Week 12 Speech Workshop: One Honest Move for Each Appeal

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This workshop is where your persuasive speech meets a real listener. You pick a claim from the course's roster, write one honest move for each appeal (a reason to trust you, a feeling that fits the facts, and evidence anyone could check), and check your draft against the four honest moves so nothing slides into manipulation. Then you deliver your visualization and action steps twice for a listener, measure both takes the same way, and fix one moment between them. Along the way you use a chatbot as a rehearsal coach and then check its work, because a chatbot asked to make a speech more persuasive often hands over a statistic with no page behind it, credits a famous line to the wrong speaker, and inflates your plain scene into fear.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: When you deliver the last two steps of your persuasive speech, does each of your three moves give the listener an honest reason to say yes, and can the listener picture the change and know exactly what to do?

Workshop data: Your own persuasive speech on a roster topic: one honest move for each appeal, an honest-move check, and two takes of its visualization and action steps spoken aloud (student-generated)

Source: The data in this workshop is your own: a persuasive claim on a topic from the course's roster, one move you write for each of the three appeals, a check of your draft against the four honest moves, and two takes of 60 to 90 seconds delivering your visualization and action steps, measured in the tables in Part 4. Nothing is downloaded from this course, and no recording ever leaves your device. If you do not have a persuasive speech in progress this week, the fallback supplies an illustrative draft attributed to no one.

• Rows: 1 persuasive speech per student, audited on the 3 rows of the appeal audit table, checked on the 4 rows of the honest-move check, delivered in 2 takes measured on the 5 rows of the measures table, and watched on the 5 rows of the listener checklist
• Columns: the appeal audit table has the appeal, your line, and where its proof lives; the honest-move check has the honest move, your draft, and your fix; the measures table and the listener checklist have the measure, take 1, and take 2
• Measures: the appeal each line uses, whether its proof lives in you, in the listener's feelings, or in checkable evidence, a pause before the ask, the time spent on the visualization step, 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 a claim on a topic from the course's roster (a campus recycling program, a later library closing, a community garden on a vacant lot, a pedestrian crossing near campus, a first-year mentoring program, covered bike parking, a hands-on first-aid workshop at orientation, or a later campus shuttle), other than the plate-waste audit. In your outline template, write your specific purpose starting "To persuade my audience" and the five steps of Monroe's Motivated Sequence, one line each. 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: Your outline shows one specific purpose and five lines in the order attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, action.
2. Fill in the appeal audit table in Part 4: write one line of your own for ethos, one for pathos, and one for logos, and say where each one's proof lives. For the logos line, find one real source, open it, and write its oral citation with who, what, and when; if you cannot find one, leave the cell empty rather than guess. 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 three rows of the appeal audit table hold a line in your own words, and the logos row names a source you opened.
3. Run the honest-move check in Part 4 on your draft: honest evidence, proportionate emotion, the strongest counter-argument acknowledged, and an honest ask. For any row your draft fails, write the fix 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: All four rows of the honest-move check are marked, and every failed row has a fix.
4. Do take 1 for a listener, such as a classmate, a friend, or a family member: deliver your visualization and action steps the way you would naturally say them, in 60 to 90 seconds. You may record audio only, record video, or speak while your listener watches with no recording at all; keep any recording on your own device. Right after the take, ask your listener to mark the take 1 column of the listener checklist. Nerves before this are normal; a slow breath and a first line you know well both help. 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 checklist is marked for take 1, and no recording has been uploaded or shared.
5. Do take 2 for the same listener with one change: give the visualization step a concrete picture and pause before your ask. Ask your listener to mark the take 2 column, then fill in the measures table for both takes, 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: Both columns of the measures table and the listener checklist are complete, 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 both takes and your three moves in words using your tables (never upload or link a recording) and ask for one specific, actionable suggestion about your appeals or your ask. Write down its best concrete suggestion and the change you will make, in your own words, then deliver the changed moment once more. 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 made is written in your own words.
7. 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 do not have a persuasive speech in progress this week, if no listener is available, or if speaking aloud is not possible for you right now.

Do the audit, honest-move check, coach, and critique steps on the illustrative persuasive draft below instead of your own. Fill in the appeal audit table and the honest-move check for this draft, rewrite its weak lines in your own words, use the notes on take 1 to fill in the measures table and the listener checklist, and in analysis questions 2 to 4 say what you would change in your own speech. You submit the same items and earn the same credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

An illustrative persuasive draft for a later library closing, with take notes, all attributed to no one, measured on the same rows as your own tables.

Fallback model data

Item	Fallback draft or take
Topic and claim	A later library closing: "The library should stay open two hours later on weeknights."
Ethos line	"As someone who studies in that library four nights a week, I have watched the lights go off in the middle of a sentence."
Pathos line	"Picture packing up your laptop at closing with half a lab report still on the screen."
Logos line	"Studies show students do better when libraries stay open late."
Fear line	"If the hours do not change, students will fail out by the hundreds."
Ask	"Add your name to the request at the front desk before you leave."
Speaker's notes on take 1	Read the pathos line in a flat voice, went straight from the plan to the ask, and never paused for listeners to picture anything.
Listener's checklist after take 1	Could say why to trust the speaker: yes; felt something that fit the problem: no; knew where the evidence came from: no; could picture the change: no; knew exactly what to do: yes.
Your appeal audit, honest-move check, revised lines, and one moment to fix

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Write one honest move for each appeal before you rehearse anything.

Student scaffold table 1

Appeal	Your line	Where its proof lives (in you, in the listener's feelings, or in evidence anyone could check)
Ethos
Pathos
Logos, with its oral citation (who, what, when)

Check your draft against each honest move so nothing slides into manipulation.

Student scaffold table 2

Honest move	Does my draft make it? (yes or no, with the line)	My fix, if needed
Honest evidence (every figure from a page I opened)
Proportionate emotion (the feeling fits the facts)
The strongest counter-argument acknowledged
An honest ask (exactly what to do, sized to the evidence)

Measure both takes the same way so you can see what the change did.

Student scaffold table 3

Measure	Take 1: as you would naturally say it	Take 2: a concrete picture and a pause before the ask
Seconds spent on the visualization step
A pause before the ask (yes or no)
Times you glanced down at your notes (a tally)
Words in your ask
The one moment to fix

Your listener marks this checklist after each take; it shows whether each appeal gave them an honest reason to say yes.

Student scaffold table 4

Listener check	Take 1	Take 2
I knew why to trust the speaker
I felt something that fit the size of the problem
I knew where the evidence came from
I could picture the change
I knew exactly what I was being asked to do

Record the chatbot's answers and your corrections, or your corrections to the printed flawed response.

Student scaffold table 5

What the chatbot said (quoted)	The problem it shows	Your correction and its evidence

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. From your appeal audit and honest-move check, add up the checks your draft passed: count 1 for each appeal row with a line and its proof located (out of 3), then 1 for each honest move your draft makes (out of 4); show the addition and say which check your fix changed.
2. At what moment in take 1 did your listener lose the picture or the ask, and what in your measures table explains it: too little time on the visualization step, no pause before the ask, or an ask with too many words?
3. For each of your three moves, explain where its proof lives, and say why your ethos line is not logos, using a listener-checklist mark as evidence.
4. Name your target audience as agreeing, neutral, or opposed, and explain how that starting point changes which of the five steps gets the most time, and how you state the strongest counter-argument fairly.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Two steps are not a whole speech: what could this drill not tell you about how your full persuasive speech lands, and how could you find out? (b) Which of your three moves is still weakest, and what would you change before 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 persuasive speech for a public speaking class on a campus or community topic. I've pasted my appeal audit table, my honest-move check, and my measures table for two takes above; I have not shared any recording. Please do six things. First, tell me what you think of my three appeal moves. Second, give me feedback on how I delivered my visualization and action steps. Third, give me one statistic that would make my need step stronger, with a source I can cite out loud. Fourth, give me one famous quotation about duty or persuasion and say which speaker said it and in which speech. Fifth, rewrite my pathos line so it hits harder. Sixth, outline my speech as main points and subpoints using Roman numerals and letters.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often answer 'What a powerful, persuasive speech!' without naming which appeal a line uses, where its proof lives, or a single word that moves the audience.
• Chatbots tell you to 'speak with more passion' or 'sound more convincing' even though they never heard either take, and they name no moment.
• Asked for a statistic to strengthen the need step, chatbots often hand over a precise-sounding percentage as settled fact.
• Chatbots attach the figure to an official-sounding study, center, or 'recent national survey' with no author, title, or date you can find.
• Asked for a famous line about duty or persuasion, chatbots often credit a well-known line to the wrong speaker or speech, for example giving Kennedy's 'ask not' line to Roosevelt's address to Congress.
• Asked to make your pathos line stronger, chatbots often return something like 'Imagine the devastating consequences that will inevitably befall our entire community,' which swaps your concrete scene for inflated fear.
• Asked to outline the speech, chatbots often list the five steps with 'A. Statistic' under the need step and no B, or lift the ask up beside the five steps as a sixth main point.

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 speech or tables 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 your appeals or your ask, or reread your take 1 notes and write the one moment the listener lost the picture; 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: "What a powerful, persuasive speech! Speak with more passion when you deliver it. Research shows a late-night library cuts late assignments by 23 percent, according to a recent national study. As Roosevelt told Congress, 'ask not what your country can do for you.' Here is a stronger pathos line: 'Imagine the devastating consequences that will inevitably befall our entire community.' Here is your outline: I. Need. A. Statistic. II. Sign the request." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (hollow praise, delivery feedback that names no moment, an unverified statistic, an invented source, a misattributed quotation, a voice-erasing rewrite, or an outline with a lone subpoint and a missing step), cite the evidence from your tables, your speech, or Chapter 12, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 7 and Objective 4) 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

• Your specific purpose and five-step outline
• The completed appeal audit table, with the oral citation for your logos line
• The completed honest-move check with your fixes
• The completed measures table for take 1 and take 2
• 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 your own persuasive speech: your specific purpose and five-step outline, the appeal audit table with your oral citation, the honest-move check with your fixes, the measures table for two takes of your visualization and action steps, 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, recorded, or visual 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
One honest move for each appeal	The appeal audit table holds one line of the student's own for ethos, pathos, and logos, each with where its proof lives, the logos line carries a complete oral citation of a source the student opened, and analysis question 3 tells ethos from logos with listener evidence.	Moves appear for the appeals, but one is misplaced, such as the speaker's own experience called logos, or the logos line has an incomplete citation.	No appeal audit, or moves copied from a chatbot.
Outline and honest-move check	The specific purpose starts "To persuade my audience", the five steps appear in order with a visualization step a listener can picture, and all four honest moves are checked with a fix for every failed row.	The outline or the check is partly complete, or a failed honest move has no fix.	No outline and no honest-move check.
Two takes measured with a named moment	Both columns of the measures table are complete, each take names a moment, the listener checklist is marked for both takes, take 2 shows the change, and analysis question 1 shows the addition.	One take is measured, a take names a feeling instead of a moment, or the count is given without the addition.	No take measured.
Coach feedback acted on in your own voice	One coach suggestion, or one listener suggestion on the equivalent route, is quoted and answered with a change in the student's own words that shows up in the revised lines or in take 2.	A suggestion is quoted, but the change copies the suggestion's wording or does not appear in the revised lines or take 2.	No suggestion appears, or chatbot-written appeals are submitted as the student's own.
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 tables, speech, or Chapter 12, every chatbot statistic, quotation, or source 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 drill	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit of the two-step drill or the weakest move, and a concrete way to check or fix it.	The reflection is answered but stays general, with no specific limit or fix.	No reflection appears.

Quality Gate

• Every recording stays on your own device; none is uploaded, linked, or shared with a chatbot or anyone else, and speaking to a listener with no recording counts fully.
• The claim comes from the course's roster, and the speech takes no side on a live political question.
• The three moves, the fixes, and the ask are your own, not a chatbot's.
• Every statistic or source in the speech is one you opened yourself and say aloud with who, what, and when; the chatbot's statistics, sources, and quotations are marked unverified.
• Both takes are delivered to a listener, and the measures table names moments rather than feelings.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed response and corrects at least two problems with evidence.