11 am Speech videos and evaluation posting
Hi 11:00 am class. Please use this thread to post all your You Tube video links for your speeches by midnight the night before your speech is due. The blog provides a timestamp that authenticates your timely posting of the video. All class members will be able to view your speech from this thread and your posted link. After viewing, class mates can post their evaluations of the speech ( using PDF or Word formats only,) by the deadline of midnight on each M/W speaking day. Speakers can review their colleague evaluations for feedback. Once you have received your outline and speech grade from me, you can remove your You Tube video link. Thank you.
posted by Prof Stefani | 12:16 PM
34 Comments:
HI! I hope you are safe and healthy. Please, take a look at my speech and give me your feedback. English is not my first language, but I love it. Thanks for all your understanding.
https://youtu.be/4qhcIoVbpvA
Amber C. speech.
https://youtu.be/fLzSfBjiVHQ
outline.
C:\Users\joanne\Documents\Comm 122.docx
11:00am, Section 3835, Speech Date 3/31/20.
Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8u-NQghS30
Lucas Antunes' Speech
Hi everyone! I hope you are all safe.
Here's my presentation link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjH2uO7pqjE
I had an issue during my presentation, so I had to cut the video in two parts. Please make sure to watch the second part in here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK31q_DRZdU
T'yauna L, speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWBmhMAhCqQ
Here is my visual as well.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uCNsOxnLAQCMfKdX1gUz2H_UuL3oRt61F16VoKsOpNw/edit#slide=id.g72499b77b8_0_20
this is the link to my documents.
file:///C:/Users/tyaun/OneDrive/Documents/comm%20pres.pdf
Sorry for the delay as well, youtube was not allowing me to continue uploading my video so i had to keep attempting to upload it. my apologies.
Brandon's evaluation of Tatiana
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Tatiana
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? YES
Was the subject presented as specific to me? YES
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? YES
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes a little choppy but there was a preview of the three parts she was talking about.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? She did a good job of making the points clear at the beginning of each one.
Was the information presented well-organized? Yes
Was the quality of the evidence good? Very extensive research done for evidence and plenty of strong evidence to back up her point.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Transitions were a little sharp but they got the point across
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Summary was a little all over the place but she did get her main point across.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? She gave a very good reason to refer back to this and maybe look more into it.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She did a very good job of presenting the evidence. When she presented the evidence, she did a good job explaining what each piece meant to her main point. She seemed to very experienced and had a good understanding of the evidence.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: She could work on her transitions between evidence and her main points. Maybe work on had movements and body movements but it is hard to over a video recorder.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned just how costly the placebo affect can have on experiments and research along with the patients involved and how big of a role it has in our life’s.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I would say overall I was pretty impressed with this speech and her overall complete understanding of the placebo affect has on people made this a good speech to listen too.
Brandon's evaluation of Amber:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Amber Chun
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes her visual and examples made it very interesting.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Her first example made this topic very interesting and one I want to understand a little more.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? She did not specifically state her credibility but she seemed to know a lot about the subject.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, she made sure all points were explained to the audience very well.
Was the information presented well-organized? Information was presented very clearly and she did a good job of connecting her examples with evidence and connecting that to the main points.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Evidence was very clearly stated and explained very well showing her extensive research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Transitions were a bit bumpy but overall clear.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes, she told provided her 3 examples and what why they were important
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She had extensive research preformed. She connected her examples very well. The attention getter was very clear and precise.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: Work on her stutters. She could work on her transitions.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned about 3 separate human mutations with real world examples.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I thought it was very well organized and had very good real world tangible examples for us to follow along with.
Brandon's evaluation of Rebecca:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Rebecca Reeves
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes, her stat really got my attention
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes, her diagnosis gives her as good of credibility as you can get
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? She did a god job of presenting all three main points of her speech.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes
Was the information presented well-organized? Yes, she presented all three points very clearly and made sure the audience knew each point had a clear understanding and connection to the topic
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes, there was a clear and abundant amount of research preformed that showed she had done a good amount of research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes, transitions were smooth and clear and precise.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech?
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic?
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She was very clear and smooth in her delivery and her speaking. Her evidence connected very clearly to her main points. Very well-timed pauses in her speaking.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: Make it sound like she is not reading off a paper so much. Help make evidence sound more interesting rather than like reading from a dictionary.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned what G.A.D actually stands for and that there are a lot of people that have this and unfortunately don’t know how to deal with it.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I was very impressed with her extensive research done on her topic and just how well she has been able to survive with this diagnosis.
Brandon's Evaluation of Lucas:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Lucas Antunes
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? YES
Was the subject presented as specific to me? YES
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes, because he said while like most people, he didn’t know much about corona disease he has done a good amount of research to help his family from Brazil.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes, he stated all three points he was going to make very clearly.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, he made his three points to inform us on all aspects of the disease very clear.
Was the information presented well-organized? YES
Was the quality of the evidence good? While the evidence that was presented was very well done and very extensive, I really liked how he did a good job of explaining the evidence for us who are not scientists.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Transition were precise and made it easy to understand.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? He started the conclusion reviewing the three main points and transitioned very well.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? His reason to refer back to this speech is probably the most ample you can get with what we are going through right now and he did a good job of emphasizing it.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: He was very clear and precise on his three main points. He made it easy to understand a difficult subject. His transitions were very clear.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: I feel that he could have expanded on his evidence and connected it to us a little better. Make more eye contact however awkward that is with a camera. Maybe work on connecting the transitions more smoothly.
V. From the speech I learned: Just how deadly fast this disease was and how bad it could get from here on out.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I actually really enjoyed this speech because how relevant it is and how he did such a good job of informing us on the things we can do to be safe.
Brandon's Evaluation of T'yauna:
Speaker: T’yauna Long
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes, made me wonder what she had to say on the subject of child neglect Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Her example story made it very hard for the audience to not pay attention.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? It did not gain my confidence but also did not take any away.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yah all points in the body were made very clear.
Was the information presented well-organized? It was for the most part, a little sloppy in between evidence and the main pint connections.
Was the quality of the evidence good? The quality of evidence was very extensive and showed that she did her research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? The transitions were a bit sloppy but she got her point across.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? She reviewed it but was a little shaky on the delivery.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yas, she provided plenty of reasons that anyone with a heart would want to make sure they are informed on child neglect to help prevent it.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She did a good job of stating her three main points. She did a good job of using a story to get the attention of the reader. Her overall emphasis on the subjects importance made it very easy to pay attention.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: Work on her ability to flow smoothly from point to point. Lessen the number of “ums” and pauses. Work on her transitions to make them smoother.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned just how prevalent that the child abuse and neglect is in our world but also just how much pain it can provide for not only the kid but people around the kid
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I was overall amazed at just how extensive the world of child neglect and abuse is and how much it has affected our world.
Miranda D. evaluating T'yauna L.
Great Job! Here is my evaluation.
file:///Users/mirandavis/Desktop/Student%20Evaluation%20T'yauna%20L..pdf
Miranda D. evaluating T'yauna L.
Child abuse speech questions:
Are some parents more inclined to abuse/neglect their kids than others?
Are kids that were abused/neglected during childhood more likely to neglect/abuse their own kids?
Hello Amber, my name is Thi.I really like your topic on rare human mutations and I would like to ask you some questions.
. You talked about three different mutations but I would like to know which one is the rarest among them?
Progeria is a genetic disorder that makes people age rapidly. Do you know any mutation that does not make people age at all? Or they can age backwards?
Marisa S., student evaluations in PDF:
/Users/marisasorrell/Desktop/Tatiana evaluation .pdf
/Users/marisasorrell/Desktop/Rebecca R. evaluation .pdf
/Users/marisasorrell/Desktop/Lucas A. evaluation .pdf
/Users/marisasorrell/Desktop/Amber C. evaluation .pdf
/Users/marisasorrell/Desktop/T'yauna L. evaluation .pdf
Section number: 3835
My name : Thi Thuy Nhung Duong
Student evaluation: Amber Chun
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Amber Chun
Respondent: Thi Thuy Nhung Duong
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes, she makes me be curious about some rare human mutations
Was the subject presented as significant to me? Yes, it was. She was talking about three different rare human mutations and those widen my knowledge a lot.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes, her presentation based on her research and fascination.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes, she would talk about rare human mutations to us one by one.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, it were. She had individual people as evidence for each mutation.
Were the information presented well-organized? Yes, it were. It wasn’t hard to follow her presentation.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes, it was. She even had a link on YouTube so if we want we can check it ourselves.
Did transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes, the transitions were pretty good.
III. CONCLUSION
Did the summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes, it did. But I think she forgot tying back the intro. Although it's still good.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes, she did
IV. DELIVERY. Three things that made the delivery effective were:
She made good eyes contact
She displayed good body language thorough her presentation
She had an interesting topic so it was easy to grab everyone’s attention.
Three things about delivery that might be improved here:
Sometimes, she read a lot from her transcript and didn't really present her knowledge towards a topic she does.
She uses a lot of words like ‘um’ and ‘uhh’ and ‘yeah’ in her presentation.
She didn’t use any information follow her survey
V. From the speech I learned: Before this presentation I only heard about albinism before, I know people with albinism will have super white skin but it's very sensitive to the sun, they might also have white hair and bad vision but thanks to her now I also know about progeria and achondroplasia.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was:
She did a good job and she brought me lot of useful information
My question for her is:
I really enjoy your topic on rare human mutations. You talked about three different mutations but I would like to know which one is the rarest among them?
Progeria is a genetic disorder that makes people age rapidly. Do you know any mutation that does not make people age at all? Or they can age backwards?
Hello this Brandon Scott's speech
Exploring Sunny San Diego
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekMLrEXbQj4
Jackson Zavodny Informative Speech Link
https://youtu.be/AvES40vTCW8
My apologies if my voice is a little low, I'm getting over a bad cough.
Brandon's Evaluation of: Jackson Zavodny
Speaker Jackson Zavodny
Respondent: Brandon Scott
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes, I was interested about this after he presented how he will go over the subject.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? He did a good attempt of gaining it but not very confidently.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes, he had a clear preview of all three main parts of his speech.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, he distinctly separated all three main parts.
Was the information presented well-organized? He did a very good job of organizing his speech from most needed info to most important.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes, the quality of his evidence matched his overall quantity of evidence.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Transitions were there, a little choppy but did the job.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes, had a clear review of all three points
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes, he provided a reason right after his main point review.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: Good pauses too regain focus. Was able to simplify and explain the topic very well, had plenty of evidence.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: Connecting the evidence to his main points more clearly, Lessening the number of stutters but everyone does that, more movement in his speech but Is hard over video.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned all about micro transactions and how they are used.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I was overall pleased listening to this speech and ended up learning about micro transactions more than I thought possible.
Hello this is Randy Jordan
YouTube video link - https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=YYRykz2r1nA
Outline link- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-MrezNh9e84K_d6J4lftMhkTvjPImUK_8yP8A6Bu6eY/edit
PowerPoint outline- https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10JaynNd2vRzTxOhIe9NAkcTl5HzCdMiLAYQMEm_1JSs/edit
Hello my name is Randy Jordan
YouTube link- https://youtu.be/YYRykz2r1nA
Outline link- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-MrezNh9e84K_d6J4lftMhkTvjPImUK_8yP8A6Bu6eY/edit
PowerPoint link- https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10JaynNd2vRzTxOhIe9NAkcTl5HzCdMiLAYQMEm_1JSs/edit
This is Marisa S., here is my student evaluation for Brandon. INTRODUCTION Did the introduction gain my attention?_____No_____ Was the subject presented as significant to me?____Yes______ Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence?_____No____ Was there a clear preview of what would follow?____Yes_____
BODY Were the main points clear?_____Yes_____ Was the information presented well-organized?____Yes_____ Was the quality of the evidence good?______No_______ Did transitions ease the progression from point to point?_____Yes____
CONCLUSION Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech?___Yes____ Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic?_____Yes____
IV. DELIVERY Three things that made the delivery effective were:
Very positive and upbeat, accurate information, and helpful information.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were:
Less smacking of the lips, more movement (hand gestures), and saying ugh less.
V. From the speech I learned:
More information on the things San Diego has to offer as far as tourist attractions that I was not previously aware of.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was:
I enjoyed listening to the speech and found it extremely useful and will be visiting some of the places mentioned that I previously didn't know about.
This is Marisa S., here is my student evaluation for Jackson Zavodny. INTRODUCTION Did the introduction gain my attention?_____No_____ Was the subject presented as significant to me?____No______ Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence?_____No____ Was there a clear preview of what would follow?____Yes_____
BODY Were the main points clear?_____Yes_____ Was the information presented well-organized?____Yes_____ Was the quality of the evidence good?______Yes_______ Did transitions ease the progression from point to point?_____Yes____
CONCLUSION Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech?___Yes____ Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic?_____Yes____
IV. DELIVERY Three things that made the delivery effective were:
I learned something new, using psychology to help with his explanation of his topic, and using very detailed examples.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were:
Saying ugh less, saying umm less, and less edits that caused the video clip to skip over some of the speech.
More movement (hand gestures),
V. From the speech I learned:
What micro-transactions are and how they connect to video games.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was:
Before listening to the speech I didn't really know what micro-transactions were, but now I am more confident in my ability to tell someone else what they are from what I learned from the speech.
Amber's evaluation of Lucas Antunes' speech
I. Introduction
Yes, the introduction gained my attention.
Yes, the subject was presented as significant to me.
Yes, the speakers credibility gained my confidence.
Yes, there was a clear preview of what would follow.
II. Body
Yes, the main points were clear.
Yes, the information was well organized.
Yes the quality of evidence was good.
The transitions did ease the progression of the speech.
III. Conclusion
The summary and review of the main points did prepare me for the end of the speech.
Yes, the speaker provided ample reason for me to refer back to this topic.
IV. Delivery
Three things that made the delivery effective were: His firm and informative tone, he spoke clearly and made the topic easy to engage with, and his mannerism was comfortable but informative, making his delivery very professional.
Three things that might improve the delivery are: to make eye contact with the camera more, have a visual aid, and maybe to film horizontally to fit more of his upper body in the video.
V. From this speech I gained a deeper understanding of what coronavirus is and how it works. As well as its devastating effects it can and already has done to those who contracted it.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was I was very engaged and tuned in the whole time, all the information was simple to understand and conceptualize. It is very apparent Lucas did lots of research and deeply understands this topic.
This is Lucas Antunes. Here is my Student Evaluation Form from Rebecca Reeves
Lucas' Evaluation of Rebecca:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Rebecca Reeves
Respondent: Lucas Antunes
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes. She lives with the disease, so she is a good person for me to gather information from.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes. She stated the three points she was going to make at first.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, she made her three points very clear.
Was the information presented well organized? Yes
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. I liked how she associated both the evidences with the scientific studies.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes. Transitions were precise and made it easy to understand the separate points.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes. Now, I know what people affected with G.A.D. can go through.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She was very clear on her main points. She presented researches and guided the audience to minimize the effects of G.A.D. She demonstrated confidence while presenting the topic.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: Mentioning “researchers say that…” sound vague. She could have mentioned at least some of the researchers. In addition, she could have worked a bit more in her hands and facial movement, but I understand that it is much harder when sitting and facing a camera.
V. From the speech I learned: Placebos can not only help a patient out, but also diminish the side effects that regular medication can inflict. Depending on the situation, it can be a cheap and reliable source of relief.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I really enjoyed this speech because I found it accurate, with a lot of good information about G.A.D. The transitions were also very good.
My question for her is:
I really enjoyed your topic on G.A.D. Can placebo medicine help a person go through the symptoms?
This is Lucas Antunes. Here is my Student Evaluation Form from Amber Chun:
Lucas' Evaluation of Amber:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Amber Chun
Respondent: Lucas Antunes
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes. She seemed very interested in the topic and showed that she has done an extensive research about it.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? No. I was not expecting a change of disease on each topic. At first, I thought the topic would be mostly based on the hutchinson-gilford syndrome.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, she made sure all points were explained.
Was the information presented well organized? Information was presented clearly, but lacked preview. However, she connected her examples with evidence associated them to the main points.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. Evidences were empirical and very well detailed, showing her extensive research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes. The diseases are well explained in the speech, so we can rely on the information in there to inform other people about the topic.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She has done an extensive research about the topic. She showed good expressions and movements. The attention getter was very clear and precise.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: She could work on her stutters. Also, she could have introduced the audience about the three main topics first. She seemed a bit nervous, but not enough to damage her speech.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned about 3 separate human mutations with real world examples.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: The presentation was sweet! I enjoyed her facial expressions and hand movements. It was very well organized.
My question for her is:
I really enjoyed your speech about the three rare human mutations. Do you think a human being can be affected with more than one of these mutations simultaneously?
This is Lucas Antunes. Here is my Student Evaluation Form for Tatiana Antunes:
Lucas' Evaluation of Tatiana:
Student Evaluation Form for the Informative Speech
Speaker: Tatiana
Respondent: Lucas Antunes
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes. As she has already used placebo, she experienced the effects and how it helped her.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? No. She did not state the three points she was going to make at first.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, she made her three points very clear.
Was the information presented well-organized? Yes
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. I liked how she associated both the evidences with the scientific studies.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes. Transitions were precise and made it easy to understand the separate points.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes. Now, I know that placebos may come in handy for me depending on the situation.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She was very clear on her main points. She presented studies and experiences with placebos. She demonstrated confidence while presenting the topic.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: The cellphone vibration annoyed me a bit, personally. She could have also tried to do more hands/body movement, but I undestand that it's way harder when sitting and facing a camera. She also could have worked on connecting the transitions more smoothly.
V. From the speech I learned: Placebos can not only help a patient out, but also dimish the side-effects that regular medication can inflict. Depending on the situation, it can be a cheap and reliable source of relief.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: I really enjoyed this speech because I was skeptic about the topic, but it made me think from another point of view.
My question for her is:
I really enjoyed your topic on placebos. Could they work on psychological conditions such as anxiety?
Speaker: Tatiana Antunes
Respondent: Cassie
INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes
Was the subject presented as significant to me? No
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes
BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes
Was the information presented well organized? Yes
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes
Did transitions ease the progression from point to point? No
CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to the topic? Yes
DELIVERY
Three things that made the delivery effective were: Eye contact, clear voice, her introduction gaining my attention by her own experience
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: More hand or body movement, connecting transitions better, and the vibration of the phone threw me off.
From the speech I learned: Placebos help side effects, a source of relief
My overall reaction to the speech was: Very interesting speech. I enjoyed it and learned a little bit more about them!
Question: How did you feel about being diagnosed and then later knowing your parents were also diagnosed with cancer?
Speaker: Tatiana Antunes
Respondent: Cassie
INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes
Was the subject presented as significant to me? No
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes
BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes
Was the information presented well organized? Yes
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes
Did transitions ease the progression from point to point? No
CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to the topic? Yes
DELIVERY
Three things that made the delivery effective were: Eye contact, clear voice, her introduction gaining my attention by her own experience
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: More hand or body movement, connecting transitions better, and the vibration of the phone threw me off.
From the speech I learned: Placebos help side effects, a source of relief
My overall reaction to the speech was: Very interesting speech. I enjoyed it and learned a little bit more about them!
Question: How did you feel about being diagnosed and then later knowing your parents were also diagnosed with cancer?
Tatiana Antunes
Speaker: Charlie
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes, but for me it could have been presented earlier.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, all points were very well explained.
Was the information presented well organized? Yes, it was.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. Evidences were detailed, showing extensive research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: He did an extensive research about the topic, he used statistics, and he presented some slides.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: I think it could be shorter. He spoke a little bit fast. I think he could have moved to get more attention.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned about Cuban medical system and I could see that it is very similar to the one I have in my country.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: The topic is interesting. Medical care is a global issue.
My question for him is: Recently, in Brazil, we received a lot of Cuban doctors. Some of them were claiming that they didn’t receive a respectful treatment and a decent salary, in fact, they considered themselves almost slaves. Do you know anything about it?
Tatiana Antunes
Speaker: Ethan
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? A little bit.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? The topic is not interesting to me.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes, but for me it could have be presented earlier.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, all points were very well explained.
Was the information presented well organized? Yes, it was.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. Evidences were detailed, showing extensive research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes.
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: He did an extensive research about the topic, he spoke clearly and in an organized way, and he presented some slides.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: I think he could have used different intonation to get my attention. It could be shorter. There were many specific words that I didn’t understand.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned about the cryptocurrency, and maybe, I learned how to make money in a different way.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: Although the topic was not so interesting to me, the presentation was good and organized.
My question for him is: Is cryptocurrency safe?
Tatiana Antunes
Speaker: Serena Garcia
I. INTRODUCTION
Did the introduction gain my attention? Yes.
Was the subject presented as specific to me? Yes.
Did the speaker’s credibility gain my confidence? Yes.
Was there a clear preview of what would follow? Yes.
II. BODY
Were the main points clear? Yes, all points were very well explained.
Was the information presented well organized? Yes, it was.
Was the quality of the evidence good? Yes. Evidences were detailed, showing extensive research.
Did the transitions ease the progression from point to point? Yes.
III. CONCLUSION
Did a summary and review of the main points prepare me for the ending of the speech? Yes
Did the speaker provide ample reason for me to refer back to this topic? Yes.
IV. DELIVERY? Three things that made the delivery effective were: She did an extensive research about the topic, she spoke clearly, and she presented some slides.
Three things about the delivery that might be improved were: I don’t know if the problem was with my computer screen, but I think it was too dark. She didn’t need to mention the topics, like speaker’s credibility. It seems she was a little bit nervous. Maybe, she could have practiced the speech more times, so she wouldn’t have interrupted it so many times.
V. From the speech I learned: I learned about the Winchester House and all the details about its construction.
VI. My overall reaction to the speech was: The presentation was good and organized. I enjoyed the topic.
My question for her is: Is it possible to visit the construction nowadays?
Lucas, the answer to your question is yes, placebos have been used with success with problems related to anxiety.
Cassandra, you can imagine how hard it was for me to find out that I had cancer in 2016. But I was young and healthy, so I was pretty sure that I would gain that battle. I would never think that the two following years would be the worst part of my treatment. Not because of me, but for my parents. My mother was diagnosed in 2017 with breat cancer and my day with lung cancer in 2018. My mom is still in the treatment, but my dad passed away in 2019, last december. Only God knows how difficult it is, but He has been my support.
Lucas, the answer to your question is yes. Placebos have been used with success with problems related to anxiety.
Post a Comment
<< Home