1

FYS Oral Communication Assessment Project Kirk W. Fuoss

Director of Rhetoric & Communication Program April 2017

I. Introduction Enhancing students’ oral and written communication skills and improving their research and information literacy skills are among the primary goals of the FYP/FYS. Several years ago, the university conducted a program-wide assessment of the research papers students produced in the FYS. Until now, however, the university has not undertaken a program-wide assessment focused specifically on oral communication skills in the FYP/FYS. This project addresses this gap by assessing first-year students’ formal oral presentation skills. While oral communication skill development in the FYP/FYS extends well beyond enhancing students’ ability to successfully communicate ideas in formal oral presentations, developing this particular skill nevertheless remains an important program goal. II. Method This project assessed 96 formal oral presentations delivered by first-year students during the spring 2015 semester. This sample size represents 15% of the 636 students enrolled in on-campus FYS courses that semester. It includes 52 females (54%) & 44 males (46%), figures that correspond to the gender makeup of the class of 2018. The presentations assessed for this project emerged from 25 of 41 (or 61%) of on-campus FYS courses taught that semester. All presentations occurred during the last half of the semester, with the vast majority occurring during the final three weeks of the semester. Instructors recorded an entire day of presentations, four of which were randomly selected for inclusion in this project.1 Two raters scored each presentation using a 17-item rubric that assesses student performance in three broad areas using a four-point scale. Nine rubric items focus on structure, with five of these focusing on the introduction, two on the body, and two on the conclusion. Four rubric items focus on the speaker’s thesis, use of evidence, and source citations. The final four rubric items focus on language/style and delivery. Copies of the rubric and the rationale underlying its 17 criteria were distributed to all FYS instructors as part of a program-wide faculty-development session conducted late in the fall 2014 semester. These are included as Appendices A & B respectively. I initially developed the rubric during the 2013 fall semester. That same semester, members of the University Assessment Committee tested it for inter-rater reliability using a small sample of student speeches. The following semester, I tested the rubric again in a small pilot project, this one aimed at determining whether having students’ FYS instructors serve as one of the raters would skew the results. Because differences between instructors’ scores and “outside” raters’ scores were not significant and in order to reduce the labor demands of this project, students’ instructors served as one of the raters. Instructors submitted rubrics for 80 of the 96 presentations. I served as a rater for all 96, and, Randall Hill (Associate Professor, PCA) served as a rater for the remaining 16. The overall student mean for

1 Because of student absences and problems with the recording equipment, the sample includes only three presentations from four sections.

2

these 16 presentations was identical to the overall student mean for the other 80, reinforcing the pilot project finding that instructor bias was not an issue. III. Results Structure Introduction All F M

(1) The opening moments entice the audience to continue listening: 2.4 2.6 2.2

1: ineffectively 2: in a somewhat effective manner 3: in a generally effective manner 4: very effectively

(2) Introduces the presenter’s topic & purpose: 3.0 3.1 2.9

1: ineffectively 2: in a somewhat effective manner 3: in a generally effective manner 4: very effectively

(3) Relates the topic to him/herself: 2.1 2.2 2.0 1: with no success or no attempt to do so 2: with limited success 3: in a manner that is generally successful 4: in a clear and compelling manner

(4) Relates the topic to his/her audience: 2.1 2.2 2.1

1: with no success or no attempt to do so 2: with limited success 3: in a manner that is generally successful 4: in a clear and compelling manner

(5) Previews what is to follow: 2.6 2.7 2.5 1: provides little or no sense of what is to follow 2: provides some sense of what is to follow 3: pretty clearly 4: very clearly

Body (6) The organizational structure deployed by the speaker: 2.7 2.8 2.6

1: does not serve his/her rhetorical aims or no choice of organizational pattern is made

2: serves his/her rhetorical aims at time 3: generally advances his/her rhetorical aims

4: clearly & consistently advances his/her rhetorical aims (7) Speaker uses transitions/signposting to mark division into main points 2.5 2.7 2.4

1: seldom or not at all 2: sometimes

3

3: usually 4: clearly and consistently Conclusion All F M (8) Review of main points: 2.6 2.7 2.5

1: speaker fails to include any sort of review 2: speaker includes a summary, but its effectiveness is limited 3: generally effective but suffers a bit in clarity, fullness, or concision 4: clearly & fully (yet concisely) reviews main points (9) Closure 2.2 2.4 2.0

1: speaker just trails off OR resorts to verbally signaling that speech is done 2: final moments are largely ineffective, but speaker doesn’t just trail off or resort to verbally signaling that the speech is done 3: final moments are generally effective at providing closure 4: final moments provide clear and effective closure

Thesis, Evidence, and Citations (10) The speaker’s thesis/central idea is: 2.7 2.8 2.6

1: both insufficiently focused and inadequately supported 2: either insufficiently focused or inadequately focused 3: sufficiently focused and adequately supported

4: sufficiently focused, adequately supported, and appropriate consideration is afforded alternative points of view

(11) Choices re: types of supporting material (e.g., examples, statistics, quotations) on which to draw: 2.9 2.9 2.8 1: seldom or never serve his/her rhetorical aims 2: sometimes serve his/her rhetorical aims 3: usually serve his/her rhetorical aims 4: clearly and consistently serve his/her rhetorical aims (12) The speaker ___________ draws on an appropriate variety of sources to support the claims s/he advances. 2.5 2.6 2.4 1: seldom or never 2: sometimes 3: generally 4: clearly and consistently (13) The speaker _____________ cites his/her sources such that it is clear to audience what information came from which source(s). 2.4 2.5 2.2

1: seldom or never 2: sometimes 3: generally 4: clearly and consistently Language/Style and Delivery (14) Speaker’s language & stylistic choices result in a presentation that: 2.4 2.4 2.3

1: suffers from a frequent lack of clarity and is generally

4

unimaginative, not memorable, &/or not compelling 2: is usually clear but seldom (if ever) imaginative, memorable, &/or compelling 3: is consistently clear and occasionally imaginative, memorable, &/or compelling 4: is consistently clear & imaginative, memorable, &/or compelling

(15) The speaker’s execution of the chosen/assigned delivery style All F M (i.e., impromptu, extemporaneous, manuscript, memorized) is: 2.6 2.7 2.5

1: consistently weak to the point of distraction 2: variable 3: generally strong 4: clearly and consistently excellent (16) Vocal aspects of delivery (e.g., pace, volume, vocal energy) are: 2.5 2.6 2.5

1: consistently weak to the point of distraction 2: variable 3: generally strong 4: clearly and consistently excellent (17) Physical aspects of delivery (e.g., eye contact, gesture, movement) are: 2.5 2.6 2.5 1: consistently weak to the point of distraction

2: variable 3: generally strong 4: clearly and consistently excellent

Chart 1 offers a snapshot view of the mean for all presenters on each rubric item.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Means for All Presenters

5

Table 2 aggregates individual rubric items into related clusters, offering a more “birds-eye” view of the data. IV. Analysis Analysis: All Presenters In what follows, I use the 2.5 overall mean of all students across all 17 rubric items as the baseline for identifying aspects on which students performed better and worse. Students performed above the 2.5 baseline on seven of the 17 rubric items, although on three of these they exceeded the baseline by .1 of a point. These three items are: their preview statement, their review statement, and overall execution of chosen/assigned delivery style. Students exceeded the 2.5 baseline by .2 of a point on two other items: thesis and structuring of body of the presentations. Students’ scored highest in choice of types of supporting material (2.9) and introducing topic and purpose (3.0). Students matched the 2.5 baseline on four rubric items: transitions/signposting, variety of sources, and the vocal and physical aspects of delivery. Students performed below the 2.5 baseline on six rubric items. On three of these—attention-getter, source citations, and language/style—they lagged behind the baseline by only .1 of a point. Their scores dipped more markedly below the baseline on providing closure (2.2), relating topic to audience in the introduction (2.1) and relating topic to self in the introduction (2.1). Four of the six items on which student scores dipped beneath the baseline and all three items on which student scores were lowest appear in the structure section of the rubric. Analysis: Gender Chart 2 shows differences in the means for male and female presenters on each of the 17 items measured by the rubric.

Table 1: Summary Means Across Clustered Items

Focus of Clustered Items Rubric Items All Female Male

Structural Components 1-9 2.5 2.6 2.4 introduction 1-5 2.5 2.6 2.3

body 6-7 2.6 2.8 2.5 conclusion 8-9 2.4 2.5 2.3

Thesis, Evidence, & Citations 10-13 2.6 2.7 2.5 Language/Style & Delivery 14-17 2.5 2.6 2.4

overall mean 1-17 2.5 2.6 2.5

6

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Hook

Intro Topic/Purpose

Relates to Self

Relates to Audience

Preview

Organization of Body

Transitions/Signposting

Review

Closure

Thesis

Types of Evidence

Variety of Sources

Source Citations

Language/Style

Delivery Style

Vocal Delivery

Physical Delivery

Means on Rubric Items by Gender

Females Males

7

Female presenters outperformed their male counterparts on 16 of 17 rubric items, with the size of the gap varying from .1 to .4. Females outscored males by .1 on four rubric items: relating the topic to audience, choice of types of supporting material, language/verbal style, and both the vocal aspects of delivery. Females outscored males by .2 on eight rubric items: introducing topic/purpose, relating topic to self, offering a clear preview statement, structuring the body of the presentation, reviewing their main points in the conclusion, offering and supporting a viable thesis, backing this thesis up with an appropriate variety of sources, and effectively executing the chosen/assigned style of delivery. Females outscored males by .3 on two rubric items: use of transitions/signposting and citing source material. Females outscored males by .4 on two rubric item: opening the presentation with a “hook” that entices audience members to continue listening and providing closure. The gap between female and male presenters was least pronounced for the four items related to language/style & delivery (.1, .2, .1, =). This gap widened somewhat for the two items related to the body of their presentations (.2, .3) and the four items related to thesis, evidence, & citations (.2, .1, .2, .3). The most pronounced gender gap occurred on the five items related to introductions (.4, .2, .2, .1, .2) and the two items related to conclusions (.2, .4). When I shared a preliminary draft of this document with Christine Zimmerman (Director of Institutional Research), she was struck by the gender gap reported above, especially since female students enter SLU less confident about their public speaking skills than their male counterparts and remain so throughout their college careers. Chart 3, which Christine provided, is based on data from the CIRP Freshman survey. It reveals that, over the past 30 years, with the exception of a couple of anomalous years, a higher percentage of our incoming male students have assessed their public speaking skills as “above average” or “in the top 10%.” It also reveals that this gendered confidence gap is not unique to SLU but is instead the norm in all private 4-yr colleges. Chart 3: Incoming Students’ Assessment of Their Public Speaking Ability by Gender

8

Table 2, which Christine also provided, is based on data from the Spring 2016 CSQ. It reveals that rather than disappearing over the course of students’ first year in college, this gap instead widens.

Table 2: Students’ Incoming and End-of-Year Self-Assessment of Public Speaking Skills

(by Gender) SLU Nonsectarian 4-year colleges All private 4-year colleges

incoming

end of 1st year

change

incoming

end of 1st year

change

incoming

end of 1st year

change

Men 3.3 3.5 0.2 3.5 3.6 0.1 3.4 3.5 0.1 Women 3.0 3.1 0.1 3.2 3.2 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.0 Viewed from one angle, Christine’s data functions as a call for instructors to work to boost their female students’ self-confidence as public speakers. Viewed from another angle, however, it’s possible that female students outperformed their male counterparts on all 17 rubric items precisely because, lacking the self-confidence of their male counterparts, they devoted more time and effort to their presentations. If so, then perhaps her data functions instead as a call for instructors to take steps to convince male students that careful preparation, in addition to self-confidence, is required to maximize one’s effectiveness as a public speaker. V. Feedback Loop: Next Steps Multiple options exist regarding how to approach the “next-steps” phase for a project such as this. One option is to pursue a course of action focused on program-wide results. Another option is to pursue a course of action focused on instructor-specific results. Under the former option, low program-wide scores on specific rubric items would be used to identify areas needing improvement, and strategies to enhance student learning in these areas would be devised and implemented across the program. In contrast, under the latter option, means for individual instructors’ students on the various rubric items would drive the “next phase” step, with instructors whose students’ scores were lower in different areas implementing different strategies to enhance student learning in these differing areas. Both approaches have drawbacks. The program-wide approach risks paying insufficient attention to differences in where individual instructors’ students are struggling. Additionally, even if unintentionally, it invites instructors whose students scored at or above the program means on rubric items flagged as “needing attention” to view the project as a justification for—perhaps even a call for—inaction on their part. The instructor-specific approach risks acting on the basis of too small a sample from each instructor. Given these concerns, the best course of action is perhaps to chart a middle course between the two approaches, with individual instructors assuming that their students conform more or less to the program-wide norms while also recognizing that their students almost certainly deviate from these norms in some areas. Adopting this middle course can happen only when instructors have access both to program-wide and instructor-specific means. Instructors who participated in this project and want to know how their students scored can get this information by emailing a request to me. Program-Wide Responses Before identifying steps that individual instructors may want to implement to boost student performance on low-scoring rubric items, I first propose two program-wide responses.

9

Adjustments to the Guest “Presentation on Presentations” Shared with Many FYP/FYS Classes Over the past several years, Randy Hill and I have made ourselves available to FYP/FYS classes for guest presentations that cover the fundamental principles of effective oral presentations. During most semesters, 50-60% of program instructors schedule one of these sessions. Because some students see this “Presentation on Presentations” in both their FYP and FYS and because of variation in students’ learning styles and our teaching styles, in recent years, Randy and I have been alternating semesters, with one of us facilitating these sessions in the fall and the other in the spring. Both of us are aware of the findings of this project, and, moving forward, we plan to adjust our “Presentation on Presentations,” giving added emphasis to five of the six items on which students’ scores were lowest—namely, relating the topic to speaker (2.1), relating the topic to the audience (2.1), providing closure (2.2), the attention-getter (2.4), and oral source citations (2.4). Unfortunately, the amount of material covered in these 90-100 minute sessions prevents us from attending in a meaningful way to language/verbal style. Happily, on this rubric item, students’ scores were only .1 of a point below the 2.5 baseline. Faculty Development Sessions Focusing on “Best Practices in Oral Communication Pedagogy” While most instructors’ students performed above the program-wide mean in some areas and below it in others, several instructors’ students scored above program-wide means in all or nearly all areas. Having some or all of these instructors share the nature of the oral presentations they assign, how they sequence these assignments, and the steps they undertake to enable students to succeed seems a promising way to spend some of the time the program regularly sets aside specifically for faculty-development work. Instructor-Specific Responses In a separate document (“Resources and Suggestions for Teaching Oral Presentation Skills”), I identify a range of resources instructors may wish to consult and offer a variety of suggestions they might consider implementing. I organize these according to the categories measured in the rubric (e.g., introductions, delivery). The suggestions and resources set forth in that document are by no means exhaustive, and I offer them primarily for their generative potential, hoping they will prompt individual instructors to devise their own creative ways to enhance students’ presentation skills. I urge instructors who participated in this project to focus both on areas where program-wide scores were lowest and where their students’ scores were lowest. Newcomers to the program, as well program veterans who did not participate in this project, should focus on areas where program-wide scores were lowest, as well as on those presentation aspects on which their students have typically faltered in the past presentations.

10

Appendix A Speaker_________________________________ I. Organization A. Introduction 4 3 2 1 SCORE The opening moments very in a generally in a somewhat not effectively entice the audience to effectively effective effective continue listening manner manner _______ Introduces presenter’s very clearly in a generally in a somewhat not effectively topic & purpose effective effective manner manner _______ Relates the topic to the in a clear & in a manner with limited with no success presenter compelling that is success or no attempt manner generally to do so successful _______ Relates topic to the audience clearly & generally with limited no success or convincingly successful success no attempt _______ Previews what is to follow very clearly pretty clearly provides some provides little sense of what to no sense of is to come what is to come _______ B. Body The organizational structure clearly & generally serves his/her does not serve deployed by the speaker . . . consistently advances rhetorical his/her advances his/her aims at times rhetorical aims his/her rhertorical or no choice of rhetorical aims organizational aims pattern ________ Speaker uses transitions/ clearly & usually sometimes seldom or signposting to mark the consistently not at all ________ breaks between main points … C. Conclusion Review of main points clearly & fully review is includes the speaker (yet concisely) generally something of fails to include reviews the effective but a summary but any sort of main points suffers a bit its effective- review developed in in clarity, ness is the body of fullness, &/or limited ________ the speech concision

11

4 3 2 1 SCORE

Closure final moments final moments while the final speaker just provide clear are generally moments are trails off or & effective effective at not effective, resorts to closure for the providing the speaker verbally speech closure for doesn’t just signaling that the speech trail off or the speech is resort to ver- done ________ bally signalling that the speech is done II. Thesis, Evidence, & Citations The speaker’s thesis/central sufficiently sufficiently either both idea is ___________. focused, focused & insufficiently insufficiently adequately adequately focused or focused & supported, supported inadequately inadequately & appropriate supported supported ________ consideration is afforded to alternative points of view. The speaker’s choices re: types clearly & usually serve sometimes seldom or never of supporting material (e.g., consistently his/her serve his/her serve his/her examples, statistics, quotes) serve his/her rhetorical aims rhetorical aims rhetorical aims ________ on which to draw . . . rhetorical aims The speaker _________________ consistently generally sometimes seldom draws on a variety of appropri- or never ________ ate sources to support the claims s/he advances. The speaker __ ______________ clearly & generally sometimes seldom cites his/her sources such that consistently or never ________ audience members are clear re: what information came from which source(s). III. Language/Style & Delivery is consistently is consistently is usually clear suffers from The speaker’s language & clear & clear & but seldom a frequent stylistic choices result in a imaginative, occasionally (if ever) lack of clarity presentation that _______. memorable, imaginative, imaginative, & is generally ________ &/or memorable, memorable, unimaginative, compelling &/or &/or not memorable, compelling compelling & not compelling The speaker’s execution of clearly & generally variable consistently the chosen/assigned consistently strong weak to the ________ delivery style (e.g., impromptu, excellent point of extemporaneous, manuscript, distraction memorized) is . . .

12

The vocal aspects of delivery clearly & generally variable consistently (e.g., pacing, articulation, vocal consistently strong weak to the ________ variation, & vocal energy) excellent point of are _________________. distraction The physical aspects of delivery clearly & generally variable consistently (e.g., eye contact, stance, gesture, consistently strong weak to the ________ & movement) are __________. excellent point of distraction

13

Appendix B

Rationale Underlying Each Measure in the Rubric for Assessing Formal Oral Presentations

I. Organization Skills

Introduction

Speakers should open their presentation with a “hook” that captures the audience’s attention, simultaneously introducing them to the topic and enticing them to continue listening. While doing so is no guarantee that audience members will remain attentive, it is difficult for speakers to command an audience’s attention in the latter sections of their presentations if they have not done so from the start. Moreover, even if they are successful in doing so, audience members have likely already missed some crucial content. Speakers should reveal what they hope to accomplish in their presentation. Just as the literature on assessment strongly urges educators to be transparent with their students about their learning goals, so, too, do public speaking texts strongly urge presenters to let their audiences in on both their general purpose (i.e., to inform, to persuade, to inspire, to entertain) and their specific purpose (e.g., “to inspire audience members to commit to community service projects that enrich the lives of the elderly”). Speakers should relate their topic to the particular audience they are addressing. Because audience members who perceive a topic as relevant to their lives are much more likely to continue listening than audience members who do not, speakers are well advised to relate their topic to the specific audience they are addressing early on in their presentations, letting them know why the topic is significant and why they ought to care enough to continue listening. Speakers should relate their topic to themselves. Just as audience members are more likely to attend to a presentation when the speaker explicitly links the topic to them, so, too, they are more likely to “invest” in a speech when they understand why the speaker is “invested” in it. While accomplishing this task is typically easier when an assignment grants students substantial latitude in selecting their topics, few assignments are so prescriptive as to render accomplishing this task impossible. Speakers should conclude their introduction by previewing the main points they will pursue in the body of their presentations. Listening to a presentation in which the speaker does not preview what is to follow is akin to being taken on a trip in which you do not know your destination or how or when you will get there. While some individuals occasionally enjoy the pleasant surprises that sometimes accompany a trip of this sort, most prefer journeys less shrouded in the fog of uncertainty. Body

The main points that comprise the body of a presentation should address the challenges of the particular rhetorical situation confronting the speaker.

14

Speakers necessarily decide what to include and exclude, as well as how to structure that which they include. These decisions should be based not on personal whims but on the confluence of the speaker’s purpose and the audience being addressed. Consider two speeches advocating expanded background checks on firearm purchases: one for an audience of avid hunters who fear that expanded background checks will encroach on their second amendment rights, the other for a more heterogeneous audience, most of whom already favor what the speaker is proposing. Adopting a structure in which each main point refutes a specific counter-argument that speaker believes audience members are likely to hold makes considerable sense for the first of these rhetorical situations but little sense for the second. Conversely, adopting a structure in which each main point focuses on a specific step audience members can take to increase the likelihood that stricter background checks will, in fact, be adopted makes considerable sense for the second rhetorical situation but little sense for the first one. Speakers should deploy clear transitions to explicitly mark the divisions between main points. While transitions are important in both oral and written communication, because the former lacks the visual organizational cues of writing (e.g., indentation for new paragraphs, inclusion of blank spaces between sections and/or section headers), it is especially vital that presenters provide clear transitions as they shift from one main point to the next. “Signposting” is a simple, efficient, and explicit transitioning method in which presenters numerically mark their main points (e.g., “In addition to _____, a second reason for supporting mandatory term limits for senators & representatives is ____”).

Conclusion

Speakers should clearly yet concisely review the main points they covered in the body of their presentation. While providing reminders and reinforcement might be unnecessary in an ideal world where everybody “gets” and retains content the very first time they encounter it, the proliferation of “post-it” notes and “to-do” lists in our everyday lives is powerful proof that the world we actually inhabit, unlike the one just described, is fraught with lapses of memory that we need to guard against. Accordingly, speakers are well advised to clearly yet concisely review for their audiences the main points they covered in the body of their presentations. In fact, at a very basic level, public speaking can reduced to the following formula: tell the audience what you’re going to tell them; tell it to them; tell them what you told them.

The final moments of an oral presentation should provide psychological closure. While all speeches end, not all provide their audiences adequate psychological closure. One way to comprehend the difference between a speech that “just ends” and one that provides adequate closure is to consider the very different states invoked in viewers by the conclusion of an episode of an afternoon soap opera and the conclusion of an episode of a situation comedy or dramatic series. Speakers should craft the closing moments of their presentation such that the speech doesn’t just trail off or end abruptly but instead feels whole, done, complete without the speaker having to resort to verbally or nonverbally signaling to the audience that the presentation has ended (e.g., “That’s it,” “Thank you,” projecting a “Works Cited” PowerPoint slide).

II. Thesis Development & the Use of Evidence

Presenters should advance a thesis/central idea that is sufficiently focused and capable of being supported via evidence and reasoning, and, when warranted by the rhetorical situation, they should also afford appropriate consideration to alternative points of view.

15

Given the relatively short time frame of most presentations, speakers are unable to adequately develop and support a thesis/central idea unless it has been sufficiently focused. Moreover, if this overarching claim is not capable of being supported by an appropriate combination of evidence and reasoning, then presenters stand little or no chance of realizing their rhetorical goals. Additionally, when a substantial portion of the audience is likely to dispute the speaker’s overarching argument, as well as when audience members are likely to encounter and perhaps be persuaded by counter-arguments after listening to the speech, presenters are well advised to afford adequate consideration to competing points of view. Speaker should substantiate their overarching claim with an appropriate mix of types of supporting material drawn from an appropriate variety of types of sources. Like writers, the three major types of supporting material speakers use to substantiate claims are examples, statistics, and testimony (including both paraphrases & direct quotations). While each type of supporting material has the potential to fulfill a range of rhetorical functions, each also carries out rhetorical functions the others are incapable of fulfilling. The amount of each type of supporting material presenters should draw on varies widely depending on the confluence of topic, purpose, and audience. In addition to drawing on an appropriate variety of types of supporting material, presenters should also draw on material from an appropriate variety of types of sources (e.g., popular, scholarly, alternative, personal interviews). Depending on the assignments, drawing on no outside sources may also be appropriate. Speakers should orally cite their sources such that audience members are able to clearly ascertain which information came from which sources. Citing sources fulfills the same sorts of functions in an oral communication context as it does in writing. Among other possible functions, when speakers orally cite their sources in an appropriate manner they maintain basic principles of academic integrity, bolster their credibility, and enable their audience to assess the sources of the evidence upon which they are drawing. Because a knowing which information came from which source is a fundamental aspect of appropriate oral citation of sources, it is imperative that speakers cite their sources at the moment in their presentation when they are actually integrating information from that source rather than merely providing an oral works cited list at the end of their speech or momentarily flashing a “Works Cited” slide.

III. Language/Style & Delivery

The speaker’s language should result in a presentation that is consistently clear, and the speaker’s stylistic choices should result in a presentation that is imaginative, memorable, & compelling. Because the fundamental purpose of all oral presentations is the communication of ideas, speakers should strive, first & foremost, for a level of clarity that will facilitate the audience’s understanding. However, because audiences often encounter clear presentations whose content is quickly forgotten, once this first threshold has been achieved, speakers should also strive to help their audiences to retain the information they communicate by crafting a presentation that is imaginative, memorable, and compelling.

The vocal & physical aspects of delivery should advance the presenter’s rhetorical aims. If the cardinal rule for style is “clarity above all else,” the cardinal rule for delivery is “avoid distracting vocal and physical mannerisms.” As was the case with style, however, once this fundamental benchmark has been achieved, speakers should strive to deliver their presentations in a manner that cultivates audience engagement with and understanding of the ideas they are expressing.