Week 11 — Speech Workshop / Rehearsal Studio · Informative Build/Deliver Drill

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective: Objective 7 — build and begin delivering an informative speech with a verified oral citation · SLO A (compose & deliver) & SLO B (evaluate objectivity and source credibility)
Worth 50 points · Speech Workshops group = 15% of the grade · Workshop 11
Format this week: an informative BUILD + DELIVER drill — draft your specific purpose, thesis, 2–3 main points, and one verified oral citation; record a 60–90-second excerpt; self-assess clarity, organization, and the citation.

This is the course's signature weekly component — Workshop 11 of 14. This week's drill is the bridge between concept and full speech: you plan and start delivering your informative speech before you record the full version.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

An informative speech lives or dies on one question: did the audience understand something they didn't understand before? Not "did they agree with me," not "did they like me" — did they learn? That means your organization has to be crystal-clear, your evidence has to be real and cited, and your delivery has to serve comprehension — slowing down for new vocabulary, pausing after each main point, making eye contact so you can read whether the audience is following.

This week's drill is the informative speech in miniature. You'll build the structural skeleton — purpose, thesis, main points, one citation — and then record a 60–90-second excerpt from the middle of your speech (one main point, fully delivered). Then you'll watch your clip and ask: "If I had never heard of this topic before, would I understand this one main point after watching 90 seconds?"

The guiding question: "Does my excerpt teach one thing clearly — and does my one oral citation sound natural, credible, and complete?"

---

Part 2 — The Drill: Build and Deliver One Main Point

Step 1 — Complete the planning scaffold below (in writing, before recording).

Fill in this skeleton for your informative speech:

Element	Write yours here
Topic
Informative type (object / process / event / concept)
Specific purpose — "To inform my audience about ___"
Thesis — one declarative sentence, describes without arguing
Main Point I (label and one-sentence content statement)
Main Point II
Main Point III (optional)
Oral citation for the main point you will record — source/author + qualification + date + claim, one sentence

Before recording: test your specific purpose. Ask yourself three questions: (1) Does it start "To inform my audience about ___"? (2) Does it describe/explain/demonstrate, not argue or recommend? (3) Could someone who disagrees with the outcome still feel treated fairly? If any answer is no, revise before continuing.

Step 2 — Find and verify your oral citation.
For the main point you're going to record, find one real, credible source (library database, official agency website, peer-reviewed journal, or established publication with a named author and date). Verify it yourself at the actual URL or publication. Write the oral citation sentence in full: "According to [source/author], [qualification], in [year], ___." Do not use a citation supplied by an AI without verifying it yourself.

Step 3 — Record your 60–90-second excerpt.
Pick one main point from your outline and record yourself delivering it — including the oral citation spoken naturally within the point. Aim for 60–90 seconds. Speak from your keyword outline, not a script. Look at the camera/lens.

Do not re-record yet. Watch your first take all the way through.

The point isn't a polished clip — it's learning to hear yourself deliver an oral citation live and noticing whether it sounded natural or read.

---

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

Rate each on a 1–5 scale (1 = needs significant work, 5 = strong) and add a one-line note:

What to assess	Score (1–5)	What I noticed
Oral citation — did I say the source, qualification, date, and claim aloud, naturally?	___	______
Clarity of the main point — would a non-expert understand this point after 90 sec?	___	______
Eye contact — was I looking at the lens, or reading?	___	______
Pace — did I slow down for the key term or citation, or rush through?	___	______
Informative / no advocacy — did this excerpt take any position, or was it purely informative?	___	______

Now pick your ONE thing: of everything above, what is the single most useful change for your next take?
"Next time I will ______."

---

Part 4 — Analysis Questions

Answer in a sentence or two each:

1. When you delivered your oral citation aloud, did it feel awkward or natural? What would help it land more smoothly in a full speech?
2. After watching your clip: could you tell whether the excerpt was informative or had a persuasive tilt? What did you observe that made it one or the other?
3. What is the hardest part of your informative speech to explain clearly to a non-expert — and what strategy (definition, analogy, example) will you use to make it land?
4. If you can, do a second take with your "one thing to fix" in mind. Did naming one specific change actually help?

---

Part 5 — Rehearsal-Coach Moment (BYOAI)

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

1. Paste your planning scaffold (completed in Step 1) and your oral citation sentence, and ask: "I'm preparing a 4–6-minute informative speech for my public speaking class. Here's my planning skeleton and my oral citation — give me specific, actionable feedback on: (a) whether my specific purpose and thesis are correctly informative (no advocacy), and (b) whether my oral citation is complete and natural."
2. Read its feedback and apply its best concrete suggestion before you record the full speech.

---

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

This week's AI-critique focuses on the most dangerous error a chatbot makes for informative speakers: fabricated citations.

1. Ask your chatbot: "Give me two specific statistics about [your informative speech topic] that I could use in my speech."
2. Look hard at what it produces. Chatbots regularly supply specific-sounding but invented figures — a percentage, a year, a named organization or study — that do not exist or that the chatbot misremembers.
3. Attempt to verify each item at the actual named source. What did you find?
4. Write 3–4 sentences reporting: what the chatbot gave you, whether you could verify each item, and what happened when you tried to find it. Then add: what would have happened if you had cited an unverified AI-supplied statistic in your speech in front of an audience?

The habit: every source is verified at the source before it enters a speech. The chatbot is a research-planning tool, not a source. A citation you can't confirm does not go in.

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with:
- Your completed planning scaffold (Part 2, Step 1) — all rows filled.
- Your oral citation sentence (verified at the source) with a note confirming you verified it.
- Your completed self-assessment scaffold (Part 3) including your "one thing to fix."
- Your Part 4 analysis answers.
- Your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph (3–4 sentences on what the chatbot gave you and what verification found).
- Your recording of the 60–90-second excerpt (upload or link).

Due Sunday, Nov 8, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students build their own informative speech skeleton, so there is no single right content. The key grades the correctness of the planning scaffold, the presence of a verified oral citation, the honesty and specificity of the self-assessment, and the quality of the AI-critique.

Model planning scaffold (illustrative):

Element	Model response
Topic	How bioluminescence works in deep-sea organisms
Informative type	Process
Specific purpose	"To inform my audience about how deep-sea organisms produce and use bioluminescent light."
Thesis	"Deep-sea organisms produce bioluminescent light through a chemical reaction between the molecule luciferin and the enzyme luciferase, and they use this light for three distinct purposes."
Main Point I	The chemistry: the luciferin-luciferase reaction that produces light without heat.
Main Point II	The purposes: predation (attracting prey), defense (counterillumination), communication.
Main Point III	(Optional) The scope: an estimated three-quarters (about 75%) of deep-sea organisms are bioluminescent.
Oral citation	"According to a 2017 study from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, by researchers Severine Martini and Steve Haddock, about three-quarters — roughly 75 percent — of the deep-sea animals they surveyed off the California coast produce their own light."

Note to instructor (REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING): this model oral citation has been verified against the real source — Martini, S. & Haddock, S. H. D. (2017), "Quantification of bioluminescence from the surface to the deep sea demonstrates its predominance as an ecological trait," Scientific Reports 7:45750 (MBARI) — which found that about three-quarters (~75%) of the deep-sea animals surveyed in Monterey Bay produce their own light (MBARI summary: https://www.mbari.org/news/new-study-shows-that-three-quarters-of-deep-sea-animals-make-their-own-light/). It is included as a model of an accurate, verifiable oral citation — the standard students must meet. If you adapt the figure, re-verify at the source first.

Model self-assessment (illustrative):
- Oral citation: 4 — "I said the source, organization, and year, but I rushed through the 'colleagues' part; it sounded a bit awkward. Next time I'll slow down on the organization name."
- Clarity of main point: 4 — "My chemistry explanation was clear once I used the analogy ('like a glow stick — two chemicals mix and light is produced'). Without the analogy it would have been too abstract."
- Eye contact: 3 — "I looked at the camera for the first half, then glanced at my notes when I delivered the citation."
- Pace: 4 — "I slowed down appropriately on 'luciferin-luciferase' — a hard term to hear."
- Informative/no advocacy: 5 — "Nothing in the excerpt argued or recommended. It described only."
- One thing to fix: "Next time I will memorize the oral citation sentence so I don't break eye contact when I deliver it."

Model AI-critique (illustrative): "I asked the chatbot for statistics about deep-sea bioluminescence. It gave me: '(a) 90 percent of deep-sea animals are bioluminescent — National Geographic, 2019; (b) bioluminescence was first documented in 1555 by Conrad Gessner.' When I searched for the National Geographic article, I couldn't locate it — the 90% figure appears in multiple secondary sources but I couldn't confirm the exact 2019 National Geographic citation. The second claim seemed plausible but I found no reference to Conrad Gessner making this specific observation. Neither citation was usable without more verification work. If I had cited either in a speech as if I had confirmed them, that would have been fabrication — I would have been presenting unverified 'facts' as if they were documented. The lesson: the chatbot generates plausible-sounding citations, not confirmed ones."

Expected analysis answers (Part 4):
1. Most students find the oral citation awkward at first — full credit for naming what was awkward (eye contact break, rushed delivery of the source name, the citation sounding like it was "tacked on"). Useful answer names a specific fix (memorize the citation sentence, slow down on the organization name, integrate it as a full sentence not an aside).
2. Full credit for naming a specific observed marker: if the excerpt took a side, what word or phrase signaled it? If purely informative, what confirmed it (described, no "should," no argument)?
3. Full credit for naming the hardest part + a concrete strategy (analogy, definition, example) — not just "I'll explain it better."
4. Full credit for attempting a second take and noting one concrete difference.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Planning scaffold + verified oral citation (Parts 2–3) — all elements completed; oral citation is complete (source + qualification + date + claim) and student confirms personal verification (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Self-assessment quality (Parts 3–4) — honest, specific observations; names a concrete "one thing to fix"; analysis questions answered with genuine reflection (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Rehearsal-coach engagement (Part 5) — used the coach with the actual scaffold; applied a concrete suggestion (10)	10	5–8	0–4
AI-critique (Part 6) — attempted to verify AI-supplied statistics; reports what was found; explains why unverified AI citations are fabrication (10)	10	5–8	0–4

Quality gate (self-checked): the four rubric criteria sum to exactly 50 (15 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 50). ✓

Citation-integrity gate: the workshop explicitly requires the student to find and personally verify their oral citation before recording. The AI-critique moment specifically targets AI-fabricated statistics. The model oral citation in the key has been verified against the real source (Martini & Haddock, 2017, Scientific Reports, via MBARI) and is included as a model of an accurate, verifiable citation. No statistic in the workshop student-facing content is asserted as a verified fact; examples use "illustrative" framing or instruct verification. Citation-integrity gate: PASS (with instructor verification note).