Week 2 — Speech Workshop / Rehearsal Studio · "Analyze + Adapt + Record"

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective: Objective 2 — conduct audience analysis; adapt a message to a specific audience; practice delivery for a defined audience · SLO A (deliver an adapted message) & SLO B (analyze a speaking context)
Worth 50 points · Speech Workshops group = 15% of the grade · Workshop 2
Format this week: audience-analysis + self-record delivery drill — pick a topic, analyze two audiences, write one adaptation, record a 60–90-sec version for one audience, and self-assess the adaptation.

The course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Speech Workshop. This week's drill applies the audience-analysis framework directly to a short recording: you plan the adaptation in writing, deliver it, then assess whether your actual choices matched your analysis.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Last week you recorded for the first time. This week you record with a reason: an audience you've thought about. The gap between "I made a speech" and "I made a speech for these specific people" is where audience-centered speaking lives.

The skill this week is adaptation — the translation step that turns an analysis finding into an actual choice in the speech: a simpler word, a different example, a different opening frame. Analysis is useless without it. And the only way to practice adaptation is to make a specific decision, record it, and ask: did I actually do what I planned?

The guiding question: When I watch my recording, can I point to at least one specific moment where my adaptation choice shows up — a word I chose, an example I used, an opening I crafted — because of what I knew about the audience?

---

Part 2 — The Drill: Audience-Analysis Table + Adaptation Plan

Step 1. Choose a topic you can talk about for 60–90 seconds without research. Something you know: a skill, a habit, a recommendation, a campus opinion, a how-to.

Step 2. Describe two different audiences for that same topic. Be specific:

	Audience A	Audience B
Who are they? (demographic)
What might they already know / believe about this topic? (psychographic)
What's the setting? (situational)

Examples of audience pairs: (a) first-year students in a required class vs. experienced upperclassmen who chose to attend; (b) a skeptical audience who disagrees with your position vs. a friendly audience who already agrees; (c) a technical audience in the field vs. a general public audience.

Step 3. For Audience A, write your adaptation plan in the table below:

Analysis category	Finding	Adaptation (what I will actually do or say)
Demographic
Psychographic
Situational

Step 4. Write 2–3 keywords for your opening sentence — specifically designed for Audience A. The opening is where adaptation shows up most clearly.

---

Part 3 — Record a 60–90-Second Version for Audience A

Take your adaptation plan and your keyword list, and record yourself.

1. Jot 3–5 keywords (not sentences) as your path through the 60–90 seconds.
2. Record yourself on a phone camera or Zoom, speaking to Audience A.
3. Watch it through once before scoring. Don't re-record yet.

The goal isn't a polished clip — it's a clip where you made at least one real adaptation choice based on your analysis. Even if the delivery is rough, a recording where you can point to "I chose this word because of my psychographic finding" is a full-marks clip.

---

Part 4 — Self-Assessment Scaffold

After watching your recording, fill this in honestly:

Adaptation check (the most important question this week):

Adaptation I planned	Did it show up in the clip?	How — or why not?
Demographic adaptation:	Yes / Partly / No
Psychographic adaptation:	Yes / Partly / No
Situational adaptation:	Yes / Partly / No

Opening sentence check: write out what you actually said as your opening line. Compare it to your planned keyword(s). Did your opening reflect the audience you had in mind?

Basic delivery self-check:

What to watch	Score (1–5)	What I noticed
One clear idea — or did it wander?	___
Pace — too fast, too slow, or about right?	___
Eye contact — at the lens, or looking down?	___
Energy/voice — audible and alive, or flat?	___

Your ONE thing: what was the single most useful change you'd make if you recorded again for Audience A?

"Next time I will ______."

---

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Answer in 1–3 sentences each:

1. Which of your three adaptation categories (demographic, psychographic, situational) most changed what you actually said, and how?
2. Compare what you would have said without any audience analysis to what you said with it. Name one specific difference.
3. Now imagine delivering the same content to Audience B instead. What would you change first — and would it change the opening, the examples, the vocabulary, or something else?
4. Did the recording reveal any moment where you forgot your audience and defaulted to a generic version? What happened, and what would fix it?

---

Part 6 — Rehearsal-Coach Moment (BYOAI)

Bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) as a rehearsal coach focused on audience adaptation.

1. Paste your adaptation plan table and a one-line description of your recording (e.g., "I recorded a 75-second version aimed at first-year students unfamiliar with the topic; I opened by asking a question about their experience").
2. Ask: "I'm working on adapting a speech for a specific audience. Here's my analysis and what I recorded — give me specific, actionable feedback on whether my adaptations are strong and what I'd improve for a second take."
3. Try the most concrete suggestion in a second take, if you have time.

---

Part 7 — AI-Critique Moment (required — the BYOAI judgment step)

This week's AI-critique is about a specific failure mode: demographic stereotyping disguised as analysis.

1. After you get the chatbot's adaptation feedback, look hard at it. Does it make any statements like:
   - "College students will all find this relatable because they use social media."
   - "Your audience is STEM majors, so they won't respond well to personal stories."
   - "Since they're young, you can use casual language and humor."

These are demographic assumptions — they treat an age bracket or a major as a uniform personality. Genuine audience analysis is more specific, more tentative, and more curious.

2. If you found a stereotype, write 2–3 sentences: (a) the specific statement the chatbot made, (b) why it is a demographic overgeneralization rather than genuine analysis, and (c) what a more careful, audience-analysis-based version of that advice would look like.

3. If the chatbot was actually careful (it phrased things tentatively, asked clarifying questions, or acknowledged diversity within the demographic), note that too — that's what good analysis coaching looks like.

The habit: make the tool be specific and acknowledge uncertainty. A chatbot that says "young people all like X" is giving you the same lazy shortcut that will make a speech miss the room. Push it toward curiosity, not clichés.

---

Part 8 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with:
- Your completed audience-analysis table (Part 2, Steps 2–3) and your planned opening keywords
- Your self-assessment scaffold (Part 4), including the adaptation check
- Your Part 5 analysis questions
- Your Part 7 AI-critique paragraph
- Your recording (upload or link) — the clip is what makes the self-assessment verifiable

Due Sunday, Sep 13, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model responses — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students record their own topics and audiences, so there is no single correct answer. The key grades the quality of the analysis (specificity and audience-centeredness), the adaptation check (did it show up in the clip?), and the AI-critique (did they catch or correctly evaluate a demographic overgeneralization?). A polished clip with no genuine adaptation is worth less than a rough clip with a clearly audience-adapted opening.

Model audience-analysis table (illustrative — topic: "benefits of a daily 10-minute walk"):

Audience A: First-semester students in a required college success seminar (~25 students; 8 a.m. Wednesday; captive)
Audience B: Participants in a voluntary Saturday wellness workshop (~15 adults, mixed ages; chose to attend)

Analysis category	Finding (Audience A)	Adaptation
Demographic	First-year college students, likely experiencing first extended periods of academic stress; unfamiliar with campus walking routes	Frame the 10-minute walk as a stress-break tool; mention specific campus paths
Psychographic	Attitude likely skeptical-to-indifferent — "that's too simple to matter"; value: efficiency and results in minimal time	Lead with the surprising science-supported result (energy boost, focus improvement) before the how-to; use "10 minutes" as the hook — the brevity is the selling point
Situational	8 a.m., required class, captive audience; likely tired	Open with a high-energy question, not a calm recommendation; ask how many got 7+ hours of sleep (almost no hands) — that's the relatable hook

Model opening for Audience A: "Quick question before we start: how many of you got 7+ hours last night? [pause] Right. I want to show you a 10-minute thing that might actually help with that — and you can do it between your classes today."

Why the model earns full marks: each category has a specific finding AND a concrete, logically connected adaptation; the opening is visibly shaped by the psychographic and situational findings; the model could point to specific moments where adaptation shows up.

Model AI-critique (illustrative): "When I asked the chatbot for adaptation advice for first-year college students, it said 'College students love social media references and memes, so include those for relatability.' That's a demographic stereotype — not all 18-year-olds are on the same platforms, and the advice would backfire for students who find it patronizing. A more careful version would be: 'Consider whether your specific audience has experience with this topic; if they don't, use an analogy to something familiar from campus life rather than assuming a pop-culture reference will land.'"

Expected answers:
- Part 5, Q1: any honest identification of which category drove the most change — full credit for specific example. (Psychographic usually drives the most change because it reveals what the audience already believes.)
- Part 5, Q2: full credit for naming a specific difference, not just "I changed my examples" (which example? why?).
- Part 5, Q3: full credit for identifying a concrete change — vocabulary, examples, opening frame, or level of assumed knowledge.
- Part 5, Q4: full credit for honestly identifying a generic moment (e.g., "I said 'many studies show' without connecting it to what this audience cares about") and naming the fix.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Audience-analysis table completed (Part 2) — at least two findings per category, each paired with a concrete adaptation; a planned opening that reflects the analysis (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Self-assessment quality (Parts 3–5) — adaptation check honestly completed, specific identification of where adaptation showed or didn't; analysis questions specific and reflective (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Rehearsal-coach engagement (Part 6) — actually used the coach and tried a concrete suggestion (10)	10	5–8	0–4
AI-critique (Part 7) — correctly identifies a demographic stereotype in the chatbot's advice (or correctly notes that it was careful) AND explains what thoughtful adaptation advice looks like instead (10)	10	5–8	0–4

Quality gate (self-checked): the four rubric criteria sum to exactly 50 (15 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 50). ✅

This workshop asserts no external quotations or statistics — the audience-analysis framework (demographic, psychographic, situational) is standard public-speaking course vocabulary treated factually, and the model profile is explicitly illustrative. No cited sources appear in this workshop, so there is nothing to fabricate or misattribute. The AI-critique targets demographic stereotyping rather than fabricated citations (the fabricated-citation risk is addressed in Week 4 on research). Rubric + citation-integrity gate PASS.