Week 11 — Teach the Whole Room: Build and Rehearse Your Informative Speech

Assignment 10 of the term — test your own informative purpose, sort your subject and place your strategies, prove your evidence aloud and rehearse twice, catch a chatbot's unsourced draft, and explain to a friend how to inform without taking a side.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into clear, careful work on your own informative speech. 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 term's first headline speech. It builds on Week 3's specific purpose and central idea: this week those two sentences have to teach without taking a side.

The task

This week's shared example is the running speech in its informative form, which is illustrative and attributed to no one; its three oral citations come from the course's mini-source set. Chapter 11 builds it end to end:

• its specific purpose, "To inform my audience about how our campus dining hall handles its plate waste.", passes 3 of the three informative tests; Draft A, "To discuss food waste in the dining hall.", passes 2; and Draft B, "To inform my audience why our dining hall should remove its trays.", passes 1;
• it places 4 clarity strategies (organization and signposting, defining terms, examples and analogies, managing the information load) and 4 retention strategies (relevance, novelty, repetition with variation, vivid support), each on one moment;
• it carries 3 oral citations, and each one names who, what, and when before the evidence; and
• an illustrative chatbot, asked to draft main point II, wrote "Studies show going trayless cuts food waste.", added "About 35 percent of food is wasted.", and suggested the central idea "Going trayless is the smartest way to end food waste." Checked at the source, that is 1 misreported finding, 1 unsourced statistic, and 1 arguing central idea.

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

1. The running speech's specific purpose passes 3 of the informative tests, Draft A passes 2, and Draft B passes 1. How many tests do the three drafts pass in all?
2. The course names 4 clarity strategies and 4 retention strategies. How many strategies can a speaker place in all?
3. The running speech carries 3 oral citations, and each one names 3 parts (who, what, and when). How many citation parts does the speaker say aloud?
4. The chatbot's draft of main point II holds 1 misreported finding, 1 unsourced statistic, and 1 arguing central idea. How many problems does checking at the source catch in all?

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

• Problem 1: write the specific purpose for your own informative speech, mark each of the three tests yes or no with a reason, and write your central idea as one declarative sentence that takes no side.
• Problem 2: sort your own speech by subject (a thing or place, a person, an event, a process, or an idea), name the pattern that usually suits it and the pattern you chose, and say what question your audience brings. Then place one clarity strategy and one retention strategy on a named moment in your speech.
• Problem 3: write two complete oral citations for your own speech from real sources you found and checked yourself, each naming who, what, and when before the evidence, and say how you report one finding whole. Then rehearse your speech twice and record what you notice in the shape of the delivery self-assessment table, naming the one moment you will fix. You may record video, record audio only, or have a friend with a stopwatch watch you speak to the room; no recording is shared with anyone.
• Problem 4: in the illustrative chatbot draft, name its three problems (a misreported finding, an unsourced statistic, and an arguing central idea) and the fix for each, and explain why a figure with no who, what, and when cannot be said aloud as evidence.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your friend will give a five-minute talk at a library's community night explaining how the new seed-lending shelf works, and plans to end with "and that's why everyone should start gardening" after quoting a statistic a chatbot supplied. Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, the difference between teaching and persuading; why the closing line changes the talk's job; how to check the chatbot's statistic before saying it; and one limit, such as dropping any number with no source or keeping both halves of a finding. 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 who will explain a new shift-swap app at a staff meeting and plans to finish with "this app is way better than the old binder, so stop complaining." Model answer: "Your job in that meeting is to show people how the app works, not to win an argument about it. If you end by telling people to stop complaining, the ones who liked the binder will stop listening to the steps. Walk through the three taps it takes to swap a shift, and say where to get help if it fails. If you mention how many people use it, say who counted and when, or leave the number out."

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

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief explanations, your own specific purpose and central idea, your subject and pattern, your two placed strategies, your two oral citations, your rehearsal record, your critique of the chatbot draft, and your message to the friend 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 write your purpose, your central idea, or your citations. If it offers a statistic or a source, decline it; find and check your own evidence at the original page.
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 cannot see or hear you, so never upload a recording; describe a moment from your rehearsal in your own words instead.

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 informative speaking: the three tests of an informative specific purpose, sorting a speech by subject, the clarity and retention strategies, accuracy and objectivity, and the oral citation as proof. Do not write my assignment, my specific purpose, my central idea, my citations, or my message for me, and do not invent work I did not show. Never supply a statistic, a study, or a source; if I cite one, ask me who published it, what it is, and when it appeared. You cannot see or hear me, so never ask for a recording; if I describe a rehearsal, ask which moment I noticed.

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 in its informative form is illustrative and attributed to no one. Its specific purpose is "To inform my audience about how our campus dining hall handles its plate waste." Draft A is "To discuss food waste in the dining hall." Draft B is "To inform my audience why our dining hall should remove its trays." The course names 4 clarity strategies (organization and signposting, defining terms, examples and analogies, managing the information load) and 4 retention strategies (relevance, novelty, repetition with variation, vivid support). The running speech carries 3 oral citations. In the illustrative chatbot exchange, asked to draft main point II, the chatbot wrote "Studies show going trayless cuts food waste.", added "About 35 percent of food is wasted.", and suggested "Going trayless is the smartest way to end food waste."
PROBLEM P1: The running speech's specific purpose passes 3 of the informative tests, Draft A passes 2, and Draft B passes 1. How many tests do the three drafts pass in all?
PROBLEM P2: The course names 4 clarity strategies and 4 retention strategies. How many strategies can a speaker place in all?
PROBLEM P3: The running speech carries 3 oral citations, and each one names 3 parts (who, what, and when). How many citation parts does the speaker say aloud?
PROBLEM P4: The chatbot's draft of main point II holds 1 misreported finding, 1 unsourced statistic, and 1 arguing central idea. How many problems does checking at the source catch in all?
After the four answers, I must briefly explain each one: for P1, the specific purpose for my own informative speech with each of the three tests marked yes or no and a reason, plus my central idea as one declarative sentence that takes no side; for P2, my own speech's subject with the pattern that usually suits it and the pattern I chose with my audience's question, plus one clarity strategy and one retention strategy placed on named moments; for P3, two complete oral citations from real sources I found and checked, each naming who, what, and when before the evidence, with one finding reported whole, plus a two-take rehearsal record in the shape of the delivery self-assessment table naming the one moment I will fix; for P4, a critique naming the chatbot draft's three problems with a fix for each and explaining why a figure with no who, what, and when cannot be said aloud as evidence. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend who will explain how a library's seed-lending shelf works and plans to end with a call to start gardening after quoting a chatbot's statistic, explaining in everyday words the difference between teaching and persuading, why the closing line changes the talk's job, how to check the statistic, and one limit. I must explain course terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: accurate counts from the week's informative example (40 points), informative-speaking 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 total or product = 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 naming the chatbot draft's three problems with a fix for each and explaining why an unsourced figure cannot be said aloud AND a message to the friend that explains teaching versus persuading, the closing line, checking the statistic, 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 share a specific purpose or central idea, ask me to read it as a listener who disagrees would hear it and to name any word that takes a side. 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 friend 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 specific purpose and central idea, your subject and pattern, your two placed strategies, your two oral citations, your rehearsal record, your critique of the chatbot draft, and your message to the friend — 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. Your rehearsal takes stay with you; the record you submit describes them in words.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 11 skills — testing an informative specific purpose, sorting a speech by subject and matching a pattern, placing clarity and retention strategies, building complete oral citations and reporting a finding whole, rehearsing twice and naming a moment to fix, catching a chatbot's unsourced draft, 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 friend. 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, your purpose, your central idea, your citations, your rehearsal record, the revision, and the message to the friend must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to write your purpose or central idea, or to supply a statistic or source you did not find and check yourself. 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