Week 10 — Speech Workshop / Rehearsal Studio · "The Design Drill"

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective: Objective 6 — design and use presentation aids effectively · SLO A (deliver a speech segment using a visual aid) · SLO B (analyze and critique visual aid design)
Worth 50 points · Speech Workshops group = 15% of the grade · Workshop 10
Format this week: a design-critique-and-delivery drill — no special equipment beyond a phone camera and an approved chatbot.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Speech Workshop. This week's drill has three connected parts: (1) you describe two well-designed slides, (2) you critique and redesign a described bad slide, and (3) you record a 60-second segment that integrates one of your slides without reading it.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A presentation aid is only as good as the person using it. This week you have learned the principles — one idea per slide, the right graph type, high contrast, minimal text, the reveal-reference-return sequence. Now comes the hardest part: doing it under the pressure of a camera.

The ability to use a slide without becoming its reader is a distinct skill. It requires that you know your material well enough to glance at the screen, say one specific thing about what is there, and then turn back to your audience — without losing your place, your eye contact, or your momentum. That skill is what this Workshop drills.

The guiding question: Can I integrate a visual aid so that it amplifies my message — without replacing me?

---

Part 2 — The Drill: Three Tasks

Task A — Describe Two Well-Designed Slides

Choose a topic for a brief speech (it can be a draft of your Week 11 informative speech or any topic you know well). Identify two moments in that speech where a visual aid would genuinely help the audience.

For each moment, write a text description of the slide you would use. Your description must include:

Element	What to include
Slide title	A short, specific title (not generic)
The one idea	One sentence: "This slide makes the point that ___"
Aid type	Which type (bar graph, line graph, pie chart, diagram, photograph, etc.) and why it fits
Design choices	At least two named principles (e.g., "I limited the text to four words and a title, applying the 6×6 heuristic; I chose high contrast — white text on dark background")
Integration cue	One sentence on how you would reveal, reference, and return

You are describing the slides in text — you do not need to build them in slideware for this Workshop.

---

Task B — Critique and Fix a Described Bad Slide

Here is a described "bad slide." Read it, then complete two steps.

The bad slide (described):

Topic: campus food waste. The slide has a title — "Food Waste: What We Can Do About It." Below the title are seven bullet points in small type, each a complete sentence, covering: (1) the scale of campus food waste nationally, (2) the main causes in dining halls, (3) composting programs, (4) tray-free dining research, (5) student behavior change, (6) how to measure progress, and (7) a call to action. The speaker reads all seven bullets while facing the screen.

Step 1 — Critique. In the table below, name each design or integration violation and explain (briefly) why it hurts the audience.

Violation	Principle it breaks	Why it hurts the audience
1.
2.
3.
4. (optional — name any additional violations you see)

Step 2 — Fix. Describe a redesigned version in text. How many slides would you use? What is the one idea on each? What aid type (if any) replaces the bullet list? How does the integration cue work?

---

Task C — Record a 60-Second Segment Without Reading the Slide

The drill:
1. Pick ONE of your two slides from Task A (or a new one on the same topic).
2. Write a 3–5 keyword speaking outline for a 60-second segment built around that slide.
3. Record yourself for approximately 60 seconds on a phone camera or Zoom. Use the slide in one of two ways:
- If you built the actual slide in slideware: share your screen and deliver the segment with the slide visible.
- If you only have the text description: hold up your written description or describe it as if pointing at a screen — the goal is the integration, not the technology.
4. Watch your recording once. Focus specifically on: did you look at the screen and read it, or did you glance, say one specific thing, and return to camera?

---

Part 3 — Self-Assessment Scaffold (fill in after watching your recording)

Rate each item on a 1–5 scale (1 = needs significant work; 5 = strong) with a one-line note.

What to watch for	Score (1–5)	What I noticed
Integration — reveal: did you bring the slide up at the right moment, not too early?	___	______
Integration — reference: did you say something specific about the slide ("this shows," "notice," "as you can see")?	___	______
Integration — return: did you turn back to the camera/audience, or stay facing the screen?	___	______
No reading: did you speak the substance from memory/notes rather than reading the slide aloud?	___	______
Fluency and pace: did you maintain your train of thought through the integration cue, or lose your place?	___	______

Your one thing: What is the single most important change for your next time integrating a slide? Write it as: "Next time I will ______."

---

Part 4 — Analysis Questions

Answer in a sentence or two each:

1. Which design violation in Task B's bad slide do you think is hardest to avoid in practice — and why?
2. During your recording, did you find it easier or harder to "return to the audience" (look at the camera) than you expected? What made it hard?
3. How does the reveal-reference-return sequence connect to the transactional model of communication from Week 1? (What happens to the feedback loop when you face the screen and read?)
4. What one design principle from this week will you apply most in your Week 11 informative speech? Why that one?

---

Part 5 — Rehearsal-Coach Moment (BYOAI)

Bring in your approved chatbot as a rehearsal coach for the integration step.

1. Paste your keyword speaking outline (from Task C) and a short description of how your recording went, then ask: "I am practicing integrating a presentation aid in a public speaking class. Here is my outline and how my recording went. What specific suggestions do you have for improving my reveal-reference-return sequence?"
2. Read its feedback and apply its single most actionable suggestion in a second take if time allows.

---

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

This week's design-failure version. After receiving the coach's feedback, ask it: "Can you design a slide for my speech on [your topic]?"

Then evaluate its output against this week's principles. Watch for:

1. Overcrowding: does it give you a description with seven or more bullet points? That violates one-idea-per-slide and the 6×6 heuristic.
2. Wrong graph type: does it suggest a pie chart for data that is actually a trend over time, or a line graph for a category comparison? Check against the matching rule.
3. Hollow design praise: does it describe a slide as "visually appealing and professional" without connecting those choices to how they help the audience? Push it: "Why does that specific design choice make the audience's job easier?"
4. Fabricated statistics: if it suggests putting a specific number or percentage on the slide, ask for the source. AI systems invent statistics. Any specific figure on a slide should be traced to a verified authoritative source before it goes in your speech.

Write 2–3 sentences reporting: one example of a design suggestion that violated a principle, and how you would fix it.

The habit this week: the tool drafts, you judge against the principles. An AI design suggestion is a starting point, not a final answer.

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with:
- Task A: your two slide descriptions (with all five table elements for each).
- Task B: your filled critique table and your redesign description.
- Task C: your completed self-assessment scaffold (Part 3) and your "one thing."
- Part 4: your four analysis answers.
- Part 6: your 2–3-sentence AI-critique note.

Include your recording (upload or link) if your section requires it; otherwise the self-assessment is the submission. Do the recording either way — it is the core of this Workshop.

Due Sunday, Nov 1, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor Answer Key & Model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Slide descriptions and critiques will vary by student and topic. This model shows what full-credit work looks like in reasoning quality and precision; grade against the rubric, not against this content.

Task B — Model critique (illustrative):

Violation	Principle it breaks	Why it hurts the audience
1. Seven full-sentence bullets	One idea per slide; minimal text / 6×6 heuristic	Audience's attention is split across seven ideas; nothing is memorable
2. Small type	Large, readable type	Unreadable from the back of the room; some audience members effectively have no visual aid
3. Speaker reads all seven bullets while facing screen	Integration — return; talk to the audience not the screen	Breaks the transactional communication loop; audience reads ahead and tunes out
4. Seven ideas jammed onto one slide	One idea per slide	No single idea lands; the slide competes with the speaker rather than supporting them

Model redesign: Three slides. Slide 1 — "The Scale of the Problem": one described bar graph (three bars showing estimated food waste per student per year at three campus types). Slide 2 — "Two Solutions": two large words, "Tray-free" and "Education," and nothing else. Slide 3 — "Your Role": one question in large type, "What will you change this week?" The speaker carries all the explanation; each slide gets one reference cue and then the speaker returns to the audience.

Task C — Expected self-assessment: full credit for honest, specific observations — any student who notices they faced the screen or lost their place earns credit for that honesty. The one-thing fix should be specific (not "be better" but "say one line to the camera before looking at the slide next time").

Part 4 — Expected answers:
1. Any honest identification of a hard-to-avoid violation — "reading the bullets" is the most common answer; accept any well-reasoned choice.
2. Most students find the return-to-camera harder than expected; accept any honest reflection.
3. Full credit for connecting the return-to-camera to maintaining the feedback loop — when you face the screen you cannot read the audience's nods, confusion, or engagement.
4. Any of the six principles accepted; full credit for a specific reason tied to the student's speech plan.

---

Grading Rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Task A — Two slide descriptions (both slides described with title, one idea, aid type + justification, at least two design principles named, integration cue included) (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Task B — Critique and fix (at least three specific violations named with principles cited; redesign addresses the violations) (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Task C + Part 3 — Recording + self-assessment scaffold (recording completed; all five integration/delivery dimensions rated with specific observations; one-thing fix named) (10)	10	5–8	0–4
Part 4 + Part 6 — Analysis + AI-critique (four analysis questions answered thoughtfully; one specific AI design failure named with a principled fix) (10)	10	5–8	0–4

Rubric sum check: 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 50. ✓

Quality gate (self-checked): the four rubric criteria sum to exactly 50. This Workshop asserts no external quotations, statistics, or named source citations — it uses entirely illustrative examples labeled as such (the bad slide descriptions are generic illustrative scenarios, not attributed to any real speaker or source). The AI-critique step explicitly instructs students to verify any AI-supplied statistic before using it. No fabrication risk in the Workshop's own content.