Week 3 — Speech Workshop / Rehearsal Studio · "From Topic to Thesis"

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective: Objective 2 — select and narrow a topic; write a general purpose, specific purpose, and thesis; self-assess the written planning documents against criteria · SLO A (compose & plan a speech)
Worth 50 points · Speech Workshops group = 15% of the grade · Workshop 3
Format this week: a writing and structuring workshop — narrow a topic, write all three planning elements, self-assess them against explicit criteria, then have a rehearsal coach react to your thesis and optional preview. No recording required this week; the deliverable is your written planning documents and self-assessment.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Speech Workshop. This week you build — and stress-test — the three-part planning tool (general purpose, specific purpose, thesis) that underpins every speech for the rest of the term. The Speech Workshop is the place where the concept moves from "I understand it" to "I can do it."

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every speech starts somewhere before the words. It starts with a question: What am I trying to say, and why does this audience need to hear it?

The three-part planning tool you learned this week — general purpose, specific purpose, and thesis — is the answer to that question, written down before you research, outline, or practice a single sentence. Speakers who skip this step almost always end up with a speech that rambles, runs over time, or says three things when it should say one. Speakers who do this step well spend less time drafting and more time practicing.

This Workshop locks in the skill. You will take a real topic — one you have some genuine connection to — through the full progression. Then you will stress-test your specific purpose against the four criteria and your thesis against the three features. And then you will use a rehearsal coach to get feedback on whether your thesis is clear and audience-ready.

The guiding question: Can I take any subject I care about and produce a well-formed specific purpose and a clear thesis in about ten minutes — and then know whether I have done it right?

---

Part 2 — The Drill: From Broad Subject to Thesis

Step 1 — Choose your subject.

Pick a subject you know something about, care about, or have direct experience with. It does not have to be your deepest passion — just something you could talk to a friend about for five minutes without going blank. A hobby, a campus issue, something in your major, a process you have learned, something you believe.

Write it here (one or two words is fine): My broad subject: ___

---

Step 2 — Narrow it.

Apply the four narrowing filters to your subject. Check each one:

Filter	Question	Does your narrowed topic pass?
Purpose	Does this topic fit the general purpose I have chosen (to inform or to persuade)?	Yes / No — adjustment:
Audience	Will this audience (college students in a public speaking class) care, and do they have the background to follow it?	Yes / No — adjustment:
Context	Is this topic appropriate for a classroom speech assignment?	Yes / No — adjustment:
Time	Can I cover this topic meaningfully in a 4–6-minute informative or persuasive speech?	Yes / No — adjustment:

Keep narrowing until all four say yes.

My narrowed topic: ___

(What narrowing move did you make? Briefly explain in one sentence: e.g., "I went from 'sleep' to 'how to improve sleep consistency for college students during finals week' because the time filter told me 'sleep' was too broad.")

---

Step 3 — Write your general purpose.

Circle or write one: To inform · To persuade · (To entertain/mark an occasion — unlikely for this assignment, but allowed)

My general purpose: ___

---

Step 4 — Write your specific purpose.

Write your specific purpose as a single infinitive phrase. Then check all four tests by circling Yes or No:

My specific purpose: ___

Test	Check
One idea (not two or three)?	Yes / No
Infinitive phrase (starts with "To inform…" or "To persuade…")?	Yes / No
Audience-centered (states what the audience will gain)?	Yes / No
Achievable in the time limit?	Yes / No

If any test is No: revise the specific purpose and run the tests again before moving on.

Revised specific purpose (if needed): ___

---

Step 5 — Write your thesis.

Write your thesis as a complete declarative sentence. Then check the three features:

My thesis: ___

Feature	Check
Full declarative sentence (subject + predicate; not a fragment, not a question, not an infinitive phrase)?	Yes / No
States a clear main message the audience will remember?	Yes / No
Plain language a non-expert could follow?	Yes / No

If any feature is No: revise the thesis before moving on.

Revised thesis (if needed): ___

---

Step 6 — Write out your completed progression.

When all five steps pass their checks, write the clean version here:

Broad subject: __
Narrowed topic: __
General purpose: __
Specific purpose: __
Thesis: ___

---

Part 3 — Self-Assessment

Rate each element on a 1–5 scale (1 = still needs real work, 5 = solid and ready to use) and add a one-line note:

Element	Score (1–5)	What I notice
Narrowing — is the topic genuinely focused, or still too broad?	___	______
Specific purpose — form — is it an infinitive phrase?	___	______
Specific purpose — one idea — does it cover exactly one focused idea?	___	______
Specific purpose — audience-centered — does it state what the audience gains?	___	______
Thesis — full sentence — is it a complete declarative sentence?	___	______
Thesis — clear message — does it actually say something the audience can remember?	___	______

My ONE thing to fix or sharpen before using this in a real speech: ___

---

Part 4 — Analysis Questions

Answer in a sentence or two each:

1. Which step in the progression was hardest — narrowing, writing the specific purpose, or writing the thesis — and why?
2. If you had skipped the four tests for the specific purpose and gone straight from your narrowed topic to writing the speech, what problem might you have run into?
3. How does this week's specific purpose connect to last week's audience analysis? (Hint: think about which of the four tests ties directly to the audience.)
4. Optional — 30-second thesis preview. Try saying your thesis and a brief preview ("I will cover…") out loud, then record yourself for about 30 seconds on a phone camera or Zoom. Watch it once. Did your thesis sound like a claim the audience would want to hear more about — or like a dry statement nobody would care about? What adjustment might make it land better?

---

Part 5 — Rehearsal-Coach Moment (BYOAI)

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

1. Paste your completed progression (all five steps) and ask: "I am preparing a speech for my public speaking class. Here is my specific purpose and thesis. Do both pass the criteria for a well-formed specific purpose and a clear thesis? Give me specific, actionable feedback on what to improve."
2. Read its feedback and use the most specific suggestion to revise, if revision is warranted.

Note on the coach's limitations: the chatbot does not know your actual audience, the occasion, or the exact time limit. Its feedback on form (is it an infinitive phrase? is it a declarative sentence?) tends to be reliable. Its feedback on whether the topic fits this audience is guesswork — apply the audience and context filters yourself.

---

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — this is the BYOAI judgment step)

Here is the habit that protects you all term.

After the chatbot gives feedback on your specific purpose and thesis, evaluate the quality of that feedback carefully:

1. Did it gush or was it specific? Chatbots often default to hollow praise — "Great specific purpose! Your thesis is really strong and clear!" — without explaining what exactly makes it strong. If that is what you got, push back: "Be specific. Which criterion exactly does my specific purpose pass, and which does it fail or just barely pass? Show me using the four tests."
2. Did it check all four tests, or just the most obvious one? Sometimes a chatbot will spot that a specific purpose is not an infinitive phrase (easy catch) but miss that it still covers two ideas (harder catch). Verify each test yourself.
3. Did it fabricate anything? For this week's workshop — writing purposes and thesis statements — fabrication risk is low (there are no statistics or sources involved). But note what the chatbot says and flag anything that seems invented or over-confident.

Write 2–3 sentences reporting: one example of feedback that was empty or vague and what genuinely specific feedback would have said instead; OR a specific instance where the chatbot's feedback was genuinely useful and why.

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your completed progression table (Part 2, Steps 1–6), your self-assessment scaffold (Part 3) including your "one thing to fix," your Part 4 analysis answers, and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph. Include your optional 30-second recording if your section requires it (Part 4, question 4). Due Sunday, Sep 20, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

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

Students choose their own topics, so there is no single correct progression. This model shows what a full-marks progression and self-assessment look like in form and reasoning. Grade the honesty and specificity of the self-assessment and the quality of the AI-critique, not the topic.

Model progression (illustrative — meal prep topic from the lecture):
- Broad subject: nutrition
- Narrowed topic: budget meal prep for college students (time filter: the original "nutrition" is too large for a 5-minute speech; audience filter: college students are the right audience for a budget-focused angle)
- General purpose: to inform
- Specific purpose: "To inform my audience about three strategies for affordable weekly meal prep." (one idea ✓ · infinitive phrase ✓ · audience-centered ✓ · achievable ✓)
- Thesis: "Affordable meal prep comes down to planning around sales, batch cooking, and smart storage." (full sentence ✓ · clear message ✓ · plain language ✓)

Model self-assessment (illustrative):
- Narrowing: 5 — "Used the time and audience filters; 'nutrition' was clearly too broad. 'Budget meal prep for college students' is specific enough to cover in five minutes."
- Specific purpose — form: 5 — "Starts with 'To inform' and is an infinitive phrase."
- Specific purpose — one idea: 5 — "Three strategies for the same activity is one idea with three parts, not three separate ideas."
- Specific purpose — audience-centered: 5 — "Says 'my audience,' states what they will gain."
- Thesis — full sentence: 5 — "Subject = 'Affordable meal prep,' predicate = 'comes down to planning around sales, batch cooking, and smart storage.' Complete sentence."
- Thesis — clear message: 4 — "Clear and memorable. Could be more vivid — 'Affordable meal prep is simpler than it sounds' — but the current version works."
- One thing to fix: "The thesis could be more vivid. Try: 'If you plan around the sales flyer, batch cook on Sundays, and store leftovers smart, your weekly food bill drops fast.' More concrete and compelling."

Model AI-critique (illustrative): "When I pasted my progression, the chatbot said 'Your specific purpose and thesis are both excellent — clear, concise, and well-formed!' It gave no specific reason. When I pushed it to check each of the four tests explicitly, it identified that my original specific purpose ('To inform my audience about meal prep') failed the audience-centered test (it did not say what the audience would gain). That was useful. The initial praise was empty; the specific-test check was the valuable part."

Expected answers (Part 4):
- Q1: any honest answer is full credit if the reasoning is specific (e.g., "narrowing was hardest because 'nutrition' could go dozens of directions").
- Q2: likely answer: would have started too broad, researched too much, and ended up with an unfocused speech.
- Q3: the audience-centered test directly mirrors audience analysis — you cannot know if a specific purpose is audience-centered without knowing who the audience is.
- Q4 (optional): full credit for any honest observation about whether the thesis sounded like a real claim or a textbook definition.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Completed progression (Part 2, Steps 1–6) — all five steps present; specific purpose passes all four tests; thesis is a full declarative sentence (20)	20	10–16	0–8
Self-assessment quality (Part 3–4) — honest, specific, names a concrete improvement for each element, not "it was fine" (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Rehearsal-coach engagement (Part 5) — actually used the coach and responded to its most specific suggestion (8)	8	4–6	0–3
AI-critique (Part 6) — names a specific instance of empty/vague AI feedback and what useful, specific feedback would say — OR correctly identifies a genuinely useful piece of feedback and explains why (7)	7	3–5	0–2

Rubric total: 20+15+8+7 = 50.

Quality gate (self-checked): the four rubric criteria sum to exactly 50. This workshop involves no external statistics, quotations, or source citations — students write their own planning documents, so there is no fabrication risk in the core deliverable. The AI-critique moment asks students to catch the chatbot's hollow praise on their own thesis and specific purpose — the genre-appropriate risk this week (coaching hollowness, not citation fabrication, which arrives in Week 4). The model progression uses the meal-prep example from the lecture, which is original and not attributed to any real source. No quoted material is used; no citation needs verification this week.