Once the class has finished, I like to provide a general critique of the exercise. Start with
the feeling dimension. How did you feel? Were you nervous? (Almost universally, the answer is
“Yes.”) Did you forget anything? Were you able to follow your notes? The sudden shot of
adrenalin from nervousness will stimulate an interesting variety of student answers.
When you have exhausted the feeling aspect, then gently introduce the performance
dimension of the assignment. “When you think back over the speeches, what were some things
in your presentation or in another speech that you liked, and some areas that could be
improved?” If you keep this discussion general without getting into specific individuals, students
will generally feel comfortable with the discussion. They will usually bring up many of the
important topics that need to be covered. (“I noticed that a lot of people said ‘um, um,’ or, “I
found that some people were better organized than others.”) I take general notes on each speech
I hand each student my specific comments in writing at the end of the class period. Since
students are terribly grade-conscious I award points out of a possible 10. I apply this following
“rough” grading scale on the first assignment:
1—5, failure. I don’t award failing points. On the first assignment students fail
only if they do not deliver the speech.
6—below average. Speech is sloppy, poorly prepared, and ineffectively delivered.
7—average. Speech meets some objectives. There are attempts at eye contact, a
thesis, and some basic organization. The topic could be improved.
2. The career speech. It is helpful if students are able to go to the campus career center and
gather information on their specific careers from a career specialist. A good career counselor can