Week 4 Speech Workshop: Two Real Sources, Cited Out Loud

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This workshop is where research turns into something you say out loud. You find two real sources for your next speech, run each one through the five credibility questions, check its main claim against an independent source, and write an oral citation that names who, what, and when before the evidence. Then you say a short passage that uses both sources to a real listener, and your listener tells you which parts of each citation they caught. You practice twice and fix one moment between takes. Along the way you use a chatbot as a rehearsal coach and then check its work, because a chatbot asked for sources can hand you citations for studies that do not exist.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: After hearing your passage once, can your listener repeat who, what, and when for both of your sources, and did each source earn its place on the five credibility questions?

Workshop data: Your own two sources and two takes of a cited passage (student-generated)

Source: The data in this workshop is your own: two real sources you find and open for your next speech, your answers to the five checklist questions about each, and two takes of a 60-to-90-second passage that cites both, measured in the tables in Part 4. Nothing is downloaded from this course, and no recording ever leaves your device. If you cannot find two sources or practice aloud this week, the fallback supplies two real sources and an illustrative take attributed to no one.

• Rows: 2 sources per student, each logged on 1 row of the source log and checked on the 5 question rows of the checklist table, plus 2 practice takes measured on the 6 rows of the take table
• Columns: the source log has the source, who, what, when, and the kind of supporting material; the checklist table has the question, source 1, and source 2; the take table has the measure, take 1, and take 2
• Measures: the citation parts your listener could repeat for each source, whether each credit came before its evidence, a moment you glanced at the card, and the one moment to fix

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach

Ways of working

• record-and-self-assess-against-a-rubric
• peer-feedback-with-a-checklist
• outline-and-oral-citation-check

Procedure

1. Pick the topic of a speech you will give this term. Find two real sources from two different kinds of places: a government or institutional page, an article from a library database, or a news outlet with editorial standards. Open each one yourself, and fill in its row of the source log in Part 4 in an outline template in any document editor. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: Two rows of the source log are filled, each with a named author or organization, a title or venue, and a date or a note that the page shows none.
2. Answer the five credibility questions for each source in the checklist table, quoting what on the page told you. Then open one independent source and note whether it confirms each source's main claim. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: All ten cells of the checklist table hold an answer with evidence, both independent-check cells are filled, and each source has a keep-or-drop verdict.
3. Write one oral citation for each kept source: who, with one clause on why they are credible, then what, then when, then the evidence. Put each one on a card as keywords, not as a sentence to read. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: Two citations exist, each with its three parts in order before the evidence, and the cards hold keywords only.
4. Do take 1 for a listener: a classmate, a friend, or a family member. Say a 60-to-90-second passage that delivers both pieces of evidence with their citations. You may record video, record audio only, or speak while your listener watches; keep any recording on your own device. Right after the take, ask your listener to repeat who, what, and when for each source and to mark the listener checklist. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: One complete take exists, the listener's answers are written down word for word, and no recording has been uploaded or shared.
5. Fill in the take 1 column of the take table, naming a moment rather than a feeling. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: Every row of the take 1 column is filled, and the last row names a moment a listener could point to.
6. Rehearsal coach step: in a new chat with one approved chatbot, describe take 1 in words using your tables (never upload or link a recording) and ask for one specific, actionable suggestion about how your citations land. Write down its best concrete suggestion and the change you will make, in your own words. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: One suggestion is quoted, and the change you will try is written in your own words.
7. Do take 2 for the same or a new listener, trying the change, then fill in the take 2 column of the take table and the listener checklist. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: Both columns are complete, and the take 2 moment row says whether the take 1 moment changed.
8. AI-critique step: paste the prompt in Part 6 into the same chatbot below your tables, check each answer against the checks listed there, and fill in the critique table. Or complete the equivalent route in Part 6 instead. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: The critique table quotes at least two chatbot statements, names each problem, and gives a correction with evidence, or the printed flawed response is marked up the same way.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot find two sources you can open this week, if no listener is available, or if speaking aloud is not possible for you right now.

Do the logging, checking, citing, coach, and critique steps on the two real sources and the illustrative take below instead of your own. Fill in the source log and the checklist table for these two sources, write an oral citation for each, use the take notes to fill in the take table and the checklist, and in analysis questions 2 to 4 say what you would change in your own citations for a real speech. You submit the same items and earn the same credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Two real sources a speech on public speaking nerves or speaking ethics could use, and one illustrative take attributed to no one, measured on the same rows as your own table.

Fallback model data

Item	Fallback source or take
Source A	Karen Kangas Dwyer and Marlina M. Davidson, 'Is Public Speaking Really More Feared Than Death?', Communication Research Reports, 2012: a peer-reviewed study of 815 college students
Source B	National Communication Association, Credo for Ethical Communication, revised in 2024, on the Association's website
Speaker's notes on take 1	Said 'a study found that public speaking is the top fear' before naming the researchers; named the Association but not the Credo or its date; looked down at the card for the whole citation
Listener's repeat after take 1	Remembered 'some study' and 'a communication group'; could not say when either source appeared
Your source log, checklist answers, two citations, and one moment to fix

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Log each source the way your listener will hear it: who made it, what it is, and when it appeared.

Student scaffold table 1

Source	Who (and why credible)	What (title or venue)	When	Kind of supporting material it gives
Source 1
Source 2

Answer every credibility question for both sources with evidence from the page, then check each main claim against an independent source.

Student scaffold table 2

Question	Source 1 (answer and evidence)	Source 2 (answer and evidence)
Currency
Relevance
Authority
Accuracy
Purpose
Independent source checked, and what it showed
Verdict (keep or drop)

Measure each take the same way so you can see whether your citations reached a real listener.

Student scaffold table 3

Measure	Take 1	Take 2
Parts of citation 1 the listener repeated (who, what, when)
Parts of citation 2 the listener repeated (who, what, when)
Did each credit come before its evidence? (yes or no)
A moment I glanced at the card
The citation part I said least distinctly
The one moment to fix

Your listener marks this checklist after each take; it shows whether each citation was complete and heard.

Student scaffold table 4

Checklist item	Take 1 (yes or no)	Take 2 (yes or no)
I heard who made each source and why they are credible.
I heard what each source is: its title or where it appeared.
I heard when each source appeared.
Each credit came before the number, finding, or example it supports.
The speaker looked up while saying the citations.

Record the chatbot's statements you checked, or the printed flawed response's, and what you corrected.

Student scaffold table 5

Statement (quoted)	Problem it shows	Your correction and its evidence

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Count the citation parts your listener repeated after each take, out of the complete count: two citations times three parts each. Show the multiplication, then give your listener's count for take 1 and take 2 and name any part that was missed.
2. Which part of a citation, who, what, or when, did your listener miss most often, and what in your take table explains it?
3. Which of the five credibility questions was hardest to answer for one of your sources, and how did the independent source you checked change or confirm your verdict?
4. Sort the evidence each source gives as an example, a statistic, or testimony, and if it is testimony, say whether it is expert or lay. Then explain, using this week's line between plagiarism and fabrication, what would go wrong if you used that evidence without the citation.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) One listener is not a whole audience: what could your listener's checklist not tell you about how a full room would hear your citations, and how could you find out? (b) Which of your two sources is weakest on the five questions, and what would you need to find before you trusted it in the real speech?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I am preparing a short informative speech for a public speaking class. I've pasted my source log, my checklist table, and my take table for my first take above; I have not shared any recording. Please do six things. First, give me feedback on my delivery. Second, give me three statistics about my topic, each with a source I can cite out loud. Third, write an oral citation for each statistic. Fourth, give me one famous quotation about telling the truth in a speech and say who said it. Fifth, rewrite my two oral citations so they sound more professional. Sixth, turn my two sources into a formal outline with Roman numerals and letters.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often open with 'Great sources, very credible!' without pointing to a single checklist answer or citation you wrote.
• Chatbots tell you to 'speak with more authority' or 'slow down when you cite' even though they never heard your take, and they name no moment.
• Asked for statistics on your topic, chatbots often hand over three precise-sounding percentages as if each were settled fact.
• Chatbots attach complete-looking citations, with authors, a journal or a real-sounding organization, and a year, to those statistics, and some of the studies cannot be found anywhere.
• Asked for a quotation about truth in speaking, chatbots often credit a smooth line to a famous figure who never said it, with no transcript behind it.
• Asked to make citations 'more professional', chatbots often pile on phrases such as 'According to a comprehensive peer-reviewed analysis conducted by esteemed researchers', burying the who, what, and when and the speaker's own voice.
• Turning two sources into an outline, chatbots often write 'I. Sources, A. My first source' with a lone subpoint, or list the citation as a main point beside the evidence it supports.

In 3–5 sentences, quote two things the chatbot said, name the problem each one shows, and write your correction with its evidence; then name one thing the chatbot got right and the part of your source log or table it was about.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Speech Workshop. Instead of the chatbot steps, do two things. First, for the coach step, ask your listener or another classmate for one specific suggestion about how your citations land, or reread your take 1 notes and write the one part of a citation your listener would still ask about; then answer it with one change in your own words and try it in take 2. Second, critique this flawed response, printed here in full and attributed to no one: "Great sources, very credible! Your delivery needs more authority, so work on sounding confident. Here are three statistics: 62 percent of students say they trust online sources, according to a national survey of learners; 48 percent of speeches contain at least one unsupported claim, according to a speech-research center; and audiences remember cited facts twice as well, according to a communication journal. As a famous statesman once said, 'The truth needs no citation.' Here is a more professional version of your first citation: 'According to a comprehensive peer-reviewed analysis conducted by esteemed researchers, the findings are clear.' Here are your sources as an outline: I. Sources, A. My first source. II. Evidence. III. Citations." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (hollow praise, delivery feedback that names no moment, an unverified statistic, an invented or incomplete source, a misattributed quotation, a voice-erasing rewrite, or an outline with a lone subpoint and citations split from their evidence), cite the evidence from your source log, your tables, or Chapter 4, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 3 — choose and narrow a topic, write a general purpose, a well-formed specific purpose, and a central idea, and support the speech with credible examples, statistics, and testimony that are evaluated for credibility and cited aloud in a complete oral citation naming who, what, and when — never fabricated, never plagiarized) as the chatbot steps, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed response with your coach-step question and change, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed source log for two sources
• The completed checklist table, with the independent check and a verdict for each source
• Your two oral citations, written as you will say them
• The completed take table for take 1 and take 2, with the listener's repeated parts
• The completed listener checklist
• The coach suggestion you acted on, quoted, with your change in your own words
• Written answers to the five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed response

Deliverable:

A short Speech Workshop packet on two real sources for your next speech: the source log, the checklist table with independent checks and verdicts, your two oral citations, the take table for two takes with your listener's repeated parts, the listener checklist, the coach suggestion you acted on in your own words, written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's response, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed response. No recording is submitted. 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. Choose a written, spoken, or recorded form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Two real sources judged on all five credibility questions	Both sources are logged with who, what, and when, all five questions are answered for each with evidence from the source, an independent check is noted for each, and each has a verdict that follows from the answers.	One source is fully checked, answers lack evidence, or the independent check or a verdict is missing.	No sources, or sources logged with no checklist answers.
Two oral citations heard and measured across two takes	Both citations name who with a credibility clause, what, and when before the evidence, both columns of the take table are complete with the listener's repeated parts, and analysis question 1 shows the count with any missed part named.	One citation is complete, one take is measured, or a take names a feeling instead of a moment.	No citations, or citations with no take measured.
Checklist and connections to the week's ideas	The listener checklist is marked for both takes, and analysis questions 3 and 4 name the hardest credibility question, sort the evidence correctly, including expert or lay testimony, and explain the plagiarism or fabrication risk.	The checklist covers one take, or questions 3 and 4 name a term without tying it to the student's own sources.	No checklist and no connection to the credibility questions or the kinds of supporting material.
Coach feedback acted on in your own voice	One coach suggestion is quoted and answered with a change in the student's own words that shows up in take 2.	A suggestion is quoted, but the change copies the chatbot's wording or does not appear in take 2.	No coach feedback appears, or a chatbot rewrite is submitted as the student's citations.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed response	On either route, at least two problems are quoted and corrected with evidence from the student's sources, tables, or Chapter 4, every chatbot statistic, quotation, or citation is marked unverified, and one correct point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, problems are named but corrected without evidence, or only one problem is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflection on the limits of the check	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit of the single listener or of a weak source and a concrete way to check it.	The reflection is answered but stays general, with no specific limit or check.	No reflection appears.

Quality Gate

• Every recording stays on your own device; none is uploaded, linked, or shared with a chatbot or anyone else.
• Both sources are real, and you opened each one yourself; neither came from a chatbot's list.
• Every checklist answer quotes or describes evidence from the source, and each source has an independent check and a verdict.
• Each oral citation names who, what, and when before its evidence, and both takes are spoken from keyword cards.
• No quotation, statistic, or source appears in your work unless you found and checked it yourself; the chatbot's are marked unverified.
• The coach suggestion and your change are in your own words, and the critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed response and corrects at least two problems with evidence.