Self-Evaluation Assignment #1

            My personality type is fairly averse to extemporaneous speaking, so naturally most of my concern comes from the impromptu side of the public speaking spectrum. While I do believe that I did a good job (“good” being a relative term considering the introductory level of this class), I see much room for improvement.

            I feel as though I definitely achieved the purpose of my speech. I remembered my main points, remembered the anecdotes I wanted to share, and introduced my “consequentialist” approach to solving the Rubik’s Cube in the way I had visualized in the pre-planning stages of the speech. My confidence was notably higher than in the previous two speeches, which made the extemporaneous aspect of the speech much easier and more organic. I didn’t feel as though the audience was judging me, but that they were genuinely interested in what I had to say.

            As far as improvement goes, I think there is a lot of room. The content of my speech, I felt, was great. I tried to keep it interesting and felt I succeeded in that. Ideally, I think my goal for content in the next speech would be to integrate more research-based elements into it. The delivery could have been better. Sometimes I stumbled, sometimes I lost my train of thought, and the timing of it all could have been improved substantially. It’s where I lost point for restating main points – timing. So, I think that would be my number one goal for delivery: to time it all better. Overall, if I could go back and change some things about my speech, I think I would have been more deliberate in my stating of main points. I understand the importance – to give the audience an outline that they can follow and understand in chunks – but I fell a little short in that sense. I prepared adequately, I felt. I didn’t want to memorize the speech, but at the same time I didn’t want it to seem so impromptu that it came across as unorganized, so I felt my level of preparation was good. As I said before, I needed to verbally cite my sources for the research involved in my speech. That one was an honest mistake – I never read the part of the instructions that said that they had to be communicated verbally in addition to the written citations. Reading the instructions, I suppose, would be another point to stress improvement in.

            Considering my delivery, I think the introduction could have been better. But that’s also the pinnacle of my anxiety when it comes to public speaking – the introduction. It’s a matter of gaining more confidence and feeling less shy around my audience. A lack of confidence comes across in a variety of ways. For me, there are two points that go along with that idea, which could have improved my speech. My eye contact, for example, wasn’t as great as some of the speakers I saw go up. Some people were able to start speaking without looking at a single notecard. That’s ideally where I would want to be, but that’s going to take some training. I still rely on flashcards when I’m in a pinch, so if I were to scale my eye contact from 1-10 (10 being the best it could be), I would rate myself at a 7. I didn’t just stare at my cards the whole time, but I also didn’t have the ability to do what those other speakers did. The second part that goes along with confidence was the interjection words I used periodically. I said “um” more than I should have. After saying it enough, people start noticing and I think it could have been a bit distracting after awhile. 

Statistics

I'm actually taking statistics this semester and every now and then my professor will play excerpts from a documentary about statistics. The weird things is... it's not nearly as boring as one might imagine. Using statistics in the right way can make any presentation better in my opinion - you just have to be sure to introduce statistical information in an interesting and engaging way.
The best time to use statistics is when you're doing an informational/descriptive/persuasive speech. These rely heavily on logos, which is definitely buttressed by statistics and facts. Not only do statistics give you credibility as a speaker, but they are useful for the audience. Facts rather than ideologies give audiences something almost tangible to take away from your speech. Also, statistics can be exemplified in a visual format, which is also useful for the audience. Whether you're using a standard pie chart or a histogram or whatever, visual representations of statistical information gives your audience something that is often neglected in speeches - facts. Facts allow people to make their own decisions about the content of your speech because regardless of the speakers analysis, the facts do a little bit of speaking for themselves. I hope I didn't miscommunicate what I was trying to say - bear in mind, I used the words "statistics" and "facts" synonymously though statistics are not infallible - a point to certainly consider both as a speaker and as a member of an audience.

Speech Buddies

Courtney’s speech on light pollution was very engaging, but her delivery lacked some of the core skills that were evident with other speakers such as Matthew. Both did a great job as far as the content of the speech went, but Matthew’s delivery as well as his confidence made all of the difference for me. He connected to his audience by posing a serious issue without chastising those in his audience who had probably consumed alcohol over the course of their college careers. I think that the reason that I liked Matthew’s was that he didn’t make light of the dangers of alcohol, but he also wasn’t ignorant to its ubiquity and general social acceptance. He navigated the audience and allowed them to make the final say, but provided them with the tools to make better decisions. Plus, his confidence really shone though. This was contrasted starkly with Courtney’s speech, which I felt lacked the confidence it needed in order to make a firm connection to her audience. In short – all of the speakers had the logos and ethos, but Matthew had the pathos. He drove it home by connecting on an intellectual and emotional level. 

Appealing

I wanted to use this blog to expand upon a few thoughts that I had about the audience chapter in our textbook. First I'll reiterate the points I made in my last blog:

1) Diversity in an audience can be advantageous or compromising depending upon the speech/speaker.
2) Appealing to one's audience can go too far.

In my last blog I started to criticize the textbook's authors for what I perceived to be an overemphasis on "appealing to one's audience." But then I thought about our class and the setting that we are speaking in; I thought about our first speech and how riddled with anxiety I felt before taking those first steps toward the front of the classroom. And I realized... the textbook, for our case, is accurate. This is an introductory class to public speaking - we're not professionals by any stretch of the word. Appealing to our audience and giving them consideration before a speech doesn't just prevent animosity and conflict from forming, but it forces us to visualize our speech and predict reactions. It helps in the structuring process as well as providing a social buffer against a diverse audience with diverse opinions.  It is an ultimate good and though I still believe that my previous blog does apply to those in the professional context, I don't necessarily believe that we should be worrying ourselves with complex thoughts about authenticity, integrity, and ethics this early on in the learning process. Maybe in a couple chapters...

Adaption

2) Discuss the importance of audience analysis and audience adaptation in the speech development process.  Also discuss how you plan on using audience analysis in your speech.  

Chapter 5 highlights the importance of learning about/ adapting to one's audience. Adapt to the setting, adapt to the occasion, adapt to the time, and adapt to the demographic. From the text's perspective, audience adaptation is one of the single most crucial aspects of pre-planning one's speech. It gave helpful hints like, "Refer to your audience during the speech" or "Use language that appeals to all members of the audience." It stressed the impact of diversity in an audience and explained how to apply adaptation techniques in order to have a wider appeal. 

I understand the importance of appealing to one's audience, but I don't think I'd take it as far as the text recommends. If the point is important and the message is meaningful, then you shouldn't be forced to compromise your speech in order to be more liked. And, though this is just my opinion, I feel as though boldness and risk in a speech is going to leave a more lasting impact on the audience (sometimes negative, sometimes positive). Of course this little aside is due in part to the season - election season. I couldn't help but think about today's politicians and how they approach "audience appeal." Reading this text, I felt like I had the insider's guidebook for political correctness and risk-evasion. 

A diverse audience can be an advantage, but if you're trying to appeal to everyone then you're eventually going to find yourself so tied up in restrictions that the speech (and in the case of politics, you're integrity) becomes compromised. I like a little edge to my speeches, but also a sense of duty to the audience. I think credibility is inherent when you use facts and that you don't gain credibility by feeding people what they want to hear. Appealing to your audience is great! But don't distract your audience with p.c. circle-jerking... Mitt.

-I.F.K

Conversation

I have no experience with research interviews. In fact, I was unfamiliar with the term. After a little bit of research I realized that I knew exactly what a research interview was. I learned about them in my journalism class at Los Angeles City College. From what I gathered it's all about preparation, professionalism, and knowledge. Because I don't really have any experience I'm not going to try to give advice, but I will recount the information that I have been given based around those three concepts.

Preparation - This is key. An interview (particularly a research interview) is rarely spur-of-the-moment. The only instance I can imagine where an impromptu interview would be excusable would be in the case of eye-witness interviews, which are used in very specific situations. Outside of those situations, however, most interviews should be conducted in a structured, planned manner. Have questions already written. Know something about the person you're interviewing before the interview begins. Design questions that are open-ended, not "yes" or "no." Don't ask questions that have already been asked (this is where research is particularly essential). With these methods you gain credibility as an interviewer and limit the potential for awkwardness during the interview interaction. Keep a tape recorder going and always have a note pad to write down key quotes. You don't have to remember everything as long as you're remember what you need for the interview.

Professionalism - While levels will certainly vary based upon who you're interviewing and the seriousness of the questions you've raised, a level of professionalism should always be expected from the interviewer. This includes things that might seem arbitrary - you're clothes for instance. Yeah, the interview might just be recorded on a tape recorder or written down in some magazine, but that doesn't mean you get to show up to an interview wearing sweats. Also, bear the interviewee's feelings in mind - some of the subject matter may seem standard to you, but interviews often delve into seriously emotional content and you should be formal, but sympathetic. You don't want to come across as overly stoic. It's about balance - you want to come across as professional, but human.

Knowledge - Knowledge about your subject. Knowledge about your interviewee. Knowledge about the context of the interview. Etc, etc. Be knowledgable - that way you can adapt to any variations before, during, or after the interview.

Always follow up and be gracious to the interviewee.

With all of that said, I'm also going to remind you all that I've never conducted one of these interviews myself. That was based off a mixture of what I learned in my journalism class and what I've learned in this class. I think it's pretty standard stuff though, so hopefully it's useful!

-Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov

Visualization

The "Intro Jessica" video gave a great example of what we should be shooting for as amateur speakers. She applied anecdotal references, confidence, and conversational skills to her speech and outlined what it takes to overcome the common anxieties of most new speakers.

I extracted the most information from the visualization aspect of the video. Imagining myself giving the speech does the same thing for my anxiety as would writing notecards. But since this class deals more with the conversational style of speaking, visualization is key. I won't have the security of a written speech before me so I'll have to rely upon a combination of memorization and improv. If I visualize myself giving that speech, starting that conversation, however, it keys into the same parts of my brain that would respond to the tangible presence of notes. That sounds like a bit of a ramble, but that's because I really do stress out about the conversation aspect of this class. In the few blogs that I've already written, I basically suggested that I wouldn't have much of a problem with speech anxiety, but considering that I won't have a written speech in front of me gives me stress. I would feel much more confident committing a speech to memory and presenting it from then, but in this course Jessica's advice about visualization will come in handy. I'll be sure to do that before the culture speech - that much is certain.

- I. F. K.