Week 4 — Prove It Out Loud: Sources, Statistics, and Oral Citations

Assignment 4 of the term — judge the sources behind your next speech, write oral citations an audience can trust, and explain to a cousin why "studies show" is not a source.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based plan. You remain the speaker and the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Speech Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on the sources for a speech you will really give. It builds on Week 1's line between plagiarism and fabrication and on Week 3's central idea: every source here backs one of your central idea's promises.

The task

This week's shared example is the mini-source set: the running speech's three real sources. The running speech, an informative speech on food waste in a campus dining hall, and its speaker are illustrative and attributed to no one; the sources are real:

• a government page: the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Food Waste FAQs" (no dated stamp; it cites the department's Economic Research Service and a 2010 estimate)
• a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: Wenhao Zhang and Junehee Kwon in the journal Sustainability, December 2022
• a news article with a named author and date: Dee-Ann Durbin of the Associated Press, writing for PBS News, December 2022

Chapter 4 runs all three through the five-question credibility checklist (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose), turns each into an oral citation that names who, what, and when before the evidence, and walks an illustrative, official-looking wellness site and an illustrative chatbot exchange through the same checks.

Work these four problems, and show how you reached each one:

1. The running speech runs each of its 3 sources through all 5 questions of the credibility checklist. How many checks is that in all?
2. The running speech has 3 oral citations, and each one names 3 parts (who, what, when). How many parts are named in all?
3. The illustrative wellness site passes 1 of the 5 questions on the credibility checklist. How many questions does it fail?
4. Asked for sources, a chatbot returns 3 citations, and only 1 of them is found at the original. How many citations are dropped?

Beside each answer, add one brief explanation, and use the sources for your own next speech for the parts that ask for it:

• Problem 1: choose one real source you plan to use. Answer all five checklist questions with evidence from the source itself, give a keep-or-drop verdict, and name one independent source you used to check its main claim.
• Problem 2: write two complete oral citations for real sources you found. Each names who (with a clause on why they are credible), what, and when, in the sentence before the evidence. Label the three parts in each.
• Problem 3: list three pieces of supporting material you plan to use and sort them as an example, a statistic, and testimony. Say whether the testimony is expert or lay, and why. If any example is hypothetical, show how you will flag it as invented.
• Problem 4: in the illustrative chatbot exchange, explain why the unfound citations are dropped, and why even the found one is still checked for whether it says what the chatbot claimed.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your cousin is preparing a two-minute pitch at their apartment building's tenants' meeting for a covered bike-storage room and plans to say, "Studies show bike theft is way up." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, why to say who found it, where it was published, and when, before the number; how to check the number first; and one limit, such as that a source can be real and still not say what you need it to. Explain any course term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible; this message is scored with Problem 4.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker getting ready for a restaurant staff meeting who plans to say, "Experts say we should change how we store leftovers." Model answer: "Before you say 'experts say,' find out which experts and where they said it, because your coworkers will want to know whether to trust it. If it's a health department page, say so first: 'Our county health department's food-safety page says…'. Check that the page is current and that it actually says what you heard. And keep in mind that a rule from one place may not match ours, so ask the manager which rules we follow."

Use that pattern for your cousin, with your own wording and examples.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief explanations, your checklist run, your two oral citations, your sorted supporting material, and your message to the cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show your arithmetic when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one answer or explanation, even if your first attempt was strong.
4. Never let the coach supply a source, a statistic, or a citation for you. Every source in your work must be one you found and opened yourself.
5. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met, then save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your citations, your checklist answers, or the message for you. If it hands you a study or a number you did not bring, treat it as unverified and say so; that is this week's lesson.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful public speaking coach for an introductory Public Speaking course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about sources, supporting material, and oral citations. Do not write my assignment, my oral citations, or my message for me, do not invent work I did not show, and never invent a quotation, a statistic, a study, an author, a title, a date, or a source. If I ask you for a source or a statistic, say you cannot supply a verified one and that I must find it at the original myself.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the running speech is an illustrative informative speech on food waste in a campus dining hall, attributed to no one. Its mini-source set is three real sources: the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Food Waste FAQs" (no dated stamp; it cites the Economic Research Service and a 2010 estimate); Wenhao Zhang and Junehee Kwon in the journal Sustainability, December 2022, with a DOI; and Dee-Ann Durbin of the Associated Press, writing for PBS News, December 2022. The credibility checklist has five questions: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose. An oral citation names three parts, who, what, and when, in the sentence before the evidence. The illustrative wellness site has no author, no date, an unsourced claim, and a "buy now" button; only relevance passes. In the illustrative chatbot exchange, a chatbot returned three citations and only one was found at the original.
PROBLEM P1: The running speech runs each of its 3 sources through all 5 questions of the credibility checklist. How many checks is that in all?
PROBLEM P2: The running speech has 3 oral citations, and each one names 3 parts (who, what, when). How many parts are named in all?
PROBLEM P3: The illustrative wellness site passes 1 of the 5 questions on the credibility checklist. How many questions does it fail?
PROBLEM P4: Asked for sources, a chatbot returns 3 citations, and only 1 of them is found at the original. How many citations are dropped?
After the four answers, I must briefly explain each one: for P1, one real source I plan to use run through all five checklist questions with evidence and a verdict, plus one independent source I used to check its main claim; for P2, two complete oral citations for real sources I found, each naming who with a credibility clause, what, and when before the evidence, with the parts labeled; for P3, three pieces of my own supporting material sorted as an example, a statistic, and testimony, with whether the testimony is expert or lay and any hypothetical flagged; for P4, why the unfound citations are dropped and why the found one is still checked for what it says. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a cousin who plans to say "studies show bike theft is way up" at a tenants' meeting, explaining in everyday words why to name who, what, and when before the number, how to check the number first, and one limit. I must explain course terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: accurate counts from the week's models (40 points), source and evidence reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert listener (16 points), and showing the work and the evidence (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-the-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COUNT UNITS: A correct check count, part count, failed-question count, or dropped-citation count = 2; the right values with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing answer or the wrong values = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent wording.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an explanation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a critique explaining why unfound citations are dropped and why a found one is still checked AND a message to the cousin that explains naming who, what, and when, checking the number first, and one limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone who has never taken a speaking course, with course terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or unexplained terms = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-THE-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the values, labels, or steps behind the answer shown so they can be checked = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, label, or step = 1; an answer alone or no evidence = 0. Visible evidence stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. When I give an oral citation, ask me which words are the who, the what, and the when, and whether they come before the evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made, and name the words you are praising. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief explanations AND written my message to the cousin AND revised at least one answer or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my answers and explanations]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four answers, their brief explanations, your checklist run, your two oral citations, your sorted supporting material, your critique of the chatbot exchange, and your message to the cousin — written, or spoken and recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 4 skills — counting the parts of the week's models, judging a real source with the five-question credibility checklist and an independent source, writing complete oral citations that name who, what, and when before the evidence, sorting supporting material and telling expert from lay testimony, telling an unfound citation from a usable one, and explaining all of it to someone who has never taken a speaking course — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief explanations, and the message to the cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one answer or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The counts, the explanations, the checklist answers, the oral citations, the revision, and the message to the cousin must be your own. Every source you cite must be one you found and opened yourself; a citation a chatbot supplied is not a source until you have found it at the original and read what it says. Do not ask the chatbot to write the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com