and practice them in your head as you walk from class to class. If you don’t practice, you will not do well on this assignment.

=== Get off the card ===
I am often struck by how much students want to rely on their notecards. You only spent 6 minutes with it out in the hallway; it only has a few words on it; why do you spend 75% of your time looking at that blank sheet? I know it feels safer to look at this card, but it generally leads to a poorer speech. You have had six minutes to gather your thoughts, now simply explain your argument to the audience. Remember, the goal here is to communicate your thoughts to the audience, not to simply stand and speak in front of us.

=== Move through the parts with purpose ===
Think about what your goals are in each section. In the introduction, you need us to understand what you are going to talk about, so make sure we understand. In the main points, you need to explain how this main point supports the thesis and how the evidence supports the main points. You goal is not to have everything laid out perfectly; rather, you need to spontaneously generate words that will help us, your audience, understand what you are arguing.

=== Finally, PRACTICE ===
Come to the Speaking Center and work with a TA or a tutor. These people can help you (even if you don’t think you need help) and these people know what excellent, good, and adequate speeches look like and how you can improve.

== Rubric ==

Note: The percentages here are guidelines. All these categories are mutually dependent.

=== Invention (24 points/40%) ===
The speaker:
* phrased main points well.
* included appropriate main points and explained how they related to the thesis clearly and effectively.
* included appropriate support and explained how it related to the main points clearly and effectively.

=== Arrangement (18 points/30%) ===
The speaker:
* highlighted internal structure clearly and effectively.
* previewed the speech clearly and effectively.
* transitioned between the main parts of the speech clearly and effectively.
* reviewed the main points and concluded the speech clearly and effectively.

=== Style and Delivery (18 points/30%) ===
The speaker:
* appeared confident and animated.
* used notes effectively and appropriately.
* performed prosody and rhythm appropriately and effectively.
* moved and gestured appropriately and effectively. 

== 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.