Personal Narrative Evaluation Outline

She used a stern yet eye opening tone throughout the whole speech. The was Quindlen worded siren line made it very apparent that she is trying to spark change. She was stern to get the point across and make people believe she knows what she is talking about and not some random person who doesn't know what they are talking about. The way she described the reason for change was very unique because everyone is always talking about change yet never had an solid ideas on how to do it. Quindlen did, she defined the issue then came up with a solution, I believe that this a big first step in her

She has a paper in front of her that had quite a bit of writing on it. At times she would read completely from the paper, other times she would look out at the audience and recite from memory. Her attire was casual, sporting a tie dyed shirt, and some jeans. This fit the event nicely, and made people relate to her more. She spoke into the microphone efficiently, ensuring the audience could hear her.

A strategy that she uses is asking questions. She states “What would the legal effects of the equal rights amendment really be? The equal rights amendment would govern only the relationship between the state and its citizens” this gives you a reason to see that she knows what she’s talking about. By asking questions she gets the people thinking and answering them provides the audience with of what will happen if they did this. Meanwhile it gives a reason for the people to understand why she

Her transition into her conclusion was not obvious, and it did not reiterate any of the main ideas from the body. Her closing sentence “We should be getting adults to start thinking more like children”, is an ironic and powerful statement. It would have closed the speech very well, if she had slowed down when she was speaking it. It sounded like she was going to tell us more, because of the way she said the last sentence. Because of this, there was a slight awkward pause between her ending and the audiences clapping. Despite the weird ending, I could tell the audience really enjoyed her speech. It was memorable because of the way she delivered her information, her use of visual aids, and it’s relativity to the audience. I feel the primary message was not only to inform about how children think, but also to encourage adults to be more open minded, imaginative, and creative. In other words, be more like a

I'VE BEEN SUPER EXCITED FOR THIS TO COME OUT!!! For those who don't know this is one of my anticipated of the year (you can check out my list if you haven't already, I posted it in September). But since this is the last book of the series I don't feel the need to write a very long non-spoiler review. I won't write the reasons why I love this series so much in my Top Ten list if you would like to check that. The series starts out in this futuristic world where a young girl named Cinder catches the eye of Prince Kai, the future empire of the Common Wealth. The only problem is that she's a cyborg, part-human part-robot. For this book, I would give it about a 4/5 stars. I was definitely a great read but it wasn't my favorite book in the series, I honestly felt that Cress was the best book, then

From a communication and speech analysis stand point Ms. Alexander kept her self poised, keep her tone of voice smooth and inflecting when she needed to drive certain points home. She kept the audience engaged by moving around telling personal anecdotes that related to her topic to allow the persuasiveness of her speech to drive home about the problem of the criminal justice system and race as a whole. Her first point that really captivates and hooks you in within a matter of minutes of listening to the speech is when she says, “ People of color are the main ones incarcerated…Put in cages and treated worse than animals.” Right their she captivates and audience that otherwise believe she's crazy talking about race in the criminal justice system. Ms. Alexander managed to captivate and all WHITE audience on a topic that most had already made up there minds on. Her speech was effective in that all statistics about her topic she

She spoke very clearly and her tone was very easy for me to understand and listen. She put many of the facts she spoke about into situations that her audience could better understand, which made it easier to follow along and comprehend. This also made it seem like more of a conversation instead of just a speech. Because she was familiar with her speech, she hardly relied on her notes during delivery and made good eye contact throughout.

Every speaker was humble even though they have this amazing world changing technology. If they went up there and were prideful there would be this disconnect and your message wouldn’t be heard. Danielle has this high up position and has tons of experience but states she still has more to learn. It put her and the audience on the same level.

For my out of class speech, I went to hear Daisy Hernandez speak. Daisy Hernandez had an interview with a student about her life, her most recent book, and her upcoming book, after that she had a question and answer section with the audience. Three things Daisy Hernandez did well were she had examples to show she was an expert prepared for the question and answer section, and used different tones and pitches throughout. Three things she could improve on were her uses of quite a few vocal fillers, show her book when she was talking about it, and slow down her pace when answering her questions. The first part of the speech was an interview with Daisy Hernandez about her most recent book which was a memoir.

During the Socratic seminar, Lizzy did well on contributing to the seminar with comments and questions. She also did well on pushing the conversation on by helping clarify either her own questions or the ones that were asked by other students. Adding onto this, she also did well on paying attention to what everyone had to say or ask and tried to answer or clarify what they were trying to ask or explain. When she spoke, she did speak loud and clear but could have been louder and also could have pronounced her words better. She was decent on everything; however, she can improve on everything as well. Though, she spoke more than once during the seminar, she could have spoken more than the few times that she did. This would have helped both her

Her speech appealed to pathos, ethos, and logos, therefore, creating humor, establishing credibility, and providing facts and testimonies. With all this in mind, she was able to communicate effectively to the graduates and their family members. Amy

Andrea Reed was an amazing speaker. Not only did she just have a great energy in general and you can tell she has a passion for the job, but it wasn’t just a sales pitch to be crime scene. It seems like when speaker in other classes come in and talk about their job they just want to tell you the good aspects like a sales representative or a military recruiter. Andrea told us the most amazing parts of the job and also the darkest. I have an advantage because of my job and I get to see the good and the bad already and I know I can handle it, however a lot of people don’t get the same experience during an internship or at all so they get really far and realize there are some things they just can’t deal with, which is okay. Some of the downsides

“Nosotros tienes cinco, y,” I say as I point to Jordalisa and Raoul, “Tienes siete!”

She did not give the graduates any information that would hurt them. She was truthful. She spoke in a clear and concise tone. When Ellen was talking there were no vocal fillers or anything of the sort she was quick, fast, and direct. I really was amazed at the amount of time she took presenting her speech also because most speeches that I have heard or seen were long and outdrawn. I also enjoyed Ellen’s speech because she knew how to present her facts, and because she knew how to talk to a crowd, and keep them entertained. There are several comedians, and talk show host that cannot hold their audiences

Walking into my evaluation I felt I wasn’t organized. For one it was two months late, and then it given by a manager that I didn’t work for anymore. I transferred departments 8 months prior to that. My evaluation should not have been given by that manager. But because I was technically under that department in the system they thought it was ok for her to give me that evaluation. I didn’t agree, and didn’t sign the evaluation. I didn’t have a bad evaluation, but I do think it could have been better. She also had a very nasty attitude and rude remarks. I worked in a department with no direct supervision. No one took the position or what was being done seriously. Getting managers and other employees to do their part was nonexistent.