u ' 7

 

ABSTRACT

A SURVEY STUDY OF METHODS AND RATIONALES
IN THE CRITICISM OF CULSSROOE; SPEECHES IIC
THE BEGINNING COLLEGE COURSE

by William Theron Iothers

The purpose of this study is to survey methods and rationales
in the criticism of classroom speeches in the beginning college
course. Within the framework of this study is an attempt (1) to
synthesize some principles or criteria for effective learning, based
for the most part upon Ralph Tyler's nine "Conditions for Effective
learning," (an article which appears in the NBA Journal of September,
1959), and to relate and apply these conditions, to general pro-
cedures (evaluation in particular) in the course: (2) to survey
the speech and cognate literature-- for methods and rationales ad—
hered to by teachers in the criticism of speeches in this course;

(3) to secure, via questionnaires, from teachers of this course
responses concerning methods of criticism used and/or preferred and
rationales for these methods used in the criticism of speeches in

the course; (4) secure, via questionnaires, from college students

in the beginning course, taught by the writer and by other instructors,
responses concerning methods of criticism used and rationales for

the students‘ preferences of the methods used; (5) to ShOW‘hQZ

the methods and rationales for the evaluation of speeches (a) sug-

gested in the speech .literature, (b) indicated on the instructor

William Theron Lothers
questionnaires as preferred by the respondents, (c) and indicated
as preferences by the students on their questionnaires, conform to
some basic criteria for effective learning; and (6) to suggest areas
of agreement among the above three sources concerning certain methods
rand accompanying rationales for the evaluation of speeches in the
course.

The areas of coverage in the instructor questionnaires were
as follows: (1) Time factor of critiques in terms of the course
(late in or throughout the course); (2) time factor of critiques in
terms of the class period (during Speech, after Speech, at end of
period); (3) presentation of critiques (oral and/or written) (4)
content of critiques; (5) vehicle for written critique (blank sheet
or check list); and (6) use or nonuse of student critiques.

The principles or criteria for effective learning were found
to be related to: (1) Student motivation, (2) recognition by the
student of the need to learn new behavior, (3) guidance in developing
new behavior, (4) availability of appropriate materials to practice
the kind of behavior to be learned, (5) time for effective learning,
(6) satisfaction obtained by the student from the desired behavior,
(7) provision for sequential practice with learning experiences pro-
vided from day to day, (8) student standards of performance which
for them are high but attainable, and (9) valid and practical means
for the student to judge his performance.

Areas of agreement among the speech literature, the instructor

questionnaires, and the student questionnaires (all of which conform

William Theron Lothers
to certain principles or criteria for effective learning) are: (1)
For the sake of class rapport, (a) criticisms should not begin until
rapport has been gained with the students; (b) the instructor in his
critiques should always mention something praiseworthy. (2) The
instructor should motivate beginning speech students to establish goals
for achievement by gearing his criticisms to the student's potential
level of performance. (3) Oral critiques should serve as a teaching
device to all of the class members who have similar problems. (4)
The written critique is a valuable means of giving the student the
satisfaction of knowing results of his speech perfOrmances. (5) Stu-
dent evaluations of students provide variation in approach to the
securing of improved Speaking performance. (6) As a means of en-
couraging the student to set increasingly higher standards of perfor-
mance for each speech, the instructor should (a) place more emphasis
upon favorable than upon unfavorable and should (b) use the written
critique to provide each student with a record of individual needs
and progress. (7) Student evaluations of students enable them to
secure from this course the ability to evaluate their own speeches

as well as those of others.

g] Copyright by

William Theron Lothers

1967

A SURVEY'STUDY OF METHODS AND RATIONALES
IN THE CRITICISM.OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES IN

THE BEGINNING COLLEGE COURSE

By
William Theron Lothers

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Speech
1966

ACKI-IO’.‘II£‘IDGEI¢E NTS

I wish gratefully to acknowledge the warm encouragement,
scholarly guidance, and helpful criticism provided by Dr. Kenneth G.
Hance throughout the entire course of this study. His keen interest
and counsel have been a great challenge and source of inspiration.

Special thanks are also expressed to the other members of my
Guidance Committee: Thu David C. Ralph, who made available his basic
speech classes for a questionnaire survey; Dr. Frederick G. Alexander;
Dr. Paul L. Dressel; and Dr. Gordon 1. Thomas-- all instructors of
mine whose helpful suggestions contributed to the development of this
study.

Again, I am indebted to Dr. Lionel G. Crocker, James R.
Fletcher, and William G. Lovelady, who made available their beginning
speech classes for questionnaire surve~s for this study.

Further, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. William
Schrier for materials contributed to this study and to the other college
teachers of speech who responded to the two instructor questionnaires
constructed for this study.

Finally, my affectionate appreciation to my wife Charlotte
whose typing and proofing of the final copy of this study and whose
encouragement, cooperation, and sacrifice have made possible the

completion of this project.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ThBLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
CHAP'IERI.INTRODUCTION................. v
CHAPTER II. CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE LEARNING . . . . . .
ShldentMotivation................o. I"
Need of Student to Learn New Behavior . . . . . . . . . 8
Guidance in Developing New Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 10
Provision of Materials for Learning . . . . . . . . . . 13
Provision of Time for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Satisfaction form the Desired Behavior . . . . . . . . 1?
Provision for Sequential Practice . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Need of Student to Set Higher Standards of Performance. 29
Student Judgment of His Own Performance . . . . . . . . 32
Smaryooooooooooo0000000000coo 33
CHAPTER III. SURVEY OF SPEECH LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 38
Conditions for the Effective Criticism of Student
Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Establishment of Classroom Rapport . . . . . . 45
Specific Factors Providing for the Effective
CritiCism Of Student SpOOChQS o o o o o o o o o o “’8
The Basing of Criticism upon the Student's
Attainment of Goals Set Up by the Class . . . 48
The Basing of Criticism upon Class Discussions
Of Rhetorical Praniples o o o o o o o o o o 50
Objectivity in the Evaluation of Speeches . . . 56
Clear, Explicit Language for the Criticism of
Student Speeches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Methodology and Rationale for the Evaluation of
Speeches of the Beginning Public Speaking Course
111301109...................... 70
InstructorCritiques............... 70
Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Course. 70
Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Class
Periw OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOC 76
The Form of the Presentation of the Critique. . 89
Content of the Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

iii

Vehicle for the Written Critique . . . . .
s md ent Critique S 0 O O O O O O O O Q I O O O 0
Giving of Instructor Critques Only . . . .

Giving of Instructor and Student Critiques

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER IV. REPORT OF INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Materials............
Instructor Questionnaires.
Student Questionnaires . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Data Report. . . . . . . . .
Instructor Critiques . .
Student Critiques . . .

CHAPTER v. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Establishment of Rapport between

Students and Teacher
Establishment of Student Goals Motivated by an Awareness

of

Inadequacy of Present Speech Performance . . . . . . . . .

Guidance of the Learner's Efforts

Setting Increasingly Higher Standards of Speech Behavior

for Each Successive Performance

Learner Satisfaction Derived from Knowledge of Results of
the Stwent's Speaking Perfomance o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Variation in Method or Approach to the Securing of Improved
Speaking Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Training Students in the Self-Evaluation of Their Speeches
as well as of the Speeches of Others . . . . . . . . . . .

MPENDm I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
BMW“ 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O I 0

iv

Page

113
122
122
12a
158
166

166
167
168
183
205
210
210
233
245
2&6

2 50
2 52

255

260
262
268

275

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to make a survey examination of
methods and rationales in the criticism of classroom speeches in the
beginning college course. Within the framework of this study is an
attempt (l) to synthesize some principles or criteria for effective
learning, based for the most part upon Ralph Tyler's nine "Conditions

for Effective Learning" (an article which appears in the REA Journal

 

of September 1959 , and to relate and apply these conditions, by way
of briefly-worded examples, to general procedures (evaluation in
particular) in the beginning college speech course; (2) to survey the
Speech and cognate literature-- books, periodicals, and unpublished
materials-- for methods and rationales adhered to by college teachers
of speech in the criticism of classroom Speeches in the beginning
course; (3) to secure, via questionnaires, from college teachers of
the beginning course responses concerning methods of criticisms used
and/or preferred and rationales for these methods used in the criti-
cisms of classroom speeches in the beginning college course. (4) To
secure, via questionnaires, from college students in the beginning
course, taught by the writer and by other instructors interested in
this study, reSponses concerning methods of criticism used and

rationales for the students' preferences of the methods used; (5) to

show'hgg_the methods and rationales for the evaluation of Speeches (a)
suggested in the speech literature, (b) indicated on the instructor
questionnaires as preferred by the respondents, (c) and indicated as
preferences by the students on their questionnaires, ggngggg to some
basic criteria for effective learning; (6) and to suggest points or
areas of agreement among the above three sources concerning certain
methods and accompanying rationales for the evaluation of speeches in

the beginning college course.

limitations of the Study

At least four limitations were imposed upon this research
project: (1) The examination of criteria or conditions for effective
learning to be included in this study was limited to only those con-
ditions which relate to the variables of classroom criticism discussed
in the study. (2) The examination of the speech and related literature
included in the research was limited to only those sources which dis-
cuss methods and rationales for the criticism of classroom speeches in
the beginning college course. (3) The subjects included in the study
were ljrfited to college teachers and students in the beginning
course in foureyear institutions of higher learning within the Central
States area that are listed in the Directogz of the Speech Association
of America as offering a major program in speech. (In some instances
public speaking units in speech fundamentals courses are included.)
(h) Any discussion of, or reactions to, the methods of criticism under
study were drawn from the speech literature and from the expressed

attitudes of the teachers and the students involved in the study. No

vi

attempt was made to indicate the effect of speech criticiSms upon

student achievement in the beginning course.
Significance of the Study

Intrinsic herit

This research project appears to have the merit of focusing
primary attention upon one of the basic "bread and butter" tasks of
the college Speech teacher: that of criticizing speeches given by his
students in the beginning course. Further, this study purports to give
the teacher some concrete, collated information-- methods and rationales
for the methods-- to help him with this daily task: to review for him
what the speech and related literature and what college teachers and
students in the beginning course have to say about criticisms given
and received in the beginning course.

The following issues and major points of view about these
issues were investigated:

(1) Time factor of the critiques in terms of the course
(a) Are critiques given throughout the course?
(b) Are they given only after the first two or three
speeches?
(c) Are they given after every second or third Speech,
or even less fequently?

(2) Time factor of the critiques in terms of the class period
(a) Are critiques given during the speech?
(b) Are they given immediately after each speech?
(c) Are they given during the period allotted after the
speeches of the day have been given?

(3) Presentation of the critiques
(a) Are only oral crititiques given?
(b) Are only written critiques given?
(0) Are both oral and written critiques given?

vii

(u) Content of the critiques

(a) Do the critiques concentrate more upon unfavorable
aspects of the Speech than upon favorable aspects?

(b) Do the critiques concentrate more upon favorable
aspects of the speech than upon unfavorable aspects?

(c) Do critiques focus approximately equal attention upon
favorable and unfavorable aspects of the speech?

(d) Do the critiques focus attention upon what the students
should do in preparing for the next speech rather than
upon what the student did well or poorly in the speech
just given?

(e) Do the critiques focus attention upon only a few of
the most important factors concering the student's
speech rather than upon all of the factors relevant
to the student's Speech?

(5) Vehicle for the written critique

(a) Is a standard or specific sheck list with room for

comments used for written critiques?

(b) Is a blank sheet of paper used for written critiques?

(6) Student critiques

(a) Are student as well as instructor critiques used?

(b) Are instructor critiques without student participation

used?

This research project should also have merit in approaching
this "bread and butter" task of classroom criticisms in the beginning
course within the context of experience for the student by noting how
certain conditions or criteria for effective learning may be implemented

via the discussion and evaluation of speeches.

Distinctiveness
College teachers of the beginning course, by and large, for
some time have been criticizing speeches in terms of some of the
methods used by their former speech teachers and/or in terms of some
of the methods discussed in the speech literature. (For example,
Friederich and Wilcox; Heffron and Duffey; Reid; Weaver, Borchers,

and Smith; Robinson and Kerikas; and Balcer and Seabury discuss

viii

methods in the criticism of classroom speeches in their texts in the
area of Speech education.) Four unpublished theses purport to in-
vestigate the use of instructor and/or student criticism (via survey of
the literature or experimentation in the classroom) in the beginning
speech course: (1) Arthur Buell in 1959 completed a study at Kent
State University on ”A Study of Basic Principles and Kethods of Oral
[not written] Criticism in a Beginning Speech Classroom," a thorough
investigation of the literature of principles and methods of oral
criticism. (2) Dorothy Hinds in l9h9 at the State University of Iowa
completed a study on "An Investigation into the Effectiveness of
Criticism of Speech Delivery [not speech content] When Given Before,
During, and After Speech Performance," in which she secured student
reactions in writing to the three different time methods of critiques
that they received. (3) Franklin Sabah in 19 56 finished a study at
The Ohio State University on ”Some Effects of Student Judgment and
Criticism of Undergraduate Classroom Speeches," in which he noted
that incidences of instructor-stressed criteria for Speech evaluation
do appear in student criticisms. (4) Paul Cashman in 195# finished
a doctoral study at the University of Minnesota on "A Preliminary
Study of Evaluation Acts of Fundaventals of Speech Students," in which
tic research purported to determine whether or not students made
different written responses to speeches after training than before
training.

College speech teachers, however, have not found in the

literature any studies that have surveyed, in mass, practices and

ix

attitudes of either teachers or students related to the merits of
various methods in the criticism of speeches. Again, the survey of
the speech literature has been limited, for the most part, to an in-
vestigation of methods and principles of grgl criticism. Further, no
published or unpublished effort has been made in the examination of
conditions or criteria for effective learning pertinent to the several

variables in the criticism of speeches.

Materials and Sources

Broadly speaking, the materials or sources of this research
project are four: (1) Data drawn from published materials, by Ralph
Tyler and other educational and social psychologists treating con-
ditions or criteria for effective learning which are pertinent to, and
can be implemented in, the giving of classroom criticisms (viewed as
learning experiences for the students) in the beginning college Speech
course. (2) Data drawn from both published and unpublished sources
in the area of speech education which treat the subject of the criti-
cism of classroom Speeches (methods and rationales). (3) Data secured
via two questionnaires from college teachers of the beginning Speech
course related to the methods of criticism used and the rationales
for the use of these methods. (u) Data secured via six questionnaires
administered to college students in the beginning Speech course con-

cerning their attitudes with respect to methods of criticism received

for their speeches.

Fethod of the Study

The method or plan for securing data for this research project
is two fold:

First, library research was undertaken as follows: haterials
were integrated from published materials by RalfitTyler and educational
and social psychologists treating conditions or criteria for effective
learning which are pertinent to, and and can be implemented in, the
giving of classroom critichmm=(viewed as learning experiences for the
students) in the beginning college course. Further, materials were
integrated from both published and unpublished sources in the area of
speech education which treat the subject of the criticism of classroom
Speeches (methods and rationales).

Second, a series of questionnaire surveys was made as follows:
An initial questionnaire was sent to college teachers of the begin-
ning speech course in four-year institutions of higher learning within
the Central States area that are listed in the Directogy of the Speech
Association of America as offering a major program in Speech. The
questionnaire asked the teachers to indicate the methods of criticism
which they use and/or prefer to use in the evaluation of classroom
speeches. In order to expedite the filling out of the questionnaire
and to facilitate an analysis of its results, this questionnaire was
constructed as a check list, asking the instructors to check the
methods of criticism which they use or prefer to use. Upon the
callation of the finding of the initial questionnaire, a second question-
naire, along with a data report of the first questionnaire was sent to

the respondents of the first questionnaire, asking them to indicate
xi

why they prefer to use certain methods in the evaluation of classroom
speeches. Again, the filling out of this second questionnaire was
expedited and the analysis of its results facilitated by the use of

a check list, asking the instructor to check certain reasons and to
add others which consitute the rationales for their use of certain
methods of criticism in the beginning Speech classroom.

Two questionnaires were given to the beginning Speech students
of the writer and one each to the students of four other instructors
interested in the study. The content of the student questionnaire
prepared for three of the instructors (including the writer) deals
with some of the variables (normally used by these instructors in
the evaluation of Speeches in the beginning course) which are con—
tained in the two instructor questionnaires. The content of student
questionnaires prepared for two of the instructors deals with variables
(normally used by these instructors in the evaluation of Speeches in
the beginning course) which are outside the Scope of the two instruc-
tor questionnaires. These questionnaires, check list in form, asked
the students to check reasons for their preferences of the method(s)
of criticism which they receive, just as the second set of instructor
questionnaires asked the respondents to check reasons for their pre-

ferences of the methods of criticism which they give.

Organization of the Study

 

The materials of this study are arranged in the following

manner 3

Xii

Chapter I: "Introduction" The Introduction sets forth the
purpose of the study; its limitations; the significance of the study,
including its intrinsic merit and its distinctiveness; the materials
and sources; the method of the study; and the organization of the
Study.

Chapter II: "Conditions for Effective Learning" This chapter,
via the use of various published sources in the areas of social and
education psychology, elaborates upon conditions for effective learn-
ing discussed by Ralph_Tyler in the September l959 EBA Journal.

Chapter III: "Survey of the Speech literature" The third
chapter consists of an integration of materials from the speech
literature on methods and rationales for the criticism of classroom
speeches in the beginning college course.

Chapter IV: "Report of Instructor and Student Questionnaires"
This chapter is devoted to a presentation of the materials, procedures,
and data concerning the instructor and student questionnaires.

Chapter V: "Summary and Conclusions" This chapter is an
attenpt to Show how the methods and rationales for the criticism of
speeches in the beginning course, suggested in the Speech literature
and in the instructor and parallel student questionnaires, conform
to some basic conditions for effective learning; and to indicate these
respects in which the Speech literature and the questionnaires agree
concerning the merits of certain methods and accompanying rationales

(related to conditions for effective learning) with respect to the

criticism of speeches.

xiii

CHAPTER II
CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE LEARNING

The assumptions have been made in the speech literature con-
cerning the nature of speech and education: first, that speech can
be taught and, second, that it ought to be taught as a part of the
curriculun.of our schools.1 Since these two assumptions are generally
accepted in educational circles today, there has been little reason to
question the belief that the speech behavior (including both substance
and.delivery of oral communication) of any individual can be modified
by appropriate learning activities directed.hy an efficient teacher.2

A learning activity or learning event takes place'when the
stimulus situation affects the learner in such a way that his perfor-
mance, attitude, or interest changes fron.a time before being in the
situation to a time after being in it.3 nae oocurence of learning,
in short, is inferred from a difference in a human being's behavior--
porternanee, attitude, or interest-- as exhibited before and after
being placed in a learning situation. Since a change in.behavior

which results from experience is the generally'agreeddupon definition

 

1Andrew weaver, Gladys Borchers and Donald Smith, The T ‘
335. p.3.

2£_§ggggh, (Englewood Cliffs, I. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 19
2%“
SRobert Gagne, The Go s 1* Le (New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1 5 p. -

of learning, the teacher is one who guides or directs the learning of
another so that socially desirable kinds of behavior emerge.“ The
heart of education is learning.5 The assumption that speech can and
should be taught leads one to conclude that the heart of speech educa-
tion, too, is learning.

With this focus of attention upon learning in education in

general and in speech education in particular, two questions arise:
(1) What are the conditions under which learning in general takes
place? (2) How may these conditions, in brief, be applied to learn-
ing in the beginning public speaking course in college? The purpose
of this chapter, then, is to synthesise some conditions or principles
of learning, based for the most part upon Tyler's nine “Conditions
for Effective Learning,"6 and to relate and apply these conditions,
by way of briefly-worded examples, to general procedures (evaluation
in particular) in the first course in public speaking in college.
For example, the Psychology. of learning literature speaks of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of "reward and punishment“ to the learner.
Similarly, the speech literature is concerned with the advantages and
disadvantages of favorable versus unfavorable criticisms to the

public speaking student.

 

46. Lester Anderson, "Introduction," WW,
Forty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education,
Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950), p. 3.

5Ralph Tyler, ”Conditions for Effective Learning," REA Jogmgl,
XLVIII (September, 1959), p. 47.

6%e’ PP. “7-1‘9e

It is clear that educational evaluation should include an
assessment of the conditions of learning if the results of appraising
what the students are learning are to be understood.7 The college
teacher of the beginning public speaking course should apply certain
conditions of learning to the task of evaluating the speeches of his
students to help him better to understand the educational implications
of his evaluations .

What conditions of learning the instructor should assess de-
pends to some extent upon which ones appear to be critical for the ed-
ucational program under study.8 Generally a description or appraisal
of the following conditions of learning should provide useful criteria
which any teacher, the college teacher of the beginning public speak-
ing course in particular, may employ in appraising teaching methods,
materials, organisation, evaluation, and the like of his course:

(1) student motivation, (2) recognition by the student of the need to
learn new behavior, (3) guidance in developing new behavior, (b) avail-
ability of appropriate materials to practice the kind: of behavior to

be learned, (5) time for effective learning, (6) satisfaction obtain-
ed by the student from the desired behavior, (7) provision for se-

quential practice with learnim experiences provided from day to day,

 

7Ralph Tyler, "What is Evaluation,” P eedi s e
W, ed. Helen Robinson, Smlementan Edggtiogg;
m, n newer, 1958)e P. So

8

m...

(8) student standards of performance which for them are high but
attainable, and (9) valid and practical means for the student to judge
his performance.9 Each of these conditions of learning will be dis-
cussed in terms of education in general and in terms of speech educa-
tion in particular.

W

Education in General

"Motivation is the stimulation of action toward a particular
objective where previously there was little or no attraction to that
goal.10 vIt is one of the prime determinatives of the effectiveness of
practice.11 Motives,by definition, arouse and direct activity and,
as such, are safeguards against spiritless, aimless practice. Goal
setting by the learner is important as motivation for learning, and
his successes and failures are determiners of how he sets his future
goals.12 Motivation.yields learning, according to Garry, by channel-
ing tension or action into goal—directed activity.13 Passivity, on

the other hand, yields little learning.

 

9mm. pp. 8-9 ,

10Harold W. Bernard, Ps cho o of Lea and Tea hi , (New
York: McGrawbHill Book Co., 195” , p. 2.

11a. B. Strand, ”The Role of Practice in learning," The Psy-
f Lea , Fortybfirst Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, l9fi2), p. 366.

12Ralph Garry, ‘Ihe psychology of haggng (Washi ton D. C. :
The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963 , p. 11.

13Ibis. , p. 38.

\n

As Stanley Clement points out, learning should be an active
process, in which the instructor does not simply pour knowledge into
the student but draws knowledge out of the student.1u The tension of
which Ralph Garry speaks,however, can be so great as to interfere with
learning, for too much activity can result in fatigue and loss of
economy in learning.15 Side effects of persistent anxiety or exces-
sive striving for unattainable goals can result. High drive states,
stemming from.either desire or fear or both, can.yie1d a higher fre-
quency of error than is the case with a normal level of tension,
particularly in initial stages of learning when the probability of
error is higher.16 (Reference to this point will be made in a later
chapter, in.which some allusion.will be made to the problem of stage
fright that often plagues the beginning speaker.) The setting of a
realistic goal- a goal that falls somewhere between indifference and
certainty of successful performance and that is compatible with
ability, time or importance- is preferable to either too high or too
low a goal.17 Ideally, then,tension states, which prompt activity in

 

1“Stanley’Clement, "Seven Priciples of'Iearning,” Clearing

House, XXXVI (September, 1961), pp 23-26.

15Garry, p. 38.

idzggg.

17Jon.Eisenson, J. Jeffery Auer, and John Irwin, The Psyr

W, (New York: Appleton-CenturyoCrofts, 1963),
Fe 100. '

learning, will be eliminated by progress toward, and ultimate ful-
fillment of, the goal that the student has set.18

Furthermore, learning activity should be prompted by motiva-
tion or by goals which grow out of the task itself rather than by
motivation that is imposed in an external fashion.19 As Russell
states, learning under intrinsic motivation is preferable to learning
under extrinsic motivation.20 As a possible means of helping the
teacher accomplish this task of intrinsic motivation with his students,
McKeachie suggests that the instructor should make learning instrumen-
tal fer motives which the students already have by attempting to show
them how the course will contribute to their goals of life.21

In short,motivation will insure effectiveness and satisfaction
of practice provided the student sets realistic goals that grow out of
the task itself, and which incite progress toward the fulfillment of

the sons e

Speech Education
Student motivation in the beginning public speaking course is

engendered by speech activity that is purposive. Useful speech activity

 

186‘???» Po 38

19Eisenson, Auer, and Irwin, p. 92.

2°stid H. Russell, "Finding Out more from Research Studies,"
Eeagnigg gag the Teacher, 1959 Yearbook of the Association for Super-
vison and Curriculum.Development (thhington.D.C.: National Education
Association, 1959). p. 161

21Wilbert J. McKeachie, "motivating Students' Interest,“ Eh;
M Egs 2f the Log, ed. Russell M. Cooper (Minneapolis: University
Of’Minnesota Press, 1958), p. 36.

\1

does not start with a teacher's assignment to make a one-point speech
or a ten-minute speech to persuade. As weaver, Borchers, and Smith
point out, such speaking is in a sense purposive, but only in a narrow,
school-roomish sort of way, a way quite tenuously related to the pur-
poses for which the students will use their speech in the important
business of living.22 Student motivation for such a speaking assign-
ment must be imposed from some source external to the assignment-

for example, a good grade which has not been clearly explained or de-
lineated in terms of the criteria for an effective one-point speech or
ten-minute persuasive speech. In our daily living, the needs for which
we have to speak involve information we want to put into the minds of
others, experiences we wish to share with them, ideas which we want to
have accepted, or problems for the stimulation of audience thinking.23
These are the audience-related purposes which ought to lie behind the
speaking activites designed to teach speech?“ This is the ”stuff” of
which goals should be built to evoke intrinsic student motivation in
the begining public speaking class. At the same time, the instructor
who uses these audience-related purposes upon which to structure his
speaking assignments will be helping the student to formulate realistic
goals and to move farther away from a feeling of indifference to his
speaking performance and closer to a feeling of certainty of successful

speaking perfOrmance.

 

22Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 95.

2
3M0, PP. 9596'
”an” p. 96.

kD

Need of Student to Learn_New Behavior

Education in General
tyler asserts that just motivating someone will not produce

new behavior unless that person discovers that his present patterns
of behavior are unsatisfactory and need replacing by different, better
ones.25 Cassel equates tyler's second condition for effective learn-
ing (the need of the student to learn new behavior), in a sensepwith
the concept of barriers as a principle of learning. Man learns and
develops intellectually, according to Cassel, only as much as is
necessary to adjust and adapt effectively to the barriers present in
his culture-- that and no more.26

When there are no barriers present, there are no learner's

problems, no needs, no motivation, and,in short, no indication

to activity. The importance of barriers is based on the accep-

tance of the belief that all human behavior, including learning,

is goal directed; for the existence of2$ barrier is predicated

on the presence of some goal to block.
In short, the awareness by a student that his present patterns of
behavior are unsatisfactory consitutes a barrier, which, because
learning is goal-directed, serves as a stimulus to the student to
make the necessary adaptations for purposes of achieving improved

performance.

 

25ml”, 1m Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. n7.

26Russell N. Cassel, ”Primary Principles of Learning,"
Peabod Jo al of ation, XXXI (January, l95b), p. 218.

27Ihid.

Speech Education

Useful speaking activity should be purposeful not only in the
sense of a student's achieving effective audience adaptation in the
communication situation, as we have already seen,28 but also in the
sense of a student's seeking to improve his speaking. Students do not
make optimum improvement in speaking skill merely by participating in
speaking activities, even when those activities are well motivated, and
even.when the student has every reason to wish to speak well. Rather
students improve when they desire to modify their speaking behavior in
specific ways which they can identify and understand.29 A student
must say honestly and sincerely, "I wish to speak better," or "I need
to learn to speak well." To this ”wish: of course, must be added the
specific knowledge of the particular aspects of Speaking behavior
which can.be improved and the means open to the student for improving
in certain defined ways.30 This desire of the student to learn to
speak more effectively, however, is his awareness that his present
patterns of speaking are unsatisfactory; and this awareness of the
inadequacy of his present patterns of speaking constitutes a barrier--
nevertheless a stimulus-- to the student to make the necessary adapta-

tions or changes in order to achieve improved speaking performance.

 

283” supra, pp. 6-? (Student Motivation for Speech Education).
29Weavers, Borchers, and Smith, p. 96.
3":Lhid.

10

Guidance in Developing New Behavior

Education in General

The student who is attempting to overcome the barrier of the
inadequacy of his present pattern of behavior needs some kind of
guidance to help him in his learning efforts, especially when the
pattern of behavior to be learned is too complex to be acquired eas--
ily?1 If the student is left to discover some complex kind of be-
havior by trial and error, he will probably give up long before
success; hence, a considerable portion of the work of the teacher is
to try to guide the efforts of students to achieve more adequate be-
havior.32

Effective guidance of learning activities, which includes
criticism of performance,is essentially a process of preventing or
correcting errors and encouraging actions which are most likely to
lead.to success.33 Guidance should be kept at a minimum in the early
stages of learning, according to Bernard, though it is necessary, of
course, to give enough initial instruction so that the student can
understand the nature of the task.3u In fact, some authorities ad-

vocate allowing the learner to experiment before introducing some

 

31Tyler, NEA Jgugnal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. #7.
321b: ,

33Harold W. Bernard, P olo o Learni and Teach
(New York: MoGrawaHill Book Co. Inc., 19§559 PP.290-91.

3§£Qig., p. 291.

ll

guiding suggestions in order to make the learning integrated rather
than piecemeal. In other words, the instructor needs some initial
infermation about the student's behavior before he can make his
criticisms meaningful to the student in terms of the latter's needs
for improvement.

'With this information at hand, according to Garry, the
instructor should then formulate his criticisms in terms of what the
student should do, rather than what he should not do, by concentrating
on the particular goal for improvement which, ideally, the learning
assignment is to achieve.35 Positive criticism is more effective
than negative criticism in helping the student to achieve his goal of
improved performance because positive criticism is constructive and
encouraging to the student. Also, not only should the instructor's
guidance or criticism be constructive and encouraging but it should
also be specific.36 For example, the student will receive little
help from being advised that his sentence construction or grammatical
usage is faulty. Such_a critique may designate the general kind of
difficulty} but lacking specific information on kind of error, it does
not inform the student of the necessary steps for improvement. In
like manner, vague admonitions to "try to do better" are not helpful

unless the student is aware of what steps he can take.37

 

35G‘ran P0 65'

36m¥e9 p. 66a
37mid.

12

In brief, the instructor's efforts to guide the students to
achieve more adequate behavior will be aided and abetted by allowing
the student to experiment before introducing some guiding suggestions
and by giving criticisms to the student that are constructive, encourag-
ing, and specific.

Speech Education

Robinson and Kerikas define criticism in the speech classroom
as ”the process of revealing the findings of diagnosis and evaluation
to the student so that he may take the steps needed to improve his
work.38 Hence, the teacher's criticism underlies all learning in
the speech class- learning that can.be observed in the difference in
a student‘s speaking behavior, as exhibited by his speech performance
from one speech to the next under the influence of the instructor‘s
criticisms.

The speech instructor's task of criticism or evaluation in the
beginning public speaking classroom, in a sense, is a succinct summary
of Tyler's first three conditions for effective learning: (1) Student
Motivation39 is stimulated by the presence of student and course goals.
(2) The content of the criticism measures the progress of the student

in learnigg pgg;behavioryo in speaking to reach those goals. (3) The

38Karl Robinson and E. J. Kerikas, Teachi s ech Methods and
Mariel; (new rork: David McKay Compamr, Ino., 1&35, p.251.

39See su re, p. 4.

“OSes

 

supra, p. 7.

13

instrument of evaluation itself, by which the instructor gives each
student an accurate criticism containing specific suggestions for im-
provement, is the substance of the instructor's provision of gpidance

in developing new'behaviorn

J

1 in speaking.

The speech teacher should use the first one or two speaking
performances to allow the student to experiment with his speech be-
havior without specific guidance or criticism in order for the teacher
to gather information for actual diagnosis.“2 The criticisms, when
given after the second or third speaking assignment, should be (1)
positive and constructive in attitude and statement, avoiding "don'ts"
and negative comment, and (2) worded as specific comments, clearly
expressed.“3

Because the teacher's criticism underlies all learning in the
speech class, it is essential that his comments be specific, positive,
and constructive to help the student to develop new, improved speech

behavior.

Pppzlsion o; Materlals fog Ieapplng

Education in General
A fourth condition for effective learning, according to Tyler,

is adequate and appropriate provision of materials for the student to

 

41See supra, p. 10.
hzfiobinson and Kerikas, p. 2A3.
u3Ibide, pp. 2&2-14'3.

1U

use in his efforts to learn.44 One of the ways in which the instructor
guides students to achieve more adequate behavior is to select and
organize content or activities for 1earning.u5 These materials and
activities must be meaningful to the student, however, if they are to
encourage him in his efforts to develop new and more adequate behavior.
In the light of the premise that meaningful material is learned more
'readily than meaningless material, it goes without saying that in the
interest of economy, instruction should be meaningful to the instruct-
ed}+6 Furthermore, if the learning materials are to be meaningful to
the student, they should encompass, so far as practicable, the depth
and breadth of the real life situations in which the learning is to be

applied.“7

Speech Education
The beginning public speaking student learns not only from the
instructor's criticisms of his speeches but also from the study of
various sources in the preparation of his speeches. Materials for
speeches are available to the student from at least four different

sources: (1) personal experience; (2) observation, gleaned from

 

M"trier, NEA Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. 1+8.

456. Lester Anderson, The Fortz-nigth Yeagbook of the National
Sppietz fpr ppe Study of Ldppatgop, £231 I, p. .

héJ. B. Stroud, "The Role of Practice in Learning,” The Psy-

cholpgz of Learning, The Fortyyflpst Yearbook of the National Society
for the Stud of Educa ion Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
19h25, p. 358.

“ZEisenson, Auer, and Irwin, p. 98.

15

pictures, fruits of experimentation, and the like; (3) the securing
of help from others through interviews, letters, attendance at lec-
tures, or listening to radio and television, and (a) reading about
the subject in books, newspapers, and magazines.”8

The meaningfulness of these materials to the beginning public
speaking student is dependent upon the opportunities available to him
to apply the materials in speech activities that encompass, insofar as
possible, real life communication situations. As is noted in the
section on speech education for student motivation,""9 these real life
communication situations call for the abilities of the student to
speak in order to gather and impart information, to secure cooperative
solutions to problems, to influence the opinions of others, to share
experiences, and to ease social tension.5o

In.summary, students in general and the beginning public
speaking student in particular are aided in the learning process by
the instructor's provision of materials, made meaningful by their re-
lationship to real life situations in which the students must become

involved.

Provision of Time for Learning

Education in General

Closely related to the need for providing materials for the

 

”Robinson and Kerikas, p. 285.

“93.. 81.121“, Pe 7e

Soweaver, Borchers, and Smith, pp. 97-98.

.16

student's use in learning, according to Tyler, is the need for the pro-
vision of enough time for the student to carry on the desired behav-
ior.51 I

According to educational psychologists, the need for time to
facilitate improved performance is one of the reasons why distributed
practice (practice Spaced over a period of time) is superior to massed
practice (practice included within a single time period). McClelland
asserts that because of a performance decrement, or the lagging of
performance behind actual learning, the learner needs rest periods inter-
spereed among learning periods to enable his performance level (the
doing of the task) to catch up with or, at least, to approach what he
actually knows about the task.52 After the presentation of a new
skill to the student and after his initial efforts to learn this new
skill, there is a gestation period of thinking about it and imagining
oneself doing it that makes considerable difference in his ability to
perform.this new skill.53 .

An important aspect of learning, therefore, is that the student
have time to practice the desired behavior; and this practice of the
behavior involves time to react to it, to reflect upon it, to feel it,

as well as to experience it overtLy.

 

51Ty1er, Egghggggggl, XLNIII (September, 1959), p. #8.

53D. C. MCClelland, ”Studies in Serial Verbal Discrimination
I:arn%ng,' Jouzng; of Egpgrimentgl Psyphologz, XXII (l9h2), pp. 4h—56,
1 9—1 2.

531571», NEA Jougggl, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. 1+8.

17

Speech Education

The provision of sufficient time to carry on the desired be-
havior is particularly important to the beginning public speaking
student. Although much of the speaking oral activity in'whichtie'avcrage
person engages today is impromptu, which allows no time for specific
preparation; the speaking done in many beginning public speaking
classes, the type of Speaking which gives the student the fundamental
principles for preparing to speak in various real life situations, is
extempore speaking. Preparation for this type of speaking requires,
among other factors, careful research for materials, planning the
speech, outlining the speech, and practicing the speech.5u During
this preparation period, or gestation period as it were, the topic
develops in the speaker's thinking. The gathering of materials and
the planning and outlining of the topic gives the speaker actual
knowledge about the speech. Oral practice of the speech enhances the
speaker's performance level for the presentation of the speech.

In short, the preparation of a speech, like any other learning
task, requires time for the speaker to think carefully through the
speech, to react to it, to feel it, and to experiment with the actual

giving of the speech.

Satisfaction {gem the Desiggd Behavior

 

suKenneth Hance, David Ralph, and Milton Wiksell, Princi les
of Speaking (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1%2),
pp. 19-28.

H
(“n

Education in General

The teacher who works with students who already have many
acquired drives or goals is faced not with the problem of student
motivation but with the problem of eliciting and reinforcing the de-
sired behavior, of providing some kind of satisfaction to the student
for his development of the behavior which the teacher wishes him to
perfect.5-5 The presence of motivation or drive is not in itself
sufficient to bring about learning. As Clement points out, learning
should be satisfying.56 Students will repeat satisfying experiences
and shun unpleasant ones. "Behavior that is satisfying to the person
carrying it on tends to remain with him, become part of him, and in
that sense is learned, while that which is dissatisfying or painful
tends to bo blotted out.57 Burton pursues this condition of learning
further in his assertion that the learning process proceeds best when
the learner can see results, when he has knowledge of his status and
of his progress toward his goals-- knowledge of his mistakes as well
as of his successes--, when he achieves insight and understandings8

The question now arises as to how the instructor can inform

the student of his progress toward his goals. At least four ways are

 

55a. L. Shelton, w. B. Arndt, and June Miller, ”learning
Principles and Teaching of Speech and Language,” Journal of Speech

and Heazing Qisorders, XXVI (November, 1961), p. 359.
5601ement, Cleagng House, XXXVI (September, 1961), p. 25.

57Tyler, NEA Journal, XLVII (September, 1959), p. 48.

58William H. Burton, “Basic Principles in a Good Teaching--
Learning Situation,” Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), p. 243.

19

apparent in the literature of psychology of learning and teaching: (1)
One way is to utilize praise and reproof. (2) A second method, closely
associated with the first, is to use praise or reward and reproof or
punishment with specific information explaining why the learning be-
havior or performance was good or bad, over against the use of praise or
reward and reproof or punishment without the addition of any explana-
tion. (3) A third method of informing the student of his progress to-
ward his goals is to use reinforcement, or information about the results
of his performance, that is immediate or the use of reinforcement that
is delayed. (h) A fourth method is to use intermittent, or partial,
reinforcement, over against 100 percent reinforcement.

One way for the instructor to give information to the student
about his progress toward his goals, according to Bernard, is to
utilize praise and reproo:f’.59 Both praise and reproof are found to be
more stimulating to the student's learning than is performance which
receives no comment of any kind. This conclusion is drawn from ex-
periments involving groups, some of whom were consistently praised,
some reproved, and some ignored.60 (The actual merit of the work was
not a factor in the experiments.) The praised groups made better av-
erage scores than the reproved groups, and the reproved groups made
better average scores than did the groups which were ignored. Bernard

reports that the fact that both praise and reproof lead to better

 

5939er, pe 288.
éoIbid.

20

student performance than no reinforcement or feedback has led to fur-
ther experimentation, conclusions from which indicatetthat the really
decisive factor in the provision of reinforcement has to do with the
personality of the teacher.61 The teacher must be attentive, therefore,
to the responses of his students so that the techniques of using praise
and reproof may be adapted to the individual student and his situa-
tion.62

In connection with the second method of informing the student
of his progress toward his goals, Eisenson undertook two experiments--
one with words and one with pictures- to ascertain whether there were
a distinct difference in potency between a state of satisfaction
carrying little or no knowledge about the success or failure of a
particular connection and a state of satisfaction which has added to
it knowledge that a certain connection is successful.63 Results of
the two experiments were as follows: (1) Rewards which yielded spe-
cific information were more potent than any'other postresponse in
bringing about repetitions of connections. (2) Rewards which did not
yield such information also influenced learning notably but to a less-

or degree than those rewards which had informational value.6n One

 

6inoid.
62am.

63John Eisenson, ”Confirmation and Information in Rewards and
Punishments," Agghgves of’Psyghology, XXVII (Nay, 1935), p. 36.

wine

may conclude from these two experiments, then, that learning does take
place, even if information is withheld and nothing but the satisfying
influence of the reward operates; but the amount of learning is mark-
edly increased when specific and usable information is added to the
reward.

Does a student make greater progress toward his learning goals
when reinforcement is immediate or when reinforcement is delayed?
Stroud points out that there is good reason to believe that immediate
motive-incentive conditions (reinforcements) are more effective than
remote ones,65 Lawson states that evidence is mounting that reinforce-
ment is effective only when it is immediate.66 If there is any
delay between the occurence of the response to be learned and the
reinforcement of that response in a given learning situation, accord-
ing to Lawson, there will be no habit formation unless some other
event comes to mediate the delay between the response and its rein-
forcement.67 Eisenson asserts that, in general, reward or punishment
should be administered as quickly as possible after the response in
order to secure maximum reinforcement or nonreinforcement (in response

68

to punishment) effects. Thus,one may conclude with Stroud that an

individual, as a rule, will not work long toward a distant goal unless

 

65$th. P. 3680

66Reed Lawson, learning and Behavior (New York: The Macmillan
Company. 1960). p- 175

67Ibid.
68Eisenson,.kuer, and Irwin, p. 9b.

22

he derives some immediate satisfaction in doing so.(>9

Learning should be satisfying; and, as a general rule, it is
most satisfying to the learner who can see the results of his learning,
who has knowledge of his status and of his progress toward his goals.
Although the learner, for the most part, prefers praise to reproof in
the reinforcement he receives, he would rather receive reproof than
receive no reinforcement or feedback at all. Although the learner
likes to receive praise for his learning efforts, he would rather be
told why his performance was good than just to be told that it was
good. Finally, as a rule, the learner prefers to receive immediate
reinforcement about his learning progress than to receive delayed

reinforcement.

Speech Education
As will be noted in the remainder of this study, Tyler's

sixth condition for effective learning-- learner satisfaction derived
from instructor (and, occasionally, peer) reinforcement of the learn-
er's behavior or performance- lies at the heart of this study on
classroom criticism in the beginning public speaking course in college.
The next two chapters of this study will emphasize the point, made by
public speaking theorists and practitioners alike, that all classroom
speeches. with the possible exception of the first one or two rounds of
speeches, should receive some kind of instructor reinforcement if the
student is to derive any degree of satisfaction from his speaking
tasks. Burton's statement about his sixth condition fer effective

 

69Stroud, p. 368.

N
h)

learning seems to tell the beginning public speaking instructor that
the student's learning and application of the communication process
seem, to proceed best when the student can see results, when he has
.knowledge of his status and of his progress toward his goals-- know-
ledge of his mistakes as well as of his successes.70

The beginning public Speaking instructor may readily apply the
suggestions for informing the students of their progress toward their
goals that are apparent in the literature of psychology of learning
and teaching.

In the first place, the instructor will include both favorable
and unfavorable comments (both praise and reproof) in his evaluation of
the classroom speeches because each student wants to be told both his
successes and his mistakes. By way of helping the students to receive
both unfavorable as well as favorable speech criticisms, Robinson and
Kerikas point out that the teacher should observe with the students
that each person has strengths and weaknesses in his Speech skill of
which he is unaware because they are of long standing and they are
habituated; hence, unless some interested person calls attention to
these points, he will probably never respond to them.71 In the actual
evaluation itself, according to Robinson and Kerikas, the instructor
should comment upon the good things first, always finding at least one

complimentary thing to say.72 Next, he should thoroughly and carefully

 

79899 supra, p. 18.

71Robinson and Kerikas, p. 242.
721mm. , p. 2%.

24

.point out the weaknesses and undesirable items.73

In the second place, it goes almost without saying that the
content of both favorable and unfavorable criticisms must include
specific comments of why the speech was effective or ineffective and
what the student should do to improve his next Speech performance.

The instructor should explain specific causes of problems and suggest
ways of improving the problems; then, he should select one important
item and ask the student to work on it in particular for the next
speech.7u Other methods of handling favorable and unfavorable comments
in classroom criticisms in the beginning public speaking course will be
mentioned in the next two chapters of this study.

In connection with the third method discussed in the literature
of the psychology of learning and teaching for apprising the learner
of his progress toward his goals, the question is often raised by the
beginning public speaking teacher, ”Shall I criticize the speaker
immediately after he sits down, or shall I wait until a period set
aside at the end of each class to give my criticisms to each of the
speakers of the day?” Again, chapters III and IV will have much to
say about this important variable in the evauation of classroom
speeches. Suffice it to say now, however, that Robinson and Kerikas
agree with the psychology of learning and teaching theorists in the

assertion that, whereas criticism should be presented at the most

 

73Other suggestions concerning this issue of classroom
criticism will be mentioned in chapters III and IV.

was.-

25

appropriate time for effective learning, in general, criticism is most
helpful when given as soon after the performance as pcssible.75

In summary, the beginning public speaking student will receive
satisfaction concerning his progress toward his Speaking performance
goals that he has set for the course if he receives knowledge of the
results of his speaking. The student needs to know both his strong
and weak points. He should be told how to develop his strong points
and how to overcome his weak points. Finally, he Should receive crit—
-icisms as soon after his speech as possible unless it would be advan-
tageous to his learning how to apply the principles of public speaking

to receive criticisms at the end of the period.

Provision for Sequential Pzagtice

Education in General
In the fourth condition for effective learning, Tyler points
to the need for the appropriate provision of materials for the student
to use in his efforts to learn.76 In the seventh condition for learn.
ing, Tyler emphasizes the need for some variation in method or approach
each time some learning task or performance is practiced.77 ‘Why'is
this variation in method or approach necessary to the student's learn.

ing of new'behavior? Tyler suggests one answer to this question: to

 

75Robinson and Kerikas, p. 243.
76Tyler, NEA J nal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. 48.
77:914.! pp. ’48-'49.

prevent boredom which curtails learning.78 A second answer to this
question is inherent in the definition of learning itself. An expla-
nation follows.t

learning, as defined at the outset of this chapter, is a change
or modification of behavior or performance which results from experi-
ence or practice.79 Now, one ought not to interpret sequential experi-
ences or practice to mean the repetition of a performance in the Sense
that the learner does the identical thing over and over.80 In fact,
response does not recur in identical form because each time it is
carried through, a change is produced in the learner; and this change
in the learner brings about a change in his behavior.81 This alter-
ation of the learner's performance, which has been termed learning,
facilitates improvement and the acquisition of new modes of response.
It is the learner's recognition of the need for improvement and the
acquisition of new modes of response which Tyler notes as the second
condition for effective learning.82 The alteration of the learner's

performance, which facilitates Tylers second condition for effective

 

78Ibido’ p. “9.
79See supra, pp. 1-2.
8

oHoward Kingsley and Ralph Garry, The Nature and Conditions
0 Iearni (2d ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1957 9 p. ZuOo

81mm.

82366 supra, p. 80

27

learning, is, in turn, facilitated by variation in method or treatment
of the materials used by the learner in his learning performances.

The practice of behavior, using various methods and approaches,
gives the learner an opportunity to discard needless and awkward
reactions or responses and to try out short cuts and more efficient
methods.83 It gives him a chance to correct errors and to profit by
his experiences. Most fundamentally, the practice of performance
gives the learner the opportunity for improvement, so essential to
most forms of classroom learning.

It should be added, however, that the primary value of the
instructor's provision of numerous materials for learning and of a
variety of methods and approaches in the use of materials for practice
is not to be found solely in the factor of experimentation with
quantity of materials or variety of approaches for purposes of improv-
ed performance. According to Anderson and Gates, learning will have
maximum value when it causes one to generalize the common features of
varied experiences, when it brings about the transfer of learning from
experience to experience.85 In short, practice, with the guidance of
the teacher, should enable the learner to become aware of the inter-

relationships of old learning and new learning tasks.86

 

83Kingsley and Garry, p. 242.

Buss...

8
56. Lester Anderson and Arthur Gates, ”The General Nature of
Learning,” Learning gng Ingtruction, Forty-ninth Yearbook of the Nat-
ional Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago Press, 1950),
e 29. .

Ibid.

I‘D
(0

Speech Education

Tyler's sixth and seventh conditions' for effective learning,
as applied to the beginning public Speaking course, are almost insep-
arably connected. In connection wiiim the application of Tyler's
sixth condition, the reader's attention has been called to the task
of the beginning public speaking instructor in providing each student
with knowledge of the effectiveness of the results of his speaking.
The beginning public speaking student makes progress toward his learn-
ing goals for the course as he seeks to use classroom criticisms of
his speeches for improved performance in the subsequent rounds of
speeches. In the application of Tyler's seventh condition for effec-
tive learning (provision for sequential practice), the student needs
to draw upon the instructor's evaluation of a Speech just given (also,
peer evaluations, if available) as one of his means for developing a
different method or approach in preparing for his next speech. Here,
then, the beginning public speaking student makes progress toward his
learning goals for the course as he seeks to use classroom criticisms
of his speeches and the fruits of his careful observations of other
speakers, inside and outside of the classroom, for phrposes of alter-
ing his approach to the preparation and presentation of subsequent
Speeches.

According to weaver, Borchers, and Smith, the basis of speech
improvement is the practice of Speaking; therefore, the bulk of the

school time available for speech instruction ought to be occupied by

29

students engaged in the practice of speaking.87 A very important
fruit of this speaking practice, however (to apply the principle
suggested by Anderson and Gate588), is the student's learning how to
generalize the common features of his varied in-class and out-of-class
speaking experiences or practice in order to bring about the transfer
of the learning of principles of speaking from speaking eXperience

to Speaking experience.
Need of Student to Set Higher Standards of Performance

Education in General

An integration of Tyler's second condition for effective
learning (need of student to learn new behavior) with Cassel's concept
of barriers as a principle of learning leads one to the conclusion
that the awareness by'a student that his present patterns of behavior
are unsatisfactory constitutes a barrier, which, because learning is
goal-directed, serves as a stimulus to the student to make the neces-
sary adaptations for purposes of achieving improved performance.89
Iyler points out in articulating his eighth condition for effective
learning that the task of learning new behavior, of achieving improved

performance is a never-ending process. That is, the teacher must

encourage his students to keep setting their sights higher; and then,

 

8"Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 94.

859° supra. p. 27.
89See supra, p. 8

30

he must guide them in their efforts to improve their standards of per-
formance to enable them to progress in the direction of their ever-
expanding sights or goals.90
If students are not directed to keep setting their sights

higher, according to Tyler, and not guided to improve their standards
of performance, then they will reach a plateau within a relatively
short period of time, whereupon no further learning takes place be-
cause the student's behavior is no longer changed or modified.91
Studies, such as those made at the Harvard Human Relations Laboratory,
\indicate that the learner achieves better if he is helped to work to-
ward a standard always beyond where he now is, but one which he can
attain.92 In short, the task of achieving improved performance is an
ever-continuing process, aided and abetted by the students' efforts

to set goals which are advanced just beyond the students' grasp as

they advance step by step in their achievement of improved performance.

Speech Education
Robinson and Kerikas present an implementation of Iyler's
eighth condition for effective learning within the framework of the

beginning public Speaking course in their suggestion of a teaching

 

9O'Ifyler, NEA Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. 49.
91mm.
92mm.

Bl

patternj 93 (l) First, the instructor sets up long range or remote
course goals in terms of the desired information, attitudes, personal
speeCh habits, and basic and Specialized Speech skills to be developed
in the course. (2) The instructor then ascertains the needs, interests,
and abilities of the students through testing and diagnosis. (3) Based
on the needs, interests, and abilities of the student (h) These imme-
diate goals are achieved via the organized units of instruction for the
course. (5) As soon as these immediate goals have been achieved by
repeated eXperience with the units in the course, the instructor sets
up new immediate goals that are more difficult of achievement than were
the first set of immediate goals, always moving towzrd the long rang
course goals. (6) These new tentative immediate goals are achieved by
using suitable units such as in IV, suited to the new goals. (7) The
process of coninuing to set and to reach tentative immediate goals is
pursued until, ideally, each remote or long range course goal is reach-
ed by each student (within the limits of his abilities).

This teaching pattern, in brief, implements Tyler‘s eighth
condition for effective learning by keeping before the students the
need of setting increasingly higher standards of performance with
each Speaking assignment in order that the ultimate course goals may
be reached. hore Specifically, for example, the beginning public

Speaking teacher's task of criticism should serve both to challenge

 

93Robinson arxi Kerikas, p. 106. Note that this pattern may
be applied to the teaching of any type of speech course-- oral
interpretation, voice and diction, discussion, and so on.

32

the student to continue to improve certain aspects of his Speaking
performance and to give him the necessary instruction to implement

this continued improvement in performance.

Student Judggent of His Own Performance

Education in General

The accomplishment of Tyler's eighth condition for effective
learning is impossible apart from the realization of his ninth con-
dition for effective learning. That is, the student will not be able
to continue (will not have any particular inclination to continue) to
set his sights higher nor to set higher standards of performance be-
yond the goals and standards set in the classroom if he does not learn
some means of judging his own.performance. As Tyler points out, if
the learner is to continue to learnp- particularly after formal
schooling is over-- he will have to become selfhdirected and self-
evaluative.94 The task to the teacher, then, is to help his students
to devise some means of judging their achievements and of telling how

close they are coming to worthy standards of performance.95

Speech Education
The student's judgment of his own performance is also an
essential condition for effective learning in the beginning public
speaking course. As the last of nine steps in speaking, Hance, Ralph,

and Wiksell urge the student to "evaluate your speech" because only

 

guTyler, REA Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), p. n9.
951b3g.

33

through evaluation can one learn to improve his speaking.9'6 Weaver,
Borchers, and Smith assert that one of the aims of all criticism is
the develOpment of student ability in self-appraisal.97 Reid urges
the teacher to encourage the students to answer such questions of
self-criticism as the following: (1) What do you think of your per-
formance? (2) Where do you think you could have improved? (3) What
were you trying to achieve?98

In short, the beginning public speaking student, as he prac-
tices and as he presents his speeches, should seek to evaluate the
results of his efforts. Because almost all of his speaking is going
to be done outside of the classroom and away from the evaluative
guidance of the instructor, the instructor should, therefore, teach
the student how objectively to evaluate his own perfOrmance, and how
to make use of audience feedback as a means of enabling him to con-

tinue to improve his speaking performances.

Summagy
The purpose of this chapter has been to synthesize some con-
dititions fer effective learning and to apply these conditions to
general procedures in the first course in public speaking in college.
The application of conditions of learning to the beginning public

speaking course rests on the premise that the Speech behavior

 

96Hance, Ralph and Wiksell, p. 33-

97weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 520.

98Ioren Reid, Teachi S ech in the Hi h School (Columbia,
Mb.: Artcraft Press, 19525, p. 215. —

31;

(including both substance and delivery of oral communication) of any
individual can be modified by appropriate learning activities directed
by an efficient teacher. Tyler's nine "Conditions for Effective
Learning” applied to learning in the beginning public speaking course
may then be summarized.

Student motivation Serves as a catalyst for learning because,
ideally, it constitutes the setting of realistic goals that grow out
of the task itself; and it stimulates progress towards the fulfillment
of the goals. Intrinsic student motivation in the beginning public
speaking class can be stimulated if the Speaker comes to associate his
course goals with the fulfillment of audience-related purposes with
which he must be concerned in real life communication situations.

Student motivation for the achievement of goals is ineffectual,
however, unless the student is aware that his present patterns of be-
havior are unsatisfactory, unless this awareness serves as a stimulus
to prod him to make adaptations essential to his achievement of im-
proved performance. The beginning public speaking student cannot be-
gin to realize his course goals unless his awareness of the inadequacy
of his present patterns of Speaking behavior stimulates him to alter
his speaking patterns in order to achieve improved speaking performance.

It is the instructor's task, among other factors, to make
sure that the student understands in what reSpects his present patterns
of performance are unsatisfactory and to guide him in the alteration
of his patterns of behavior to enable his achievement of improved

performance. One of the most important guidance functions of the

beginning public speaking teacher is the evaluation of student speech-
es with the use of comments that are Specific, positive, and construc-
tive to help the student to develop new, improved speech behavior.
meaningful and practicable materials for use in the practice
of desired patterns of behavior constitute a key instrument of learn-
ing for students in general and for the beginning public Speaking
student in particular. Learning materials, although practicable and
meaningful, are useless, however, unless the student has ample time
to use these materials for the practice of the desired behavior. The
beginning public speaking student, as well as the student in general,
must take time to react to his performances, to reflect upon them, to
experience them overtly.

Student motivation for improved behavior, implemented by the
availability of ample time for the practice of meaningful materials
under the guidance of a qualified instructor, needs the satisfaction
of knowledge of results of performance. The learner, be he inside
or outside of the beginning public Speaking class, wants to know as
soon as possible after his performance the strong and weak points of
his efforts, how to develop his strong points and how to overcome his
weak points. I

The student's knowledge of the results of his behavior or per-
formance must be put to use in the modification of his behavior by
varying his method or approach in the practice of subsequent tasks or
performances. Practice which utilizes variation in method or treat-
ment of the material used by the student in his performances will

enable his learning to be of maximum value if, through his practice,

36

he is able to transfer learning from performance to performance. By
the same token, the beginning public Speaking student will find that
he can modify his Speaking behavior with, perhaps, best results if and
when he seeks to generalize the common features of his varied in—class
and out-of-class Speaking experiences or practice in order to bring
abdut~the transfer of the learning of principles of Speaking from
speaking performance»
I Finally, learning, or the task of achieving improved per-
formance, is a continuing process, aided and abetted by the student's
setting increasingly higher standards of behavior with each performance.
The instructor must assist the student in his efforts for consistent
_growth in learning, both by evaluating his behavior or performances
and, even more important, by teaching the student how to evaluate or
judge his own performances in the absence of the guidance of the
classroom Situation. The beginning public speaking student must set
increasingly higher standards of performance with each Speaking
assignment inside and outside of the classroom; and he must learn to
judge, by himself, to what extent each perfOrmance is commensurate
with the standard of achievement that he has set for each performance.
In short, the ultimate objective of the teacher in general and
of the beginning public public Speaking teacher in particular should
be to train his students to secure knowledge of the results of their
performances on their own and to use this knowledge as grist for the

self-analysis and self-evaluation of his learning progress. Once the

student learns this principle of self-analysis and self—evaluation

37

and sees the need of using this principle to aid him in his growth in
learning beyond the bounds of his formal education, then the conditions
of motivation, need for improved behavior, guidance, materials and

time for practice of materials, and the setting of ever higher stan-

dards of performance will be adquately taken care of.

CHAPTER III
SURVEY OF THE SPEECH IITERATURE

Chapter II of this study basically deals with the application
of conditions of learning to the beginning public speaking course, an
application made possible by the acceptance of the premise that the
Speech behavior (including both substance and delivery of oral commu-
nication) of any individual can be modified by appropriate learning
activities directed by an efficient teacher.

The learning activity with which this study, as a whole3is con-
cerned is the criticism of classroom Speeches in the beginning public
speaking course. Ogilvie maintains that one of the three purposes for
which the beginning public Speaking teacher uses evaluation is to
guide learning.1 The purpose of criticism in the beginning Speech
course acknowledges the importance of the student's being able to set
his own goals and to evaluate his own progress toward them as two
significant phases in the development of his speaking ability.

The primary usefulness of classroom criticism in the beginning
public speaking course is for guiding learners in 11114.? and 991 to
improve.2 Iagtjugtarvcriticism should be a piece of communication aiming

at encouraging the student to take the next important step in his

 

1Mardel Ogilvie, Teaching Speech in the High School (New York:
Appletoanentury Crofts, Inc., 1961), p. 81.

ZWillard Friederich and Ruth Wilcox, Teaching Spgech in High
Schools (New York: Macmillan Company, 1953), p. ##O.

38

39

improvement.3 This encouragement, in accordance with Tyler's second
and third conditions for effective learning, serves both to pinpoint
for the student the specific area of speech behavior that is unsatis-
factory and to guide and encourage his alteration of this area of
faulty speech behavior for the achievement of improved speaking per-

“ As Heffron and Duffey point out, no single factor in all

fbrmance.
speech training is more important to the integration of the personality
than rational criticism given at the right time and in the proper
spirit, for it is beneficial to all of the members of the class, who
soon'become able to apply the suggestions to themselves.5

In the light of the acknowledged importance of classroom speech
criticism in the guidance of the learning of the beginning public
speaking student, it is the purpose of this chapter to integrate
sundry materials from the speech literature relative to specific factors
of methodology and rationale for the evaluation of speeches in the
beginning public Speaking course in college.

Before one can logically pursue the various methodologies and
rationales for the evaluation of Speeches in the beginning public
speaking course, a careful study should be made of a number of con-

ditions fer the effective evaluation of student Speeches. For example,

 

3Paul D. Holtzman, "Speech Criticism and Evaluation as Commu-
nication,” The Speegg Teachez, IX (January, 1960), p. 1.

“See Supra, pp. 8-13.

5Pearl Heffron and William Duffey, Tea 5 e h (2 vols.;
Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, I , I, p. 102

to

among other conditions, attention will be drawn to the fact that
criticism should be adapted to and made meaningful to the student,
that the instructor Should not point out problems for which there are
no concrete suggestions for improvement, that he should not give the
student more suggestions than he can handle. Other conditions will be
studied that will utilize time to the best advantage and insure that
members of the class are learning as well as listening.

Materials from the literature will then.be compiled concerning
such items as: (l) the time factor of the critiques in terms of the
course (whether critiques are given after the third or fourth perfor-
mances of the students'speeches, or whether they are given throughout
the course); (2) the time factor of the critiques in terms of the
class period (during the Speech, immediately after the speech, at the
end of the period); (3) the forms of presentation of the critique
(oral critiques, written critiques, both oral and written critiques);
(h) the content of the critique (the balance of favorable comments
over against unfavorable comments); (5) the vehicle for the written
critique (a check list or a blank sheet of paper); and (6) the use of
student critques. Considerable space will be devoted to a discussion
of conditions for the effective use of student criticisms and the
various methods for the use of student criticisms.

A thorough discussion of the nature and purpose of the evalua-
tion of Speeches in the beginning public speaking classroom, aszrevealed
in ‘the literature, is not just introductory to, but is also a com-
posite part of, the conditions for the effective evaluation of student

Speeches. A section on "The Nature and Purpose of the Criticism of

41

Student Speeches" is, therefore, included as the first part of the

unit, ”Conditions for the Effective Criticism. of Student Speeches.”

Cogitiqns for the Effective Crigcism of Stgdent Spgeches

The Nature and Purpose of the Criticism of Student Speeches

The word mticism often carries with it the idea of rebuke, cor-
rection, or fault-firding. Reid notes that when the teacher announces
that he will criticize the speaking of students, their first reaction
may be that he is going to pick flaws in their performances.6 Criti-
cism, however, may be favorable as well as unfavorable; originally,
the word came from a Greek word meaning to discuss, judge, or discern.7

Reid submits that the original meaning should be restored to

the classroom.8 Heffron and Duffey also assert that criticism and

censure are not synonymous.9

Criticism, which is constructive -as well as destructive, is a
discerning judgment in which the favorable as well as the un-
favorable characteristics are sought and evaluated; together
both ldnds conform to a standard by which both speaker and
audience, as well as teacher and student, can judge one an-
other.

Reid affirms this explanation of criticism with the exhortation:

 

6Loren Reid, Teacl'_1_i_ng Sp_e_ech (3d ed.; Columbia, 140.: Art-
craft Press, 1960), p. 238.

71b1d.

8.22m.

9Heffrom and Duffey, I, p. 101.

1°Ib1d.

142

"Let the moments devoted to criticism be regarded as a period of dis-
cussion, judgment, discernment."11
It is to be thoroughly understood from these comments, then
(according to Friederich and Wilcox), that criticism in the classroom
should never be used as a device for punishment, that it should never
be wholly berating (Signifying only remarks that are unfavorable),
but that it should include favorable comments as well. 12
Criticism in the classroom should always be used as a teach-
ing device to be employed for the growth and deve10pment of the
student speakers.13 In fact, criticism is synonymous with teaching,
the main purpose of which is to provide the student with an evalua-
tion of his speaking in terms of his potential and his goals.“ As
a teaching device, classroom criticism is also concerned with suggest-
ing means by which the Speech performance may be improved, is interest-
ed in the feelings of the speaker, is concerned with the speaker's
needs relative to speech composition and delivery, as well as seeking

to motivate him toward growth and improvement.” The task of Speech

 

11Raid, P. 238.

12Friederich and Wilcox, p. ‘.88.

13Arthur L. Buell, "A Study of Basic Principles and Methods of
Oral Criticism in a Beginning Speech Classroom," (Un blished Master's
thesis, Dept. of Speech, Kent State University, 19.59 , p. 11.

mSee David Curry, 21.21” "Can Students Grade Students in a
Madamentals Course?" Wests S eech, XXVI (Fall, 1962), p. 238; and
Buell, p. ll.

1fisuell, p. 11

classroom criticism in suggesting means by which the Speech perfor-
mance may be improved and in seeking to motivate the Speech student
toward growth and development coincides with Tyler's emphasis upon
student motivation, stimulated by the presence of student and course
goals, and.with his emphasis upon the instructor's provision of guid-
ance in developing new behavior, which includes criticism of perfor-
mance.

In short, criticism in the beginning public Speaking course
has a diagnostic function because at this course level the instructor
is dealing with the basic factors of communication.16 The students
must be made aware of their assets and liabilities. Menroe avers
that throughout the beginning public speaking course any teacher worth
his salt constantly makes diagnostic judgments in the attempt to
identify weak aspects of his students' performances and to provide
Special help in overcoming those weaknesses.17 This combination of
diagnosis and evaluation is the most valuable part of the speech
teacher's job.18

Focusing still more closely upon the task of the Speech in-
structor relative to criticism, Holtzman asserts that the critic of
a speech has one primary question to answer: "What can I say (or

write or do) that will result in this student's improving his

 

16Ogilvie, p. 81.

12A1an H. Monroe, "Testing Speech Performance," National Asso-
ciation of Secondagz School Pginciples, XXIX (November, 19#5), p. 160.

18Ih1d.

as

communicative ability?"19 Holtzman goes on to point out that this is
a very different question from "What did he do poorly?" "What did he
do well?"20 If the teacher is not guided by primary considerations
of the expected response of the student, then he really cannot eXpect
his student to be guided primarily by considerations of the eXpected
response of his audience. Holtzman is quick to assert, however, that
the consideration of audience response does not mean that answers to
the questions of "goodness" and "poorness" are forbidden; but it is

a matter of selection of materials and their organization and deliv-
ery.21 Actually, the critic may look for the things that his student
did well (among these things being the matter of audience adaptation)
and comment on them for a purpose: to have him feel some satisfaction
‘with himself and with it a mixture of eagerness and confidence.22

As Tyler and others have asserted, learning is most satisfying to the
student who can see the results of his learning, who has knowledge of
his status and of his progress toward his goals.23 Furthermore,
these comments, if public, not only give the speaker the satisfaction

of knowledge of his speaking behavior but also serve the additional

 

19Paul Holtzman, "Speech Criticism and Evaluation as Criti-
ism,” Speech leacheg, IX (January, 1960), p. l.

zoned.

21Ibid., p. 2.
ZZIbgg.

23309 alga, p. 22.

45

purpose of teaching others byexamplefil1t

The nature of evaluation has been.depicted as embodying both
favorable and unfavorable comments, with the focus of attention center-
ing upon theixmal impression of the speaker's communicative acts rather
than.upon the speaker's specific deficiencies. The purpose of criticism
has been described as a teaching device to supply the student with
those comments that will help him improve his speaking ability in terms
of his potential and his goals.

The question now arises as to what the instructor should do in
order to carry out his task of the criticism of student speeches to help
effect the growth and development of student speakers. Before the in-
structor can plan procedures or techniques for the criticism of speech-
es in the beginning course, he must first prepare his students objec-
tively to receive and to give criticisms of Speeches. That is, he must
establish rapport between himself and his students, must establish a
positive atmosphere in which the students are pleased to accept criti-

cisms of their speaking perfbrmances.

The Establishment of Classroom Rapport
Between Instructor and Student
When the beginning public speaking student knows that his in-
structor accepts him as he is, that his worth is recognized, that the

instructor is sincerely interested in him, in his ideas, and in his

 

2M’Hfiltzman, S eoh Teache , IX, p. 2.

46

progress, then the student is glad to accept his instructor's coun-
sel.25 Furthermore, such an attitude on the instructor's part sets an
example fer the attitudes for the members of the class.

College students, as well as high school students, are quick
to concede the necessity for counsel, for criticism, if the matter is
discussed with them.26 They are quick to accept the need for balance
in criticism (favorable versus unfavorable) and for objectivity in
reacting to adverse criticism.27 As a rule, students will cooperate
in building the sort of pattern of criticism.that most teachers would
desire, provided the cooperation of'the student is sought. weaver,
Borchers, and Smith assert that this student cooperation can and should
be obtained in building positive attitudes toward criticism and Skills
in criticism.28 Such attitudes and skills are tools of first impor-
tance to the speech class; they are also, per so, important social
skills. One of the first tasks of every Speech teacher, therefore,
is to organize, with class cooperation,discussion of criticism which
will lead to settings g-oup pattern of permissiveness and objectivity
with respect to an atmOSphere in which criticism is sought as a key

to self---help.‘29 There is no reason for indirection in such discussion

 

250gilvie, p. 1H3.

26Andrew Weaver, Gladys Borchers, and Dbnald Smith, The Teach-
igg of Spgech (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 19565,
p- 509-

47

(according to Weaver, Borcher, and Smith) since here is a situation
in which the interests of teacher and students coincide.

In the context of this positive social climate, criticisms in
the class can be penetrating and helpful; consequently, students will
more than likely set about to make constructive use of the criticism
given.30 This positive social classroom climate helps to give them
a sense of achievement as they improve, and they take pride in their
achievement. Furthermore, it should be added that the development of
desirable attitudes toward criticism and social skill in the giving
of criticism are objectives necessary not only to effective training
in beginning public speaking but also to training in social livingixl
its own right.” As Gibb points out, when feedback or criticism
fellows exposure in an evaluative, punitive, or defensive climate,
the result is resistance, defensiveness, and refusal to look at
the feedback or criticism that is present to the censec.32 learning
occurs best, therefore, in what Gibb terms"the supportive atmoSphere
norm? or in social situations where learners feel a climate of
sharing in a quest for more and more adequate answers to
problems that the learner sees as his problems.”- If the speech
instructor in the beginning course expects his students to

profit by classroom criticisms, then he must work with them in the

‘7'

300gilvie, p. 11m.
31Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 509.

32Jack R. Gibb, "A Climate for Learning," Adult Education, IX
(Autumn, 1958), p. 20.

33mm.

Q8

building of an atmosphere of permissiveness and objectivity in which
the students are anxious to look at the feedback as a key to self-
help.

Once the instructor and students have succeeded, via dis-
cussion, in the building of classroom rapport that invites positive,
objective class attitudes toward criticism, then the instructor, with
his students in the beginning public Speaking course, is prepared to
face the question: What are some specific factors for the effective
criticisms of student Speeches? Before the class is ready to proceed
with the course assignments and the criticisms thereof, it must first
set up goals to be attained in the course as one of the bases for the

giving of criticisms.

Specific Factors Providing for the Effective

Criticism of Student Speeches

The Basing of Criticism upon the Student's attaipment of Goals
Set Up by the Class

One of the basic principles for giving criticisms to students
emphasized by Friederich and Wilcox is that criticism should be based
on the student's attainment of goals previously set up by the class.3u
This principle means that, especially at the start, incidental and
trivial‘ flaws, which correct themselves automatically in time, should

be ignored in favor of, for example, analysis of how well the students

 

34Friederich and Wilcox, p. 441.

49

are communicating with energy and sincerity.35 As Reid notes, be-
ginning performers will reveal various kinds of mannerisms simply
from nervousness. AS soon as students gain experience, they will
relax, nervousness will largely disappear, and superficial movements
will vanish.36

In a very real sense, the staxdards according to which a
particular speaking performance is to be judged are established by
the goal sought by the speaker.37 That is, the standards of criti-
cism are largely set by the purposes of the students who Speak.
Students who share in the setting of the goals of their speaking
activities and who feel personal involvement in a struggle to attain
those goals have already fixed the basis of the criticisms which they
wish to receive subsequent to their performance.38

The instructor of the beginning course can.aid each student
in Setting up goals in the beginning public speaking course, the
attainment of which is to be a basis for criticism, by examining
each student at the outset of the course from the point of view of
discovering his potential strengths. If he finds the direction

along which the student has already made the greatest progress as a

speaker, he may also find the path along which future development

 

351bid.
36R81d, p. 2’4’50
37'W'eaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. #94.

”mm.

50

will proceed most efficiently and thereby reveal to the student a goal
or goals to be attained in the beginning course.39

In brief, the problems of the speech teacher in general and of
the teacher of the beginning public Speaking course in particular in
the field of criticism are greatly reduced if each assignment or per-
formance has both a legitimate communicative purpose and a specific
personal improvement goal for the speakerfl'O

Student rapport opens the door for the introduction of criti-
cism into the beginning public Speaking classroom. First, it makes
way for the students' setting up goals to be attained in the course.
Criticism is, then, based upon whether or not the students are attain-'
ing goals. Secondly, student rapport opens up the way for the in-
structor to carry out his task oflinking classroom criticisms with
specific asSignments made in terms of rhetorical principles that have

been studied befbrehand in class.

The figsigg of Criticism.upgn glass Discussions of Rhetorical

gginciplcsM

Prerequisite to the effective evaluation of student Speeches by

 

both instructor and peers is the necessity of the instructor's making

each assignment clearly in terms of specific details as well as in

 

39Ibid., p. 50#.
“OIbid. , p. #94.

ulFor the materials under this heading, the writer is indebted
to K. E. Montgomery, ”How to Criticize Student Speeches," Speech
Teacher, VI (September, 1957), pp. 200-204.

51

terms of the relevant rhetorical principles.42 One might suppose, for
purposes of illustrating this point, that early in the beginning public
speaking course the instructor alerts his students to the fact that
the whole class is to judge the next "round” of speeches on the basis
of a specific purpose statement and relevant main points developed by
examples. Before (or as) he makes the assignment, according to Mont-
gomery, the instructor should conduct a class discussion of topics re-
lated to the forthcoming speech, such as what a thesis statement is,
its proper phrasing, what main points are, how they relate to the
specific purpose statement, what examples are, and how the speaker
should use them.43 The time used in diScussing these topis is basic
to a sufficient understanding of the speech which each student is to pre-
pare and of the points of criticism the instructor will use. ‘With
the foundation properly laid it is an easy step to go from rhetorical
theory to rhetorical practice.

The following simplyaworded questions can, therefore, serve
for the evaluation of the speeches which the students make in fulfill-
ment of the assignment on the thesis statement and relevant main points
developed by examples: (1) Why was the thesis sentence worded correct-
ly? (2) In what manner‘were the main points satisfactory? (3) In
what ways did the examples develop each main point? These three points
- may then be construed as the basic criteria fer determining the suc-

cess of each speech in the "round,” the same criteria being applied

 

uZIbid., p. 202.

43mm.

52

to the Speech by each member of the class. The instructor Should write
these three points of criticism on the blackboard and refer to them
point by point as the comments follow each Speech. This practice re-
veals clearly to the students how their Speeches are being judged. The
wording of the three criteria provokes thought and discussion, and
avoids answers of'"yes" and "no." ”Mbreover, only these three criteria
are necessary to cover the assignment and to emphasize three fundamenp
tals of Speech-making.u4’ Differences of opinion would be likely in the
various answers given by the peers to each of the three questions, and
some of the more marked differences might serve as the basis of brief
discussions.

A second value of these criteria, according to Montgomery, is
that the instructor can easily expand them if he feels that students
should have more to work with, or if more time is available for criti-
cism. He might word the first question, for example, as what was the
thesis sentence? Then, he could add the following two sub-questions:
(a) What thesis requirement did it meet? (b) Where did the speaker
place it in the Speech? Sub-questions under the second question (In
what manner were the main points satisfactory?) might be worded as
follows: (a) How relevant were the main points? (b) Which was the
most Significant? (c) Which did the speaker develop most satisfactor-
ily? In fact, instructors in the beginning course who use a system
similar to this one will soon discover that in terms of any particular

assignment, several points of criticism come to mind. Frequently,

 

hhlbid., p. 202

additional criteria will arise during the period of criticism even
though they are not written on the blackboard. If the class is alert,
the problem will be one of keeping careful account of the criteria it
is using.“5
Later in the semester after the students have delivered several
speeches, an assignment may be made, for example, in which some emphasis
is placed on the use of a good introduction to the speech. Focus of
attention for this assignment is also placed on the use of visual aids
as a special type of supporting material-- pictures, models, slides,
maps, and the like. The following points of criticism, which provide
for previously used criteria, Should be appropriate: (1) How satis-
factory was the thesis sentence? (2) How purposeful were the main
points in the development of the thesis? (3) What types of support-
ing materials in addition to visual aids did the speaker use and how
valuable were these supporting materials? New criteria for the evalua-
tion of the special aspects peculiar to this assignment are as follows:
(1;) What Special functions did the introduction fulfill end how well
were they fulfilled? (5) How effective were the visual aids?“6
It may readily be observed that there are more points to
criticize in this assignment than there were in the earlier one, and
that these points are more difficult. This increase in number and
difficulty of points for criticism is intended and expected. As the

beginning public speaking course progresses, the assignments should

 

“511cm.

“6mm" p. 203.

54

become more difficult because they involve more rhetorical principles.
As a result, criticism of the speeches should also increase in com-
plexity. The maturation of the students, who have had several
experiences in Speech-making and have acquired some proficiency in
criticism, should, however, offset this factor.”7

Some suggestions should DOW'be offered for the effective use
of the criteria method for the evaluation of speeches or the use of
criticisms based upon class discussions of rhetorical principles.
Montgomery has three such suggestions to offer: (1) First, the pat-
terns of criticism should be flexible. If a student raises a point
of criticism that happens not to be one of the criteria discussed in
class, the instructor should be pleased and consider the incident as
a sign of progress. (2) Secondly, the rhetorical points which the
instructor selects as basic criteria should be neither too simple
nor beyond a beginner's comprehension. (3) Thirdly, the beginning
public speaking instructor must carefully regulate the amount of
class participation. He should allow adequate time for genuine dis-
cussion. 0n the other hand, he should not so overactivate his stu-
dents that prolonged criticism delays the progress of the class.“8

Finally, Montgomery discusses some values of the effective use
of criticisms based upon class discussion of rhetorical principles or
the criteria method for the evaluation of speeches in the beginning

public speaking classroom: (1) First, the criteria method provides

 

”7mm.
“mm.

purposive criticism. Each point tests the practical application of
some significant aspect of speech-making. (2) Second, this method

of speech classroom criticism is both cumulative and repetitive, thus
aiding the learning process. (3) Third, this criteria method is in—
structive criticism, comparable to the study ef speech models. A
student tries to demonstrate the critical factors in his own Speech
and judges others on the same basis. These two processes reinforce
each other so that a greater degree of student understanding results.
In this instance the criteria method of classroom criticisms serves
Tyler's third condition for effective learning in providing guidance
in developing new behaving; (it) This method of Speech classroom criti-
cism is satisfying to students because they not only know the prin-
ciples each oral assignment stresses, but they also know the bases

of their grades, (5) Most important of all, according to Montgomery,
this method is conducive to analytical listening, a skill which is
vital to an education.49 No other course in the curriculum requires
the student to do so much listening, while at the same time giving
him the reSponsibility of evaluating what he has heard. The activity
of listening may well cause the Speech student to recognize the need
to learn new behavior; it may, in a sense, grant him some acknowledge-
able: guidance for developing new behavior (guidance, not from the
instructor necessarily, but derived from his listening experience).

Listening in the criteria method of classroom criticism is one of the

 

“91bid., p. 20#.

56

most fruitful uses of time for effective learning, and it is pre-
requisite to a student's judging his performance. In short, listening
in the context of the criteria method of classroom evaluation observes
at least four of Tyler's nine conditions for effective learning.

Criticism based upon class discussion of rhetorical principles
provides for the wording of criteria which provokes thought and dis-
cussion. It gives the instructor opportunity to expand the criteria
when he feels that the students should have more to work with.
Finally, this method provides purposive criticism; it is cumulative
and repetitious so as to aid the learning process; it provides for
instructive criticism; it is satisfying to students in having acquainted
them ‘with ' the principles which each oral assignment stresses; and
it is conducive to analytical listening.

A third condition or factor essential to the effective criti-
cism of student Speeches is the application of objectivity in the

evaluation of Speeches in the beginning public speaking course.

Objectivity in the Evaluation of Speeches5O
Kelley appears to use the words objectivity and subjectivitz
in the context of classroom evaluation of Speeches in at least two

different senses in his article:

 

5°For the materials under this heading, the writer is indebted
to William.D. Kelley, “Objectivity in the Grading and Evaluation of
Speeches," lfie_$peech Teacher, XIV (January, 1965), pp. 54-58. While
some definitions and interpretations presented by Kelley may be
questioned, a somewhat detailed consideration of Kelley's article
may be helpful at this point.

57

His definition of the word objectivity, in the first place,

gives the word the connotation of impartiality or fairness:

Objectivity suggests that little or no emotion is involved in

the evaluation process. That is, the teacher's attitude,

personal belief, and prejudices [concerning the speaker's

topic or his beliefs about the topic] have no lace in the

process [of evaluation of classroom speeches.]g1
The first connotation of Kelley‘s use of the word subjectivity in the
evaluation process, which parallels the connotation of his use of the
word objectivity, simply suggests a connotation that is diametrically
opposed to the above-defined connotation of his use of the word
objectivity. That is, subjectivity would involve more emotion in the
evaluation process than would objectivity. Further, in this connota-
tion of Kelley‘s use of the word subjectivity, the teacher's
attitude, personal belief, and prejudices, either about the person
of the speaker or about his topic and/or beliefs concerning his topic,
would definitely figure into the evaluation process.

In the second place, Kelley uses the word objectivity in the
context of classroom criticism to suggest the use of criteria or
standards upon which the instructor may base his remarks. Again,
diametrically opposed to this connotation of his use of objectivity
in the evaluatien process is the connotation of his use ef the word
subjectivity to mean, perhaps, the speech instructor's yielding to
the temptation of haphazardly basing his remarks on his feeling or general
impression. Kelley's comments concerning the meaning of the state-

ment ”That was a good speech" illustrates the second connotation

 

511bid.. p. 54.

58

of his use of the words objectivity and subjectivity:

The statement, "That was a good Speech" could be either

objective or subjective. It would be objective if the

critic were to base his remarks upon specific, meaning-

ful criteria; it would be subjective if he were to base

his remarks gaphazardly on his feeling or general

impression.5

The third connotation which Kelley's article appears to give

to the word objgctivity in the context of the evaluation proceSs is
that of a factual observation or report of what the speaker actually
did or did not do in his Speech, an observation or report that all
critics of the speech, in common, would make concerning the speech.
Kelley suggests this connotation of objectivity as follows:

The statement "You did not summarize your points at the end

of the speech" is probably an objective observance, eSpe-

cially if the critic were to follow an outline of the speegh

and listen carefully to everything that the Speaker said.5

The third oomtation of Kelley's use of the word subjectivity,

which parallels the connotation of his use of the word objectivity,
Isuggests the critics' application of value judgments to what they
observe about a speech. Whereas, according to the immediately above
quotation, the actual, factual observations about the speech ("You
did not summarize yourpoints at the end of the speech” in the sense
that the speaker did netin any way review any of the points of his
speech at the end of his speech.) may be an objective evaluation of
this one aspect of the Speech, the discussion of the reasons why the

speaker should summarize the points in his speech (perhaps, from the

 

52.1.5142." P- 55-
fimm.

59

point of view of his audience) and/or how the speaker might effectively
summarize the points of his speech is a subjective evaluation. Kelley
illustrates what appears to be the third connotation of his use of
the word subjectivity in his discussion of the statement, "I enjoyed
this speech."
The statement "I enjoyed this speech” is not, by itself an
objective criterion for a good speech; it is a subjective
judgment. The real question is ”How'did the audience enjoy
the speech?" or, if you prefer, "What would other critics
say about the enjoyment value of the speech?" A critic
canuusually'determine “Audience enjoyment“ by checking on vocal
and physical responses during the Speech. And here is where
subjectivity enters the picture, but it is the kind of
subjectivity that fosters more favorablejperceptual agree-
ment between the critic and the speaker.
In summary, Kelley uses the word objectivity in the context of
classroom evaluations of speeches to mean the instructor's fairness
or impartiality in the use of criteria or standards upon which he
may base his remarks about what the Speaker actually did or did not
do in his Speech. Two of the three connotations of Kelley‘s use of
gybjectivity are unfavorable, and the third is favorable. Combining
the first two uses of the word in the article into a single definition,
one might say that subjectivity in the context of classroom evaluation
is the critic's haphazard basing of his remarks upon his feelings,
attitudes, prejudices,.personal beliefs, and his general impressions.
This definition appears to reflect Kelley‘s use of the word subjectivity

in his article. He does not appear to use the word in his article in

 

5“Ib1d.

60

the favorable sense to mean the critic's application of value judgments
to what he observes about a Speech.

Hence, from this point on in this paper, ob'ectivit , in the
context of classroom evaluation (with reference to Kelley's article)
will be defined as the instructor's fairness or impartiality in using
criteria or standards for basing his remarks concerning what the
speaker actually did or did not do in his speech. §gbjectivity (with
reference to Kelley's article), on the other hand, will.be defined as
the critic's haphazard basing of his remarks upon his feelings,
attitudes, prejudices, personal beliefs, and general impressions.

Kelley asserts, then, that objectivity, according to the above
definition.is necessary to the effective evaluation of Speeches in the
beginning public Speaking classroom for three reasons:55 (1) First,
objectivity lessens fear in the Speech class, particularly among
novice Speakers, whereas subjective criticism by the beginning public
speaking instructor often changes the naturally fearful novice into a
highly nervous individual. This fear or stage fright is intensified
by uncertainties, by unknown quantities, and by'a lack of understanding
of the finer points of Speech Skill. Objectivity can aid in the
elimination or, at least in the diminishing of that fear. It should
help the beginning public speaking student to commence to recognize
speech as an enjoyable art for communicating ideas to or for sharing

ideas with others. (2) Secondly, objectivity increases the student's

 

55%" Po 55-

61

respect for the instructor of speech and for the art of speech in
general and of the beginning public Speaking course in particular.
Kelley observes that the instructor in the beginning course who is
more subjective than objective in the formulation of his criticism
usually finds that his students are discontented or even rebellious.56
(3) Thirdly, objectivity provides greater substance to the knowledge
and understanding by the beginning public speaking students. A sub-
ject that is largely grounded in subjective interpretations has little
depth or scope. Obviously, the many facts to be learned in Speech must
be made a part of the course outline, the lecture, the demonstrations,
and the like- hence, the need for the assertion of Montgomery's
Specific condition for the effective criticism of student Speeches that
criticisms Should be based upon class discussions of rhetorical prin-
ciples.57 Kelley maintains that these facts and principles themselves
help to make a speech course in general and a beginning public
Speaking course in particular one with strong academic standing and
with high reSpect by those in other disciplines.58

Now that the necessity for objectivity [as defined by Kelley]
in the evaluation.of classroom speeches has in a measure been establish-
ed, the question arises as to hOW’thlS objectivity may be secured.

Fundamental to the achievement of objectivity in the evaluation of

 

56Ibid., p. 5“)
57Montgomery, §peech Teacher, VI, p. 201.
58Kelley, S ech Tea her, XIV, p. 55.

62

speakers, according to Kelley, is the recognition of the following
four principles of Speech materials and speech instruction, which have
been obtained through an analysis of speech needs:59 (1) First is the
principle of standard. Speech knowledge includes a set of principles,
facts, and techniques which are required of all speakers. For example,
each speech should have a thesis or purpose sentence to provide for
clarity of communication. (2) The second principle is the principle
of selection. Speech knowledge includes a set of pinciples and
techniques which are arbitrary in nature but, nevertheless, necessary
even if the choice is left to the speaker.60 For example, speech
materials include many types of supporting examples, such as anecdotes,
statistics, quotations, and the like. The choice is left to the
speaker so long as his selection does the proper job of clarifying

or accentuating the main points of his speech, which,in turn, serve
adequately to develop his thesis or purpose sentence. The value of
this principle of selection for the speaker is affirmed, indirectly

at least, in Hance's consideration of the second of what he notes to
be thetmo-fold contribution of rhetoric (that rhetoric makes knowledge
functional and meaningful in one's attempt to communicate with his

fellow men).61 Hance points out that the second provision of rhetoric

A

”ll-as... . pp. 55-56«-
60Ibid., p. 56.

61Kenneth Hance, "Some Values of a Study of Rhetoric and Public
Addresss in a Liberal or General Education," Southern Speech Journal,
XXIII (Summer, 1958), p. 183.

63

in the context of this second contribution of rhetoric is the provision
of resources concerning analysis and synthesis (also selection and
rejection) of materials for communication in the light of audience
analysis and in the light of the material itself.62 (3) The third
principle of Speech materials and speech instruction, according to
Kelley, is the principle of avoidance. Speech knowledge includes a
set of "don'ts'" which tell the speaker what he should not do. Speak-
ers, for example, should avoid faulty logic, such as false analogies,
hasty generalizations, and the like. (H) Fourth is the principle of
incremental learning. Speech knowledge is involved and complex.
Students master the material most effectively when they study one unit
at a time, by increments. 'With each new unit, according to Kelley,

the instructor of the beginning public speaking course should allow
the student to practice his new knowledge in Speech activity.63 Each
unit should have a set of concrete criteria for the students to follow,
in addition to the earlier sets of criteria for previous units studied.
By the end of the semester each student should be expected to comply
with all the criteria which can be utilized in the judging of the
speaker's speech, Speaking, and Speech-making. A somewhat arbitrary
example of the application of the principle of incremental learning

is that the student learns first hOW'tO select content, then how to
organize his content, and finally how to deliver the material for the

best effect.6u

 

62 -
Kelley, Spgech Teacher, XIV, p. 56.

63L)” o 9 P0 56-
64mm-

64

The principle of incremental learning substantiates more than
one of Tyler's conditions for effective learning. This principle
calls fer the availability of ample time for the practice of meaningful
materials arranged in a pattern of increasing difficulty under the
guidance of a qualified instructor, who helps to provide the student
with the satisfaction of knowledge of the results of each performance,
the performances or assignments also being arranged in a sequence of
increasing difficulty to provide for the student's growth and develop-
ment in the communicative act. The student must put to use the knows
ledge of the results of his speaking perfOrmance concerning each
assignment of increasing difficulty for the modification of his behavior
by varying his method or approach in his practice of each subsequent
task or performance. The application of incremental learning beyond
the classroom necessitates the student's setting increasingly higher
standards of behavior with each speaking assignment and of learning
how to evaluate or judge his own performance inasmuch as the
task of achieving improved performance is an ever-continuing process.

In summary, objectivity is essential to the effective evalua-
tion of Speeches in the beginning public speaking classroom for at
least three reasons: Objectivity lessens fear in the speech class-
room; it increases the student's respect for Speech as an academic
discipline; it provides greater substance to the knowledge and under—
standing of the beginning public Speaking student and makes this knows
ledge and understanding meaningful and useful to him. In setting up

his criteria for judging effective Speaking, the instructor of the

65

beginning course must remember the principles of standard, selection,
avoidance, and incremental learning. He must insist that his students
perform certain communicative tasks (standard); he must allow for
individual style and personality of each student as he selects
materials for an adequate development of his speech (selection); the
instructor must criticize for bad choice and effect (avoidance); he
must divide his speech instruction and materials into small units,
starting with the simplest principles and techniques and building
progressively toward the most complex.

A final specific factor for providing for the effective criti-
cism of student Speeches, which may be found in the Speech literature,
is the use of language for criticism (especially oral criticism) that

is clear and eXplicit.

Clear, Explicit Langgage for the Critigism of Student Speeches
Balcer and Seabury assert that oral evaluation must be pre—

 

sented in a clear and effective manner if the teacher is to serve as

a model of communication.65 This assertion means that the instructor's
oral evaluations should be well organized, well supported, and well
delivered if he is to expect comparable quality of content and delivery
of speaking from his students. It also means that the teacher of
Speech should be concrete and specific in presenting his compliments

6
and suggestions.6 The Speech teacher of the beginning course, then,

 

‘ 6ECharles Balcer and Hugh Seabury, ___g__p______L_Teachin 3 each in Toda '5
Secozdagy Schools (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1995),
p. 2 7.

66mm.

(n
(T \

should avoid sweeping or vague statements which are of no help to a
student because he cannot put his finger upon anything Specific to
avoid or to improve.67 According to Heffron and Duffey, he should,
rather, always tell a student in clear, complete sentences exactly
what is wrong with him.68 Specific statements, rather than indefinite,
vague suggestions Should be made since general negative comments will
not be applied by the students to themselves.69

Be Specific in your criticisms. Do not deal with abstrac-

tions. Name the Specific fault (unless by so doing you

will psychologically do more harm than good) and refer

the student to exercises that will help him overcome his

fault or $8 printed matter that will help him.under-

sum it.

Little good, for example,will be done by telling a student,

"You are not really very convincing; you'll have to work at that.71
The instructor of'the beginning course would do better by starting
this student in the direction of becoming a convincing Speaker by
saying something like this: "Yen will convince us more completely
if you will take a bit more time and Speak more deliberately; and
when.you hit a main point, look at us firmly in the eye and pause

to let the idea sink in." A comment, such as "You were much better

today, John, keep it up" leaves John with nothing Specific to work

 

67Friederich and Wilcox, p. #42.
68Heffron and Duffey, P. 103.
69mm.
705. Judson Crandell, "The Teaching of Public Speaking in High
ighool," The Qgggterly Joggnal of Spgech, XXVIII (December, 19h2), p.
2.

71Friederich and Wilcox, p. l#42.

67

on for his next Speech.72 The comment may leave him quite happy, of
course; but he could be just as happy and assuredly more certain of
what to work on for his next speech if his instructor were either to
write or to say,

You'were much better today in showing your interest in.your

subject and, consequently,in getting us interested too;

next time why not tell us about one of your hobbies and

bring some samples with you so th . vou can get right down

front and Show them to the class?

The instructor should use the exact words of the Speaker,
when possible,because by this means he shows what was said and what
might have been said.7h Furthermore, his quotation will enable the
other members of the class to follow his comments.

In short, the instructor must realize that his evaluations
must serve as a model of communication.- in organization, with ample
supporting materials, and in delivery-- for his students to follow.

In summary, one of the conditions for the effective criticism
of speeches in the beginning public Speaking course is the understand-
ing of the nature and purpose of criticism. Criticism has a diagnos—
tic function, which embodies both favorable and unfavorable comments,
with the focus of attention centering upon the total impression of
the Speaker's communicative acts rather than upon the Speaker's

Specific deficiencies. The purpose of criticism is to serve as a

teaching device to supply the student with those comments that will

 

72mm.
73Friederich and Wilcox, pp. ##2-43.
7“see both Balcer and Seabury (p. 247), and Reid, p. 2&5.

68

help him improve his Speaking ability in terms of his potential and
his goals.

In the second place, before the instructor can begin his
appraisal of his students' speeches in the beginning course, he
must first establish rapport between himself and his students. The
beginning public Speaking student will not readily accept a criti-
cism from his instructor if the class atmosphere is pundtive or
defensive. That is, instead of accepting a comment (for example)
about his gestures as an actual factor present in his delivery, the
student will take the comment personally and will assume that the in-
structor is "picking at himP ordpoking fun at him? because he does not
like the student. On the other hand, the instructor's establishment
of rapport with his students will build, what Gibb calls, a supportive
atmosphere, in which the students are anxious to look at the feedback
or the criticism as a key to self-help.

Several specific factors for the effective criticsm of student
speeches are mentioned in the speech literature: First, according to
Friederich and Wilcox, criticisms should be based on the studentfs
attainment of goals previously set up by the class. Students who
cooperate in the setting of the goals of their Speaking activities
and who feel personal involvement in a struggle to attain those goals
have already fixed the basis of the evaluations which they wish to
receive subsequent to each performance. .

Secondly, according to Montgomery, criticism should be based

upon class discussion of rhetorical principles. This principle of

 

69

criticism provides purposive criticism; it aids the learning process
because it is cumulative and repetitious; it provides for instructive
criticism; it provides satisfaction to the students by acquainting them
with the oral principles that each oral assignment stresses.

Thirdly, Kelley asserts that ”objectivity” must be applied in
the evaluation of Speeches because: it lessens fear in the speech class,
increases the student's respect for the instructor of speech and for
the beginning public speaking course, provides greater substance to the
knowledge and understanding by tho beginning public speaking students
and, at the same time, enhances the otudcnt'c respect for speech as
an academic subject.

Finally, a fourth factor ooocntial to the effective criticism
of student Speeches is the speech teacher's clear, cxplicit language
for tho criticism of student opeochoo. In tho giving of ovaluation
to his students, tho instructor must serve as a modol of communication
for his students to follow.

Aftor tho instructor in tho beginning courcc has givcn careful
attention to tho nature and purpose of criticism, to the establishment
of rapport between himself and his students, to tho recognition of some
lpocific factors for tho offcctivo criticism of student cpoochcc, he
ngy, then, apply tho-c lcarnod principloo in his study of methods and
rationale for tho ovuluction of Ipocehco in tho boginning public Speak-
ing course. In this occond ooction of chaptor III, cttontion will be
givon to tho $igg,£§g§gg,of tho critique (both in tormo of the couroo

and in terms of tho claoo poriod), to tho firm of tho proocntation of

70

the critique (oral, written, or both), to the content of the critique
(with special emphasis placed upon the weight of favorable over against
unfavorable comments), to the vehicle for the written critique, and

to the use of student critiques.

Methodology_and Rationale for the Evaluation of Speeches of the

 

Beginning Public Speaking Course in College

 

Instructor Critiques

Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Course

"Knowing when to criticize is as important as knowing what to
criticize."75 In terms of the "when" to criticize in relation to the
course, none of the writers in the speech literature questions the need
for classroom evaluations later in the course; however, there are those
who for various reasons refrain from criticizing the students early in
the course, or who employ different techniques in the criticism of the
speeches early in the course than those used later in the course.

As was pointed out in the section "The Establishment of Class-
room Rapport between Instructor and Student," if the speech instructor
of the beginning course expects his students to profit by classroom
criticisms, he must work with his students in the building of an
atmosphere of permissiveness and objectivity, in which the students
are anxious to look at the feedback or evaluation as a key to self-

76
help. AprOpos of this statement, Buell and also weaver, Borchers,

 

7SWeaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 510.

76See supra, p. hS.

and

thou

est:

wil

0t}

in

31

SP

71

and Smith assert that individual criticism of student performances
should not begin until the instructor in the beginning course has
established with his class a feeling of mutual understanding which
will be conducive to the most candid appraisal of speech performances.
Otherwise, according to Buell, students will believe that they are be-
ing criticized before they have had an opportunity to improve-- a feel-
ing, which if allowed to exist, will cause the students to be apprehen-
sive which, in turnywill cause the loss of rapport.77 Furthermore,
Buell maintains that if the instructor begins adversely criticizing per-
formances too soon after the start of the course, the students will
feel that he is being unfair in his appraisal of speech performances
because they have not yet had time to learn the ”correct? manner in
which to speak.78

Again, according to Buell, if this feeling is permitted to gain
footing, especially at the beginning of the sessions, the establish-
ment of rapport will be difficult, if not impossible. In short, Buell
believes that the teacher should wait in his criticism of his begin-
ning public speaking students until he feels that he understands the
students well enough to present criticism.in the light of their
:potential goals.79 'Hbaver, Berchers, and Smith aver that the first
‘task of every speech teacher is to build with his students that atmos-
Phere of rapport which will permit the fraskest sort ef discussion of

k

'77Buell, p. 82.
781mm, p. 75.

791bag.

72

speech performance and needs.80 Until this spirit is in existence,
much criticism, particularly of an adverse nature, ought to be avoided.
In short, according to Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, the early weeks of
the beginning public speaking course should be a time of rapport
building on the part of the teacher. Further, it should be a time of
diagnosis or information-getting?1 These instructorbtasks of rapport
building and of infomation-getting, concerning the student needs and
potential, should assist the instructor in carrying out the responsi-
bility (referred to by weaver, Borchers, and Smith) of judging con-

stantly the readiness of a particular student for particular criti-

cisms.82

Crandell; Weaver, Borchers, and Smith; and Friederich and
Wilcox all agree that in the early.part of the course the teacher
should try to discover the potential strengths of each student as a
speaker, rather than to try to ferret out his weaknesses. Crandell
asserts that no adverse criticism should be given for the first

speech or two.83

He goes on to suggest that for the first few Speech-
es, especially, the instructor of the beginning course should find
something on which to compliment the student, then build up his con-
fidence and poise by creating for him.a background of successful speak-

ing experiences. According~to Friederich and Wilcox, the teacher

 

80Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 507.
81

Mb 09 P0 508°
82mm, p. 510.

83Crandell, The anrtg. 111 Journal of Speech, mm, p. 1:32.

73

should instill confidence and enthusiastic motivation through pointing
out to the student methods of using and improving what are already
his recognizable assets.

At the same time, however, both weaver, Borchers, and Smith
and Friederich and Wilcox agree that there are instances when judgment
dictates that a Speaker should attempt to eliminate some conspicuous
weaknesses at the outset of the speech course. Friederich and Wilcox
note that if the classes as a whole are especially weak in most of the
fundamentals of speech, negative criticism may be virtually necessary
as an actual starting point.85 ‘Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, in turn,
indicate that getting rid of the handicap may prove to be the quick-
est road to speech improvement.86 Again, Hayworth, in his discussion
of the direct teaching of delivery5points out that many speech teachers
favor attacking directly such techniques of delivery as eye contact,
gesturing, posture, and vocal variety.87 These teachers maintain that
the student should use good speaking habits as quickly as possible.
Since, they say, he should not have too much of the wrong kind of
practice, he should be told early what techniques constitute good

Speaking habits. 'With respect to the giving of adverse criticism early

 

BuFriederich and Wilcox, pp. M041.

851bid., p. hhl
86Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 50%.
87bonald Hayworth, "A Search for Facts on the Teaching of

Public Speaking,” The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVI (February,
1%). Po 361s

71+

in the course, however, Friederich and Wilcox assert that such criti-
cism should be directed to the class as a whole to avoid embarassing
any student in particular and to save much time.88

Crandell notes that the instructor should keep his criticisms
in line with the students' grasp of Speech theory, that he should
remember that early in the course they will have no Speech termi-
nology.89 For this reason, in part, Catt and Brandenburg, in their
prescription of “Speech Raining for Air Force Teachers,” point out
that neither the teacher nor the students make any comment about the
quality of the student's speaking during the first two weeks of the
course, in which the students give four five-minute speeches. In the
third week, in which the students give the one-point speech, using
illustrations to make the point clear, the instructor ani class
members evaluate the talks primarily in terms of whether or not the
idea was clearly developed.9o Raubicheck suggests that for the first
he or three rounds the teacher should instruct the class concerning
the nature and use of speech theory to enable the students to judge

the success of the Speech on one or, at the most, two phases of

communication. 91 For example, the judgment, or general critique,

k

88
Friederich and Wilcox, p. 1441.

890randell, The Qggterly Jam of speech, mm, p. 482.

90Harold Catt and Earnest Brandenburg, ”Speech Training for Air
Force Teachers,” The Speech Teacher, I (March, 1952), p. 113.

91Letitia Raubichcck, Teachi* Speech in Secongan Schools
(New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1935 , p. 120.

75

might be composed of answers to such questions as: " (1) What was the
speaker striving to accomplish? (2) Did he accomplish this aim (with
his audience)? (3) What logical, ethical, or emotional appeals helped
to accomplish the Speaker's end? (4) The use or misuse of what speech
factors hindered the speaker's efforts in accomplishing his end?"92
Early in the beginning public speaking course, the instructor
should use predominantly favorable comments to build up the speaker's
«confidence by giving him.a background of successful speaking experi-
ences. At. the same time, however, adverse criticism may be virhlally
necessary at the beginning of the course to help the student get rid
«of a conspicuous handicap that is blocking his road to speech improve-
Inent. For purposes of leading the student along the road to speech
:improvement, the question now arises for the instructor in the begin-
ning course as to the best time, in relation to the class period, for
making known his critique to the student-- just before the speaker
begins to speak, during the speech, immediately after the Speech, at
‘the end of the period, or after the class in conference. A discussion
.from the literature follows concerning the instructor's use of these
‘time variables in relation to the class period for the criticism of

students .

 

921m her experimental study, "An Investigation into the Effec-
tiveness : of Criticism of Speech Delivery When Given Before, During,and
After Speech Performance," (pp.l+2-43) Hinde appears to offer the only
source in the speech literature for the instructor's use of criticism
immediately before the delivery of the speech. Two of the various stu-
dent reactions to receiving criticism before presentation of the speech
which pertain specifically to this time method are as follows: (1)
Criticism given at this time is confusing and distracting because it
is difficult to remember during speech delivery. 0n the other hand,
(2) Criticism should be received sooner to aid in the preparation of
the next speech.

76
Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Class Period

Critiques Given (Made Known) During the Speech

Some teachers have succeeded in making effective evaluation of
factors of delivery by a student during his performance.93 Under this
method, according to Robinson and Kerikas, the instructor interrupts
the speaker by criticizing him during the performance. When an error
is made, or at an appropriate point in the speech, the teacher stops
him, points out his weakness, suggests ways of improving it, and asks
him to try to correct it on the spot.9h Seated in the back of the room,
the instructor may use flash cards or signals to the speaker to in-
crease his loudness or softness, to look at his audience, to stand or
to move, to decrease or increase his rate of speaking, and the like.95

Densmore suggests two plans for criticizing a speaker while he
is speaking. 96 One plan is called the "workout program,” in which the
s'tudent knows that the instructor will interrupt him at various inter-
vals during his Speech for on-the-spot improvement before the audience.
Although, according to Densmore, after-class criticisms havetheir
Value, the best time to criticize a student, if he is ineffective, is

when he is speaking from the platform to an audience. If, for example,

‘

93Balcer and Seabury, p. 247.

gnarl Robinson and E. J. Kerikas, Teachin S ech Methods and
Materials (New York: David McKay Company, W

95Ba1oor and Seabury, p. an.

968” G. E. Densmore, "The Teaching of Speech Delivery,“ 1h_e

Mtg]; Jflrnal ofSEech, XXIII (February, 19%), pp. 69-71.

he is criticized because of a lack of volume and is forced to correct
the difficulty on the spot, he will be able to sense the amount of
volume required. Furthermore, "in many cases, voice variety and its
synchronization with bodily action are impossible to attain unless the
speaker is interrupted and worked with until the objective is ob-
tained."97 I

Densmore's second plan for criticizing a speaker while he is
Speaking is a modified "work-out program" or procedure, which consists
of a prearranged set of signs and signals for the instructor to use to
communicate his suggestions to the Speaker without interrupting him.98
The advantage of this plan, according to Densmore, is the opportunity
given to the instructor to guide, encourage, and inspire the student
while he is Speaking and without interrupting him. Balcer and Seabury's
reaction to this modified work-out program or procedure, as just de-
scribed, is that after a student is well enough adjusted in the class
to respond easily and effectively to signals, the method affords the
student immediate opportunity to apply the evaluation of his Speaking.99

In her experimental study for the master's degree, Hinds notes,
as follows,the method used for criticizing the students' delivery'ggrigg
the speech: For the class in which criticism was given during the
speech delivery (At no other time and in no other way was criticism
offered in that class) a set of flash cards was prepared. The cards

were of heavy poster board, measuring nine by thirteen inches in size.

 

97mm. , p. 70
981mm.
99.8alcer and Seabury, p. 2H7.

78

The comments were box-lettered in India ink with letters two by three
inches in Size. In the absence of oral criticisms and in the absence

of rating sheets for each of the students for his further study of the
criticism, items on the flash cards had to be a bit more detailed than
those on the rating blank. Only one item was used on each flash card.

These items were:

PEP IT UP, MORE EYE CONTACT, BAD POSTURE, GESTURES WOULD HELP,

PRONOUNCE MORE CAREFULLY, DISTRACTING ACTION, FIUENCY ("UH,"

"AND-A") , sww DOWN, YOU ARE MONO'IONOUS, WATCH YOUR GRAMMAR,

IOUDER, MORE ANIMATION, WORD CHOICE LOT GOOD, TOO 1001), YOU

ARE VERBOSE, SPEAK DISTINCTLY, ESTABLISH EYE mNTACT, YOU ARE

SWAYING, DO MDT SHIFT WEIGHT, ARTICUIATE MORE CLEARLY, (”GIT,"

"JIST"), HOLD HANDS STILL, TIME IS JERKY, VARY PITCH, DON'T

PLAY WITH NOTES, PICK UP SPEED, DOhOT LEAN ON ROSTRUH, UNFOID

ARMS, OPEN YOUR PDUTH, USE YOU LIPS, DO NOT SLUR WORDS, PITCH

TOO HIGH, USE FACIAL EXPRESSION, HANDS OUT OF POCKET, VARY

GESTURES, YOU ARE OVERARTICULATING.
In order to locate quickly any card needed during delivery, on each
card was place a tab, which bore that appropriate typewritten iden-
tification. The flash cards used during delivery were held in such a
way that the speaker could readily see them, but other members of the
class were unaware of them. To avoid distraction and confusion, only
three different cards were used during one Speech, although one card
was often repeated several times if necessary. After the first speech
or two, the instructor could anticipate the cards which would probably
be needed, and could select accordingly. Hinde observes that begin-
ning public speaking students tend to repeat the same mistakes; those
most obvious were concentrated on first. The critic did not display a
card immediately when an error in delivery was made, for there was al-

ways the possiblity that the student might realize and correct his

79

100
own error.

The students who participated in the Hinds study offered the
following comments concerning the use of flash cards for written
critiques during the delivery of the speech: (1) Flash cards offer
nothing tangible to which one might refer for suggestions for improve-
ment. (2) Flash cards lack detail, offering only suggestions. (3)
Flash cards divert attention and cause embarrassment. (4) Flash card
comments are all adverse. (5) Flash cards offer no tangible evidence
of improvement. (6) Flash card comments are difficult to remember.

(7) Flash cards allow for no class comments. As the reader can readily
observe, all seven of these student reactions to flash-card written
criticisms are adverse. Students participating in this study, however,
did note two favorable reactions to this type of written criticism:

(1) Flash cards indicate weaknesses that are evident during the imme-
diate delivery of a particular speech. (2) Flash card comments lead

to immediate correction.101

The reaction of Robinson and Kerikas to the instructor's mak-
ing known his critiques to the students while they are speaking is that
this time method of criticism should meet certain assumptions. It
assumes, in the first place, that the student will accept the inter-
ruption without breakdown or embarrassment (if the method used inter-
rupts the speaker). Secondly, it assumes that the item that is criti-
cized can be corrected on the Spot. Furthermore, whereas certain

mistakes in delivery may be handled most successfully by this plan,

 

100 Rimes PP- 25-56-

80

major revisions in composition or content could scarcely be accom-
plished.102

Another time segment in relation to the class period for criti-
cizing speeches in the beginning public Speaking course, with which
many teachers are in agreement,is immediately after each speech is

given.

Critiques Given Immediately After Each Speech

Robinson and Kerikas asserts that, in general, criticism is
most helpful when given as soon after the performance as possible.103
Montgomery suggests that the primary merit of an immediate (spoken)
criticism lies in the ease of recall of what the speaker said.10u
If criticism is postponed thirty minutes while four or five other
students make speeches, the students cannot be eXpected to give
relevant and instructive criticisms to the speakers.105 Balcer and
Seabury, and Heffron and Duffey intimate that criticisms should be
given after each Speech in their assertion that constructive sugges-
tions should be given while the error is fresh in the minds of the
Speaker and the audience.106 Then, according to Robinson and Kerikas,

the teacher, Speaker, and class can recall what has occurred and can

 

102Robinson and Kerikas, p. zuu.

10311mm, p. 243.

10L’I'fiontgomery, The §peeCh TEEEEELJ VI! P° 200'

1°5Ib;d., pp. 200-201.

106See Balcer and Seabury, P- 2&7; and Heffron and Duffey,
p. 10a.

91

quickly relate suggestions to points needing improvement.107
Robinson and Kerikas suggest other advantages of the instruc-
tor's giving critiques immediately after each speech. First, the
critique can be specific and highly individualized. Second, it can
also benefit successive Speakers since they will hear or participate
in the evaluation given. Third, the instructor in the beginning
course can.re1ate his suggestions for each Speech to those that have
been given earlier.108
The speech literature, however, not only treats the advan-
tages of criticizing students after each Speech, but it also stresses
the conditions which the instructor of the beginning course is obliged
to meet in order to realize these advantages. Reid, and Balcer and
Seabury unite in asserting that this time method places some premium
on the teacher's alertness in being able to take the floor and pre-
sent his evaluation just as soon as the student has finished speak—
ing.109 Reid also warns the instructor of the beginning course to be
prepared to allot ample class time, if he chooses to criticize his
students after each speech, for he asserts that this method of evalua-
tion is the most time consuming. Holtzman avers that, with the use
of this method, the instructor must motivate the student to utilize

the criticism in preparing for his next Speech criticism.110 (One

 

107Robinson and Kerikas, p. Zhh.

08
1 Ibid., pp. 2u3.hu

109Sec Reid, p. 2u8; and Balcer and Seabury, p. 2“?-

110Holtzman, The Speech Tea—char, IX, P° 3'

82

might add, here, that this condition should be true of any time method
used; but Holtzman, in his assertion, singles out the method of criti-
cizing after each speech.) According to Holtzman, this condition
means that the critique must be concrete and singular (though support-
ed by numerous examples), and must articulate the most important next
concept of behavior for the individual student to master.111

Because evaluating speeches after each performance, with all ,
its advantages, is time consuming, Reid suggests the alternative of
evaluating after each second or third performance, thus breaking the
class hour into two or three divisions.112 Another advantage of this
method, according to Reid, is that the instructor does not comment
quite so pointedly on any one student, since he can mention points in
which each of'them excelled or one or two matters in which all of them
(could improve.

Yet another time period in relation to the class hour for
evaluating speeches in the beginning public speaking course, which
a number of instructors feel to be favorable,is the time period set aside
at the end of the period after the speeches of the day have been
given. A few speech instructors wait, not just until the end of the
class period, but until the end of the assignment or round of speeches
to set aside a period or part of a period for purposes of communicat-

ing evaluations to the students.

 

1111bid
112Roid, p. 2&9.

83

Critiques Given During Period at the End of the Hour, or at the
End of the Round of Speeches

Evaluation of speech performances given by beginning public
speaking students may wait until the last ten or fifteen minutes of
the class session, at which time the instructor may present his evalua-
tion of the speaking done during the earlier part of the class hour.113
This type of evaluation, according to Balcer and Seabury, is usually
of a composite nature in which the strengths and weaknesses of speech
performances by the group are pointed out, with suggestions for im-
provement. Holtzman points out that the instructor will adapt his re-
sponses to the Speech performances by the group and may also draw
from the total experience (from the several talks) a single significant
idea to which he will seek a response from the whole class; that is,
his evaluation will constitute a piece of communication based upon a
set of examples,still within the memories of his students.114

The above is the methodology for evaluating speeches at the
end of the period. Instructors base their use of this method upon a
rationale as follows:

The chief advantage of this plan for evaluating speeches,
according to Robinson and Kerikas, is that it allows the teacher to

make generalized evaluations and suggestions about several speeches.115

 

113Balcer and Seabury, p. 247.

11“Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p. 3.

115Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2h#.

8h

Heffron and Duffey note that the teacher's offering of remarks regard-
ing the entire group at the end of the class period proves effective,
sepecially, for the supersensitive students, who may in this way in-
directly apply the class criticism on a specific point to themselves}16
Both as a means of avoiding embarrassment to any student in particular
in the offering of negative criticisms and as a means of saving time,
Friederich and Wilcox assert that the teacher should summarize the
main weaknesses of the majority of the speakers at the end of each
day of performances, or perhaps even after the entire class has per-
formed a short, simple assignment.117 Barnes maintains that by
eliminating the time devoted to individual discussion of each perfor-
mance, more students may Speak more frequently.118

The literature intimates that the rationale for evaluating
Speeches at the end of the period is essentially the same as the
rationale for evaluating speeches at the end of a round of Speeches.
Over and above the favorable points for evaluating Speeches at the
end of the period, Reid points out that evaluating speeches at the
end of a round or a series of Speeches enables the instructor of the

beginning course to make comparisons and contrasts, to pick out one

or two important critical points and focus his attention upon each

 

116Heffron and Duffey, p. 103.

117Friederich and Wilcox, p. M1.

118Harry Barnes, "Teaching the Fundamentals of Speech at the
College Level,” The Speech Tegcher, III (November, 1954), p. 249.

85

one.119 For example, if after listening to ten Speeches, the instructor

decides that most of the speeches had a weak ending, he could focus

his discussion on the art of concluding speeches by going through the

series of talks and picking out the good and mediocre conclusions.120
Finally, the instructor in the beginning course may offer

criticisms individually to at least some of his students outside of

2
class in a private conference session.1 1

Critiques Given in Private Conference With a Student

weaver, Borchers, and Smith indicate that the Speech conference
is one of the most significant and useful critical devices.122 Like
other teachers, however, speech teachers all too frequently call such
conferences with only those students whose grades are low or whose
behavior is obnoxious. The conferences (weaver, Borchers, and Smith
go on to point out) thus become forms of punishment that are carried
out at times when teacher pupil rapport is low. Ideally, on the other

hand, these Speech conferences should be non-disciplinary and Should

 

119Reid, p. 248.
12°Ibid., pp. 248-h9.

121Balcer and Seabury (pp. 2h7-48) suggest one other time
method in relation to the class period fer evaluating Speeches: the
presentation of the critique immediately before the student begins his
perparation for his next seech. These men believe, in behalf of this
method, that a student is more likely to give attention to evaluation
at a time when he needs help in preparing a speech than just after
a performance, when he cannot apply the lessons.

122Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 520.

86

contribute to the creation of high rapport.123 They permit opening
the whole problem of self-appraisal, goal setting, out-of-class Speech
opportunities, and the like.

One cause of a breakdown in communication between instructor
and student and among students in the beginning public Speaking class-
room, (according to weaver, Borchers, and Smith) is undoubtedly the
state of confUSed emotionality that many students feel immediately
following a Speech, or, perhaps whenever they are discussed by members
of a social group.12u Being discussed or being evaluated by members of
a social group (by one's own peer grOUp) may be distracting, confusing,
and even frustrating to some college students, as well as high shcool
(students.125 In a private, personal conference, however, the teacher
of the beginning course has the opportunity, as does the student, for
a frank and detailed analysis and evaluation of aspects of Speech
behavior, needs-- excessive nervousness or stage fright, the student's
attitudes toward criticisms given.by his peers, and the like--
abilities, and interest, which may not be dealt with in the classroom
situation and which are too complex or emotional for treatment in
writing.126 Although such private, personal conference between each

student and the teacher take time, often hard to find, some students--

 

1231bid.
12“Ibis.
125Balcer and Seabury, p. 250.

1265,. Balcer and Seabury, pp. 250-51; Robinson and Kerikas,
p. 245; weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 520.

87

especially Slowalearning students and other students who have special
difficulties that need close, personal attention-- may be reached
(rapport established with them) only by this relaxed, informal,
.personal approach.127

Robinson and Kerikas point to yet another signimant contri-
bution that the personal conference can make available to the Speech
teacher of the beginning course in his task of'working with his
students: "The personal conference provides a superior educational
vehicle."128 As a partial explanation of this statement, Robinson
and Kerikas assert that the speech teacher (including the teacher
of the beginning public Speaking course) has "greater opportunities
as a guidance teacher than any other in a school.” Tyler has noted
that the ”heart of education is learning-- that what the student
is doing is essential and that the teacher's role is to make learning

possible.129

Chapter II of this study has noted the speech teacher's
role in applying principles of learning in his teaching of the begin-
ning public speaking course. For example, the teacher c00perates
'with the student in setting up course goals that may be associated
with the fulfillment of audience-related purposes with which the

student must be concerned in real life communication Situations.

Again, the teacher of the beginning course must make sure that the

 

127See Balcer and Seabury, pp.250-5l; Robinson and Kerikas,
p. 245; weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 520.

128Robinson and Kerikas, p. 245.

129Ralph Tyler, "Conditions for Effective Learning," Egg
Jourggl, XLVIII (September, 1959), p.47.

88

student understands in what respects his present patterns of Speaking
performance are unsatisfactory and must guide him in the alteration of
these patterns in order to achieve improved Speaking performance. The
instructor must give the student the satisfaction of the knowledge of
results-- the strong and weak points of his effortS-- and must guide
him further in the development of his strong points and in the elimina-
tion of his serious weak points. Finally, the work of the teacher of
the beginning course with his students in the development of their
strong points and in the elimination of their weak points will be aid-
ed by the students' setting increasingly higher standards of perfor-
mance with each Speaking assignment inside and outside of the class-
room, and by the students‘ learning to judge, by themselves, to what
extent successive performances are achieved in ways commensurate with
the standard of achievement that he has set for each of these perfor-
mances.

The point that needs, then, to be emphasized in relating
principles of learning to the instructor's task of evaluation in the
beginning public Speaking class (insofar as the problem of when to
criticize the student is concerned) is that he use that time method of
evaluationp- during the speech, immediately after each speech (or after
each third or fourth speech), at the end of the period, at the end of
a round of Speeches, outside of class in personal conference-- that
will enable him most effectively: (1) to motivate and to guide the
Students to recognize and accept their speech potential and Speech

needs and assume a wholesome attitude toward their peers and toward

89

the suggestions for more effective communication that they can give to
one another; (2) to aid the students in the development of their strong
points and in the elimination of their weak points; and (3) to
give them the needed tools by which to judge their speaking perform.
zan¢9fls over against the goals or standards that they have set for
their performances both inside and outside of the classroom. The
Speech literature seems to agree that these responsibilities assured
by the instructor in working with his beginning public speaking
students consitute, first and foremost, classroom or in-class respon-
sibilities. However, according to Robinson and Kerikas, the Speech
instructor must recognize that for some students the personal con-
ference is preferable to any of the above-mentioned in-class variables.
The instructor will need to keep in mind certain learning
principles applicable to the beginning public Speaking course, not
only in his decision of when to evaluate his students, but also in
his decision of how to present his evaluations to his students.
Shall he give oral critiques only? Shall he give written critiques

only? Or, Shall he give both oral and written critiques?

The Form of the Presentation of the Critique

 

GiVing of Oral Critiques Only
The exclusive or predominant use of oral critiques by the in-
structor in the beginning public Speaking course has both its advan-

tages and its disadvantages.

90

Buell points out that oral criticism can be an effective teach-
ing device that will be beneficial to all members of the class.130
The oral critique enables the student to learn not only from the criti-
cisms of his own speaking, but also from the criticisms of the other
students' speeches.131 Raubicheck concludes that since students learn
from the criticism of speeches presented by their peers (in the begin-
ning public speaking classroom), the instructor will do well to discuss
the assets and liabilities of many speeches.132 Further, Balcer and
Seabury and also Weaver, Borchers, and Smith agree that the oral dis-
cussion of speeches becomes an essential method of developing the
Speech concepts and vocabulary, the Speech goals, and the Speech values
for the c1ass.133 Balcer and Seabury note that the instructor in the
'beginning course can use the oral critique to tie in closely and
‘evaluate specific performances by the standards set up by the class
tend the instructor.134 Finally, according to weaver, Borchers, and
Smith, the use of oral criticism often avoids singling out the faults
tof'one Speaker by basing the critique upon some general principle,

‘observable in five or Six performances.135 These writers point out

g

130Buell, p. 4.
131See Balcer and Seabury, P- 2463 and Buell, Ifih “'5'

132Raubicheck, p. 1&3.

133Balcer and Seabury, p. 246; and Weaver, 30mm”, and Smith’
pp. 512-130

3”Balcer and Seabury, p. 21+6.

135W'eaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 513.

91

that the giving of oral critiques, in short, is the indiSpensable means
by which the class organizes and makes effective its learning about
speech.136

The speech literature, on the other hand, points out at least
twodisadvantages in the predominant use of oral critiques in the
public Speaking classroom. In the first place, oral evaluations are
time-consuming, and, in the second place, they often center on one
student's performance more than that of another.137 As Weaver, Borchers,
and Smith assert, the Speech teacher seldom can devote an equal amount
of class time to the discussion of the performances of all the
students.138

Buell maintains that in order to crtiticize effectively in the
giving of oral critiques, the instructor should use a variety of
xnethods of oral ciriticism because "a stationary method of oral criti-
cism will merely provide an indifferent audience."139

The instructor of the beginning course must consider the
‘vnditen critique, as well as the oral critique, as a form for the
presentation of classroom evaluations that will enable him to achieve
Imotivation of his students, improved patterns of their Speaking perfor-

mance, and knowledge of results of their communicative efforts.

*

1361b1d.

137See Balcer and Seabury, Po 2N6; and weaver, BorcherS, and
Smith , P. £3 0

13aweaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 513.
139Buell, p. 81.

92

Giving of Written Critiques Only

The instructor needs to give careful attention to the form and
style of his preparation of the written critique to enable him to apply
the appropriate learning principles to his students:

written evaluation must be clear, easy to read, and meaning-
ful. It, too, should be well organized, written in appro-
priate penmanship, and well-supported. Its language should
be carefully chosen to communicate to the {Bader as accurate-
ly as possible the ideas of the evaluator.

More important than the form, however (according to Holtzmanl,
are the content and use.1L’r1 Balcer and Seabury, Buell, and also
‘Weaver, Borchers, and Smith offer three suggestions for the use of
written criticisms. By the use of written rariticisms, the instructor
in the beginning course has the opportunity to (l) personalize and
diversify his comments according to the individual goals of the students,
as well as goals for the course, in a way not always possible in oral
discussion; (2) balance the critical attention given to all members
of the class; and (3) make comments to which the student might object
if given in the presence of the class. Balcer and Seabury elaborate
on the first rationale for written critiques as follows:

Through written criticism, the teacher can provide for the
individual speech needs and abilities of his students and

so recognize their individual differences, better than

through gral evaluation when the teacher talks to all the
class, 4

1I‘mBalcer and Seabury, p. 2MB.

141
Holtzman, The S ech Teacher, IX, p. u.

1liZBalcer and Seabury, p. 2&6.

In consideration of a possible weakness of the written critique
Holtzman warns the instructor of the beginning course that written
criticism may tempt the critic to weaken the effect of his communica-
tion by listing rather than focusing and/or by describing rather than
suggesting},+3 On the other hand (according to Holtzman),if the
written criticiSm has aim and focus, it has the advantage of ready
reference for the student who may not remember the next day what the
instructor said in his oral critique after the speech.

Finally, in a report of written criticism of speech delivery
(undertaken in her classes at the University of Dubuque), Hinde lists
several further advantages of the written critique, in particular when .
given immediately after each speech: (l)'written criticism gives
definite, tangible suggestions for improvement. (2) written criticism
gives a definite idea of the improvement which is being made. (3)
‘Written comments serve as a review. (4) written criticism, given
immediately after each Speech, is of great assistance when preparing
for the next speech. (5) written criticism, given immediately after
each speech, does notembarrass or distract by interrupting.1m4

Beacuse the Speech literature suggests that either the oral
or the written critiques serve well the instmctor in the beginning
course in helping him to apply some. basic learning principles to the

task of enhancing the quality of Speeches given inside and outside of

‘

lh3301tzman, The Speech Teacher. IX, Po h.

1%orothy Mae Hinde, "An Investigation into the Effectiveness
01‘ Criticism of Speech Delivery When Given Before, During, and After
Speech Performance,” (Unm‘oliehed Master‘s thesis, Dppt. of Speech,
State University of Iowa, 19u9), p. uz.

9b,

the classroom, the use of both of these methods in the classroom

should serve the instructor equally well.

Giving of Both Oral and Written Critiques
Holtzman suggests that in dealing with specific techniques for

putting his principles of classroom criticism into practice, there are
'a number of available, varying procedures for the evaluation of student
Speeches, drawn from both oral and written forms or media”.5 Holtzman
points out further that he, like many other instructors in the begin-
ning course, most frequently relies upon the written critique (speci-
fically, the "blank critique sheet") for individually focused criticism
and the oral critique (Specifically, the "spoken-after-all-talks
criticism”) to focus attention on a concept of importance to the entire
class:

For instance, one talk to inform may stand out from the others

on a given day as the only one that has materials adapted to

the audience. This sets up an opportunity to teach audience

adaptation based upon the actual responses of the listeners.

Similarly, one talk to reinforce attitudes may be the only

one exemplifying appropriate use of "vital appealsg" or there

may be a comparison of talks to entertaigéthat did and did

not focus on a clear central idea, etc.1

Further discussion from the literature concering the use of

both oral and written comments as a form for the presentation of the
critique appears to consitute nothing more nor less than a summary

of the strong and weak points of the use of the oral critique and of

‘the use of the written critique. Whereas such a summary may be of

luSHoltzman’ The SpeeCh TeaCher, IX, p. 30

”6mm. , p. u.

\O
\n

some value to the reader, of more value, it would appear, is a summary
of those points at which the weaknesses of oral criticisms may be
compensated for by the strengths of the written criticisms, and of
those points at which the weaknesses of written criticisms may be
compensated for by the strengths of the oral criticisms. As weaver,
Borchers, and Smith point out, written criticism and oral criticism
should be considered as complementary rather than as substitutes for
each other.147 First is an examination of the manner in which written
criticisms complement oral criticisms.

(1) written evaluations are less time consuming than are oral
evaluations. (2) written evaluations balance the amount of attention
given to all classes. (3)'Written.evaluations offer comments to which
the student might object if given in the presence of the class.

On the other hand, the speech literature seems to suggest that
oral criticisms also serve to complement written criticisms: (1)

Oral evaluations enable the student to learn not only from the criti-
cisms of his own Speaking but also from the criticisms of the other
students' speeches. (2) Oral evaluations vocalize for the students
the speech concepts and vocabulary, the speech goals, and the Speech
values of the class.

Thus far in the discussion in this paper of the "Methodology
and Rationale for the Evaluation of Speeches in the Beginning Public
Speaking Course in College," with respect to instructor critiques,

mention has been made of the time factor of the critique in terms of

 

1“Maven, Borchers, and Smith, p. 512.

96

the course (criticisms throughout the course or later in the course);
time factor of the critique in terms of the class period (criticisms
made known during the Speech, after each Speech, at the end of the
period, outside of class in personal conference session); and the
form for the presentation of the critique (oral critiques, written
critiques, both oral and written critiques). An attempt also has
been made to relate these methodologies and rationaleSfor the
evaluation of classroom speeches to appropriate principles for effec-
tive learning. In this next section on content of theoritique,
attention will be focused upon the materials in the Speech literature
that are concerned with the securing of an appropriate balance between
favorable and unfavorable or adverse criticism of student Speeches in
the beginning course in such a way as to aid the instructor in
motivating the student to learn to speak well, in improving his
patterns of speaking performance, and in the student's gaining knowe

ledge of the results of his communicative efforts.
Content of the Critique

Critiques Given with Greater Concentration upon Unfavorable than
upon Favorable Comments

Negative or adverse criticism needs to be given with much
foresight; furthermore, if the instructor uses adverse criticism,

he should follow it with the use of constructive suggestions.”8 80th

 

148Herrron and Duffey, p. 103.

Grandell, and Heffron and Duffey suggest that when the instructor
introduces adverse criticism, he should begin with something favor-
able or complimentary, which puts the speaker in a receptive state of
mind to receive a report of his faults for there is a ”let-down" or
emotional lag (as Grandell terms it) at the end of a Speech that needs
to be compensated for before the instructor begins to point out
flawsflu9 Crandell further asserts that the tact and sympathy which
the instructor of the beginning course should use in voicing adverse
criticism Should not, however, be construed to suggest the softening
of the impact or blow of the criticism unnecessarily.”O The instruc-
tor should make apparent the faults of a Speech without using negative
language, which will only serve to fix bad habits. Fbr example, the
critic should tell the student, "Speak a little more slowly” rather
than, "Don't talk so fast.151

Friederich and Wilcox recommend that the instructor, with
the presentation of adverse criticisms, should make every effort to
point out specific instances in which some students noticeabxv
succeeded in avoiding the more common pitfalls of the majority, there-
by providing a positive and concrete goal for the rest of the class to

aspire to achieve.”2 Reid suggests as a different approach to the

 

1“’QSee Crandell, The Quarterly Journgl of Speech, XXVIII,
p. #82; and Heffron and Duffey, p. 103.

1E’OCrandell, The anrterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII, p. “8?
151Ibid. See also Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2u2.

152Friederich and Wilcox, ,. 4&1.

use of adverse criticism in the beginning public Speaking course that
the instructor (especially when he is at a loss to find some way of
.helping a student) should ask himself: What did the student omit,
leave out, fail entirely to do? If, for example, he makes three
speeches without using the slightest trace of humor, the instructor
should call this deficiency to his attention.153

Although the Speech literature indicates that the instructor
should make adverse criticisms, he should introduce his unfavorable
comments with favorable or complimentary remarks to prepare the student
to receive a report of his weaknesses. In short nowhere does the
literature suggest that the instructor Should make exclusive or even
predominant use of unfavorable comments in his evaluation of Speeches.
As Buell points out, the instructor should be able to find at least
one aspect of the performance that is conducive to praise, lest the
student feel that he has been a complete failure.15h In fact, the
literature places the greater stress upon evaluation content that is

.favorable than upon content that is unfavorable.

(Critiques Given with Greater Concentration upon Favorable than
Ilpon Unfavorable Comments

Buell notes that the Speech student in the beginning course has
Ioeen conditioned from early childhood to expect praise for an accept-
atfle performance;thhrefore, he is wary of criticism that causes resent-

Inent or pain. Furthermore, an.unwelcome comment may keep the student

~

153Reid , p. 2H6.

15"Bue11, p. 26.

99

from becoming fully aware of the true intent of the remark, or it may
make him disregard the comment entirely.155 If the student is made to
believe that he is a failure (according to Buell), he may be prompted
to work hard for the next assignment; but there is also real danger
that he will stop working for any improvement.”6 On the other hand,
the instructor's placement of emphasis upon at least one aspect of the
speaking performance conducive to praise causes the student to be in
a more receptive frame of mind to concentrate upon the comments for
improvement that follow the initial moment of appreciative and/or
favorable comments.”7

Ogilvie points out that the speech instructor and his students
in the beginning course should stress the positive rather than the
negative aspects of criticism, and she suggests a method to help the

158 One teacher tries to have

instructor to carry out this directive.
her good speakers speak first on the first speaking assignment. This
teacher has found that (she is usually able to pick out the better
speakers) the less able Speakers profit from the positive criticism

given those who speak well.”9

 

15§;p;g,, p. 22.

15é;§;Q,, p. 28

157lbid., pp. 22-23 and 26.
1580gilvie, p. 1u3.

159Ihid.

100

Reid avers that no one formula for the evaluation of students
in the beginning course will reach all people, but as universal a rule
as any is to begin criticism by discussing and/or stressing the good
points of the performance, rather than by discussing and/or stressing
the elimination of the weak points.160 Barnes joins Buell, Ogilivie,
and Friederich and Wilcox, and Reid in emphasizing the_point that
criticism should call attention to, and stress, the good response
rather than the bad.161 The following reasons are noted: (1) What
weakens a speech is not the presence of faults but the absence of
virtues. (2) Standards for improvement in speaking performance are
more effectively developed when emphasis is placed upon strong points
rather than upon weak points. (3) Good habits become established
more firmly with emphasis placed upon strengths rather than upon
weaknesses. (4) Confidence grows with a sense of achievement. (5)

A desire to speak minimizes imperfections, which, after all, are only
relative. (6) The placement of emphasis in the critique upon strengths
facilitates the "cooling off" period of the Speaker so that by the

time the instructor arrives at the comments for improvement, the
student is more relaxed and in a receptive mood. (7) Flaws in Speak-
ing should be disposed of by suggesting substitute techniques that

are more acceptable.162

 

160Reid, p. 244.

61Barnes, The S ech Teacher, III, p. 2H9.

F
K10

162Barnes, The Speech Teacher, III, p. 249; Buell, p. 9
‘deederich and Wilcox, p. #42; Reid, pp. 2## and 2&7.

101

Reid asks the reader to suppose that the instructor uses the
other approach in the evaluation of student speeches of stressing weak-
nesses and emphasizes the elimination of faults: "This is poor, that
is unsatisfactory, the other is inadequate."163 Under these circum-
stances, according to Reid, the student will quickly lose heart, just
as the teacher would himself if a supervisor were sitting at the back
of the classroom, ever ready to call him to task. In short, a student
reacts more quickly, willingly, and effectively to a suggestion that
he capitalize upon a strong point than that he eliminate or change a
weakness.104 What teachers most need to develop in the beginner,
according to Reid,is confidence and self-assurance, tempered with as
much judgment and good sense as can be expected.165 Reid continues
his emphasis upon stressing strengths rather than weaknesses in eval-
uating the speeches of the beginning student as follows:

Menfiggjas many features you like as you in all honesty
can.1 Candid approval will open the recipient's mind
as will nothing else. You show yourself to be a person
of fairness and good judgment. Under the impact of your
kind words the recipient begins to lose some of his
strain and tension. He feels like a member in good

standing. If you then mention one or two possiblities
for future.improvement, he is in a frame of mind to

 

153Re1d, pp. 247-48.
1% o 1. ‘
Friederich and Jilcox, p. 440.

165Reid, p. any.
44
1V0Buell (p. 23-2H) notes that the amount of praise given
each speaker must be at the discretion of the teacher for only the
instructor is in a position to anticipate the reaction of the student
after the speaking performance.

102
follow you. End your comment, however, on a note of praisgifi
repeat again the outstanding good item in tne performance. “
Friederich and Wilcox hasten to add, however, that the proba-
bility of an instructor's using more praise than blame in evaluating
the speeches of the beginning student does not mean, of course, that
obvious faults may never be mentioned.168 Care must be taken that
the instructor does not give the student such a "pat-on—the-back" that
he becomes conditioned only to praise, consequently, disregarding
any further suggestions for improvement.169 Moreover, the teacher
who praises indiscriminately and who offends the intelligence of some
students in order to pamper the susceptibilities of others can hardly
hope to achieve a situation in which constructive criticism will be
_taken seriously.170 What the directive to use more praise than blame
in evaluating the beginning student does mean or imply is that in the
beginning of a course, an instructor should instill confidence and
enthusiastic motivation through pointing out to a student methods of
improving and of using what are already his recognizable assets.171
Reid points out, further, that if the instructor has difficulty

finding something to praise about a Speech, he should describe for

the student how much he has improved, for ”improvement is a word of

 

167Reid, p. 2&4.

168Friederich and Wilcox, p. 440
1693u911, quoting Mrs. James Holm, p. 23.
170Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 508-

171Reid, p. 2&4.

103

rare magic."172 Friederich and Wilcox also emphasize that if the
instructor finds it difficult to comment on a good point in the
student's speech, then,perhaps, he should make no new suggestions
for the next assignment but merely point out progress to date-- how—
ever meager—— and encourage the student to keep up the good work.173
On the other hand, however, caution must be taken that when the
teacher is looking for at least one item to praise and immediately
sees none, he does not mention some factor in the Speech that does
not merit praise.17u

As can be gleaned from the above discussion concerning the
concentration of favorable versus unfavorable comments that the in-
structor should include in his evaluation of the speech student in
the beginning course, the greater emphasis in the speech literature

appears to be placed upon giving students evaluations that are more

favorable than unfavorable.

Critiques Given With About an Equal Balance Between Favorable
and Unfavorable Comments

The literature nowhere specifies that the amount or weight of
:favorable comments for the Speech evaluation should be balanced almost
<3qually with the amout or weight of unfavorable comments in the
eValuation. 'Weaver, Borchers, and Smith urge the Speech instructor

(>1? the beginning course to seek after the happy balance of accurate

“

172Reid, p. 2b“.
173Friederich and Wilcox, p. #42.

17“Buell, p. 29.

10a

appraisal without distortion, and encouragement without inacuracy,
they point out, however, that this balance is not one that can be
adjusted to the total clas ; it is one, rather, that must be adjusted
to each individual within the c1ass.175

At this point the question may be justifiably' asked: What
does the concentration of favorable versus unfavorable comments in
the speech evaluation of beginning public Speaking students have to
do with principles of learning? As Garry and others in the field
of Psychology of Learning have emphasized, positive criticism is
more effective than.negative or adverse criticism in helping the
student to achieve his goal of improved performance because positive

176 The

criticism is constructive and encouraging to the student.
instructor‘s emphasis upon the favorable points over against the
unfavorable points in his evaluation of speeches in the beginning
course serves to develop more effectively the student's standards
or goals for improvement in speaking performance. The sense of
achievement which favorable criticism gives the student increases
his confidence. It serves to motivate him as it stimulates him in
the achievement of his course goals. Finally, an emphasis upon
favorable criticism in the beginning public Speaking course creates

a relaxed, positive class climate (somewhat in the vein of Gibb's

"supportive atmOSphere norm," although in a different context),1/7/

 

175weaver, Borchers and Smith, p. 508.

176388 supra, pp. 11 and 18.
177See supra, P- “7'

lO~

C
./

in which the instructor's critique serves to encourage, not discourage,
the student in his efforts at improved Speaking performance. Finally,
the speech instructor's emphasis upon favorable comments in his evalua-
tion of Speeches in the beginning course stimulates the student to en-
gage in a Self-appraisal of his efforts-- a very necessary practice
if the Speaking performance is to continue to improve subsequent to
the class experiences. As Reid points out,

Buried inside every student is a second teacher, a self-

teacher, and this is the entity you want to reach; through

your encouragement you can get the student interested in

teaching himself, and thus you loosen a force that will

guide and direct him years after he has left your

presence. '

Another practice (in addition to the discussion of favorable
versus unfavorable comments) in the evaluation of speeches which,among
other features, serves to give the student encouragement in his speaking
and to motivate him in the achievement of his course goals is the in-

structor's focusing his critique upon what the student Should do in

preparing for the next speech.

Focus of Critique upon What the Student Should Do in Preparing for
the Next Speech

As the student in the beginning course progresses from assign-
ment to assignment, the instructor is concerned with what factors should
be included, and when they should be included, in his successive evalua-

tions of the student: (1) Under what circumstances and limitations

 

178Reid, p. 2&8.

106

should the instructor focus direct attention upon weaknesses in the
Speech just given? (2) Under what circumstances and limitations should
the instructor, in his classroom evaluations, reveal certain veaknesses
to a student obliquely-- that is, criticism in which the instructor
focuses attention, not upon his current speech, but upon what he might
do to strengthen his next Speech? (3) Under what circumstances and
limitations should the instructor withheld from the student's atten-
tion certain of his communication problems? The answer to the first
question will be treated, in general, under the subsequent heading.
A discussion of the second question is immediately pertinent to the
above heading. Reference to the third question does not concern the
instructor's task of evaluating insofar as the above heading is con-
cerned; however, consideration of this question gives the instructor
some guidelines concerning the time when certain comments should be
made to a student and how these comments Should be presented to him.
weaver, Borchers, and Smith assert that the Speech teacher
must judge constantly the readiness of a particular student for parti-
cular criticisms.179 Buell confirms this assertion in his conclusion
that to mention a particular fault to a student before he is ready to
make the desired improvement will lead only to discouragement.180 What
the instructor Should do under these circumstances, according to Buell,

is to write the fault in his private notes and not comment about the

fault to the student or class. When the shortcoming occurs again at

 

179weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 510

180

'Buell, p. 31.

107

a later date and the student has progressed to a point where he can be-
gin to deal with this shortcoming, the instructor may comment on the
fact that the shortcoming has occurred before but now the speaker has
progressed to a point where in future Speeches he should be able to
correct it. This solution to the problem of handling the student‘s
weakness apprises the class of the fact that the instructor is aware
of the problem-- which may have been quite obvious to them the first
time it occurred-- but that he is considering the readiness of the
student when giving his evaluations.181
In regard to the second question of what and time when certain
factors should be included by the instructor in his evaluations of
students (see su re, p. 106), Buell has intimated that one method
which the instructor may use in apprising a student of a weakness
when he is ready to hear it is to mention that weakness obliquely or
Speak of it in terms of the Speaker's preparation of his next speech,
because the student has now reached the point where he can, at least,
begin to work on certain of his communicative weaknesses. In the use
of this oblique or somewhat indirect method in focusing the student's
attention upon certain factors in his speaking, Reid suggests that the
instructor preface his comments with the words, "Next time you
speak..."182 These are the words which serve to state the Speaker's

problem obliquely, putting the whole matter in the future without being

too blunt about the speech just heard. For example, the instructor

 

1811bid.

182Reid., p. 2&3.

108

might say to his student:

‘flgzt timegvogjspegk, pick out two or three main points that

do not overlap and discuss them one at a time. By making

sure that your principal points do not duplicate one another,

your Speech will be better organized and will move ahead

more rapidly.183

Reid's use of the words, "Next time you Speak..." may also be
used to implement, in part, the principle that holtzman stresses in
the evaluation of speeches; that the instructor should begin with a
few fundamental requirements of expectations, to which he adds one or
two items for each successive speaking experience.18u In other words,
Holtzman notes that criticism Should be progressive. The desired
response of this criticism is the development by the student of a
single, significant concept which is the next logical step in his im~
provement as a communicative speaker.185 In short, the instructor,
in using the method of Reid (next time you speak) and the concept of
Holtzman (progressiveness), will remind the student of the next logical
step in his improvement as a speaker which he should concentrate upon
as he prepares for his next speech.
The question now arises as to the circumstances and limitations

within which the instructor should focus attention in his critique
upon the Speech just given. (These circustances and/or limitations

could also apply to the instructor's focus of attention upon what the

student should do in preparing for his next Speech.)

 

183Ibid.

18“Holtzman, The S eech Teacher, IX, p. 2.

185Ibid., pp. 2-3.

109

Focus of Critique upon Only a Few of the Host Important Strong
and weak Points of the Speech
worded in the negative, the principle with which the speech

literature is concerned here is that "No student should be given more
suggestions than he can take."186 Buell notes that a student can be
given so many suggestions for improvement that he comes to feel the
teacher is being unfair. Moreover, if the teacher burdens the student
with too many suggestions-- although all of them are important and
justifiable-- the student may become so confused and discouraged that
he will fail to realize any of these suggestions appreciably.187 For
example, as Holtzman points out, the beginning speaker may be doomed
by the burden of:

gesture meaningfully, maintain eye-contact, support each

point, remember to adapt to your audience in the intro-

duction, don't run overtime, don'tagidget, have vocal

variety, organize clearly, etc.,
AJuV person confronted with so many demands at once will do one or two
ifltings: Either he will attempt to hold all of these things in his
Ufiaxi, become frustrated, and give up; or he, more than likely, will
give up without trty'ir1g.189

Inasmuch as a student in the beginning course cannot try to

inmuxrve all his speaking techniques at once, the instructor should

¥

186Friederich and Wilcox, p. M1.
8
1‘7Ibid., p. una.
p
18‘Holtman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p..2.

189Ibid.

110

encourage the student to work diligently at those aspects upon which

190

he feelSthat he can improve. 'With this point in mind, Holtzran

asserts that the beginning speaker should be required to learn only

C 1 ' a I o
1’1 Crareell geins with Holtznan

so much for each Speaking experience.
in maintaining that the speech student in the beginning course-- like
anyone attempting to learn a new, conplex behavior-- can concentrate
. L' - 19?
on only one thing at a time.

Another important criterion, which the speech instructor's
critique should meet, is that to be effective, a piece of communication
‘ o o 193 t L
must focus on a Significant, Single idea. deaver, Borcaers, and
Smith aver that the best criticism is limited in scope or, at least,
unified in its referent because criticism involves a semantic problem.
Therefore, a single idea for improvement, understood and acted upon,
is of more value to the student than a host of suggestions that are
only vaguely understood; a single criticism sought after, accepted,
and studied by the beginning public Speaking student is of more value
than an endless flow of advice which is either ignored or quickly

10,}; y k V

forgotten by the student ’ deaver Borchers, and Smith assert tnat

the most valuable asset of the instructor in his evaluation of Speech-

es is

 

190Friederich and Wilcox, p. ~41.

O
1’1Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p. 2.

2
19 See, also, Crandell, The Quarterly_Journal ofp§peech,

XXVIII, p. #82,
193Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, II, p. 2.

I
19*weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 511.

111

the ability to cut through to the one or two Specific
aspects or items of a speech performance most vitally
related to total effect or total value and also most
closely related to the speaker's personal concerns and
to center discussion upon these items. 95

Three questions have been raised in the last two subsections
under the heading "Content of the Critique:" (1) Under what circum-
stances and limitations should the instructor in his evaluation focus
attention upon weaknesses in the speech which the student has just
given? (2) Under what circumstances or limitations should the instruc-
tor in his evaluation focus attention, not upon the student's current
speech, but upon what he might do to strengthen his next speech? (3)
Under what circumstances or limitations should the instructor in his
evaluation withhold from the student's attention certain communicative
problems?

In answer to the first question, the instructor should focus
his critique upon a single, significant idea for improvement, an idea
that involves a factor which he believes the student can improve.

The instructor's response to the second question is that in his
evaluation he should focus attention upon the next speech in dealing
with any of the student's communicative weaknesses so as to avoid
being too blunt about the Speech just heard. This method also abides
by the principle of ”progressiveness" of the critique because the
items focused upon in the critique should constitute the next logical

step(s) in the student's Speech improvement. The instructor's answer

to the third question is that the instructor should withhold from the

 

195Ib1d., pp. 511-512.

112

student's attention certain communicative problems until such time as
the student more fully understands the nature of the problems and is
receptive to the instructor's discussion of them.

How might the speech instructor in the beginning course apply
pertinent items drawn from Tyler's "Principles for Effective Learning"
to this entire section on structuring the content of the critique?

The instructor should deal with the above three questions, as well as
with the question of the concentration or balance of favorable versus
unfavorable comments, concerning the content of the critique (as
recommended, indirectly at least, in the speech literature) so that

(1) the beginning public Speaking student will continue to be motivated
in the achievement of his course goals; (2) he will continue to be
aware that his present patterns of Speaking performance are unsatis-
factory; (3) with each speaking experience, the student will under-
stand specifically why his present patterns of speaking performance

are unsatisfactory; (4) he will continue to receive the satisfaction
of knowledge of the results of his speaking performance; (5) the
student will know how to put to use the knowledge of the results of

his speaking performance in the modification of his communicative acts
by varying his method or approach in the practice of subsequent speak-
ing tasks or performances; (6) as the instructor's critiques progress
from performance to performance, the student, by the end of the course,
will have come to an understanding of how to evaluate his own Speaking

performances in the absence of the guidance of the classroom situation.

113

Vehicle for the Written Critique

An earlier section in this chapter deals with the form of the
presentation of the critique. That is, the instructor in the begin-
ning course may give oral critiques, written critiques, or both oral
and written critiques. The question that is to be discussed in this
next section is this: What vehicle or form for the presentation of
the written critique Should the instructor use in his written evalua-
tions: standard or specific check lists or rating scales, with room

for comments, or, simply, a blank sheet of paper?

Use of Standard or Specific Check List (or Rating Scale) with
Room for Comments
Rating scales are probably used more in practical instruction

than any other vehicle for written evaluation.196 Thonssen and Gilkin-

son note the following sample of a rating scale:197
General Effectiveness
Very Poor Average Very Good
10?
1 ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1 —————— 1 ...... 1‘"
1 9 3 LL 5 6 7 8 9

 

196Lester Thonssen and Howard Gjlkinson, Basic Trainima in
Speech (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1947), p.515.

197nm.
103 .

’ Hinds, in her the51s (p. 7) notes that the range of the
rating scale is determined somewhat by the purpose for which it is
used. She notes that she selected a nine-point scale for her study
because scales ranging from seven point to nine points seem to predom—
inate in previous investigations and because she believes that a more
refined judgment from the raters could be obtained for purposes of
her study.

4

As teavcr, Borchers, and Smith point out, any teacher whose fingers
have been numbed by the writing of endless comments knows the attrac-
tions of a check list or a rating scale.197
The possibility of turning out an erudite criticism by the
simple device of marking a few X's here and there is un-
deniably attractive; moreover, students are generally
mpressed by the qéficial and authoritative appearance
of rating scales.“ J
According to Friederich and Wilcox, a good rating scale or
check list should usually include a variety of items, but only those
pertinent ones that apply to each individual performer at his level

Of achievement may be used,2C1

Because (according to Holtzman) criti-
cisms should be progressive, the check list should grow in coverage

of criteria for evaluation with each speaking assignment; or responses
to the early speeches will not be noted on all items.202 That is,

the comments checked may be carefully develOped as the best way to
word for the student the next step in his improvement or to note
praise for concepts that he has handled well. Other "structured"
critique forms may have spaces beside the categories or concepts for
the instructor's comments and/or suggestions on specific aSpects of

speech checked. Further space should be left for comment on the

general effect of the student's speech so that a sumnation of total

 

199Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p.515.
200Ibid.
201Friederich and Wilcox, p. 459.

202Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p. 4.

115

impression will help the student to see the "forest in spite of the
9; \
trees."“C3 Holtzman notes two examples of check lists. The speech
concepts listed are as follows:
On example is: Substance, Organization, Style, Bodily
Expression, Voice and Diction, Personal Qualities, and
"General Comments," with appropriate subheadings under
each.
Another (for a talk to inform) is: Introduction, Body,
Conclusion, and Delivery, with appropriate questions in

each category. [For example] "Did the opening catch
audience attention?" "was the audience motivated to

vou

want to leannT'etc.'
Finally, according to Friederich and hdlcox, even though the rating
scale or check list contains a variety of items that are pertinent
to the performer and the assigned performance, rating scales or check
lists are still inadequate in certain peculiar instances and should
be remedied by class discussion and private conference.205

'Weaver, Borchers, and Smith point that rating scales and check

lists have primary extra-classroom values and uses, particularly in
developing speech report forms or in conducting research where data
should be comparable for all members of‘a group or should be compre—
hensive with regard to some phase of Speech.206 Their in-class use

for classroom criticism (according to weaver, Borchers and Smith)

 

203Friederich and Wilcox, p. ujg.

20“See Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p. 4; Robert T.
Oliver, ed. Effective Speech Notebook, (Rev. ed.; Syracuse: Syracuse
U. Press), p. 7; Milton.Dickens, Speech: Dynamic Communication (New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1954), pp. ”29-30.

205Friederich and Wilcox, p. Mao

//.

206Neaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 515.

116

is limited:2c7hlfln their stereotyped format and their use of compre-
hensive diviSions and subdivisions (often too numerous for the in-
structor to memorize),they violate the Very spirit of individual
criticism. (2) Check lists or rating scales are an impersonalized,
dehumanized way of criticizing a Speech. (3) Some are so long and
detailed that they distract the instructor's attention from the
speech and speaker to the point where he becomes a mere "glorified
bookkeeper."208 Balcer and Seabury contend that a highly competent,
impartial, and well-qualified critic and evaluator of speech behavior
has little need for a check list.209

In suggesting the limited value of check lists and rating
scales as a critical instrument for the evaluation of classroom Speech-
es in the beginning course, weaver, Borchers, and Smith aver that the
instructor should not overlook their possible use as a teaching

device.210 The cooperative development and use of a rating scale or

 

207See also William Schrier, "What are the Most Effective
Methods of Evaluating and Guiding the Student in Speech?" A symposium
at the fall meeting of the Michigan Speech Association (October 5,
1963), P. 4.

208Ibid., William Schrier reported at the symposium that he
once prepared a Correction Sheet for both delivery and composition and
for delivery alone. He listed 100 items under such general headings
with subdivisions as "Opening General Impressions," "Attitude," "Con-
fidence," "Contact," "Enunciation," "Eyes and Face," "Movement,"
"Hannerisms," "Voice Problems," and a number of others. The intent
was to put this in the hands of each student at the beginning of the
semester.' Schrier noted that he would memorize these points and make
notations by number on a 3x5 card during a Speech (say, 1H-52, 67-?3)
and then hand this to the student after his speech. He later ceased
using the sheet because it was too long to be memorized, was istract-
ingjand was impersonal.

9’). 7:
”‘CBalcer and Seabury, p. 2&8.

ZIOjeaver’ Borchers, and Smith, p. 515.

check list by the mszmh crs of the class has he following adv: ntagcs
014
for teaching.”‘* (l) Rating scales or checa lists are sizple and
convenient. (7) A specific check list or rating scale helps the
teacher (especially the new teacher) to keep important, specific
items in mind that are to be evaluated and gives direction to the
students' critical analyses of Speeches. (3) In a similar vein, such
eva uation charts as check sheets crystallize the thinking of the be—
ginning teacher and prevent hit from emphasizing the obviously good
features of the performance to the exclusion of the bad, or vice
versa. (u) Also, they provide tangible terms in which to record and
study the sp cific qualities of the performance of the individual
and the class as a vhole. For example, they can be used to obtain
the listeners ' evaluations of the general effectiveness of a Speaker
or evaluations of the particular aspects of his performance, Sich as
language, c0“position, enunciation, vocal quality, and gestures.

Group consideration of a given form containing these and oth er ite m-s

’1

often nakcsfku'undcr staneiig and p events meaningless and careless check-

ing for the sake of doing something. (5) In a limited way (according
\

to weaver, Borchers, and Smith; check lists and rating scales provide

4‘

a picture of the strengths and weaknesses oi a speaker. (6) ChCC'
lists and analysis sheets will form a ready means of charting the
student's prog “653 in Mp aking and in presenting the student .‘ith a

profile of his present achievements on both the intellectual and the

technical sides. (7) Furthermore, developing the use of the ra tir;g

 

I.

211See also Friederich and Wilcox, p. #59; Ogilvie, p. 1* 3
Thonss<:-n azd Gilkinson, p. dg15; Crandell, The Quarterly Journal of
S eech, XVIII, p. 493; aubicheck, p. 12?.

p L
In;
(no

scale and check list will help students to review the essentials of
the speech process with the greatest value resulting from the making,
rather than the using of the scale, a value which can bring variety
to classroom procedure.
Hinde presents the following summary rationale for purposes
of justifying the use of the rating sheet for her study:
Since the rating sheet is widely used, since it can be made
to criticize whatever aspects of the speech are desired,
since it can be couched in terms that beginning students
can understand, since criticism on rating sheets can be
controlled more easily than criticism by any other method,
and since the rating sheet may serve both to give criticism
and to test performance.21'
An alternative vehicle or form to the check list or rating

scale for the evaluation of speeches in the beginning course is the

use of the blank sheet of paper with or without carbons.

Use of Blank Sheet of Paper

Ogilvie notes that one teacher, in his evaluation of class-
room Speeches, uses a carbon or a note pad; he retains the original
for his record and gives the copy to the student.213 The use of
carbon sheets to provide the teacher with a copy of his criticism of
each speech performance (according to Balcer and Seabury) can be
useful, and in turn, helpful to students if the teacher uses the car-

bons to check, stimulate, and guide the student's progress.21u

 

212Hinde, p. 5.
213og11v1e, p. 143.

L
21‘Balcer and Seabury, p. 2&8.

119

It is doubtful that any more versatile, useful, or generally
satisfactory aid to written criticism has been developed
than an unlined pad of grocery slips, permitting the simul-
taneous production of original and carbon c0pies of written
comments.“

Some specific values of the blank sheet of paper withcu“without car-

216 (1) The use of carbon copies of

bons may be listed as follows:
criticism, with blank sheets of paper, is an efficient way of main—
taining a file of comments on each student. Such a file, if period-
ically reviewed, is an excellent aid to forming judgments concerning
individual needs and individual progress: and it is an efficient way
of helping both students and the teacher to note progress and con-
tinued needs. (2) The blank critique sheet offers the instructor
some advantages of individual treatment, of focusing upon the in-
dividual speaker and identifying in him, his speech, and his speaking
points which merit praise and which call for suggestions if the
evaluation is to be most helpful to the student. (3) The blar:
sheet of paper, which, as a rule, calls for more writing on the in-
structor's part than the check list or rating scale, often assists
in individualizing his remarks concerning the most salient respects.
As weaver, Borchers, and Smith conclude:

Our whole concept of criticism, that it ought to be individual

in terms of each student and each performance and that it

ought to be limited in terms of the number of aspects dis-

cussed, points to the desirabilitylef a completely unreginented
or flexible system of comment.’

 

215weaver, BorcherS, and Smith, Po 513-
21bSee Balcer and Seabury, p. 248: Holtzman, The §P°°Ch
Teacher, IX, p. 4; and weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 513.

217..

 

Jeaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 513.

120

On the other hand (according to Balcer and Seabury),a.blank
sheet of paper seldom prevents the instructor's overlooking.a5pects
of the speech performance which are.subject to evaluation; and.onc or
more of.these aspects,which.may be overlooked,can.be very important.218
Furthermore, Holtzman warns the.instructor that.the.b1ank.shcet.of
paper. may rm. .to. alert him .to. watch for. specific behavior.219

In.brief, both.the check.list and.thc.blank;shcctrofipaper,
in.tsrms.of.lyler§s principles of.effectirs loarning,(1) gira.the
student.spsakcr.the.satisfaction.of.knowlodgs.of.rssults.or effective-
noss.of his speaking and (2) not only show the.stndcntuhowzho.can.im-
prove his present speaking performance.but.a1so.encouragc.and.cnable
him to keep. setting his sights higher. Further, both the check list
and the blank sheet of paper provide the instructor an,aid.in guiding
his students, although of’a different type:. (1) Thc.chsck.list,'with
the list of criteria to serve as a reminder of factors to be covered
in the critique,affords an aid to the instructor in providing specific
suggestions in guiding the student in his efforts to.inprors his-speak-
ing performance. (2) In contrast, the blank sheet of paper aids the
instructor in the guidance of his students with the use of.individual
treatment and with focus upon the individual strengths and weaknesses
to hclp each student improve his speaking performance. Finally,-if
the check list or rating scale is developed as a variationiin class
actiuity,.a benefit accrues: that'which stems from.the making as well

 

218Balcer and Seabury, p. 2&8.
219haltsman, The Spgegh Tbagger, IX, p. 4.

1?1

as the using of the instrument,an assignment which enables each stu-
dent to practice a different approach to his efforts in improving
his speaking performance.

"Methods and Rationales in the Criticism of Classroom Speeches
in the Beginning College Course" (the substance of this study) has
now been considered from the point of View of the instructor. Studies
and comments from the literature have been surveyed and integrated
for purposes of informing the instructor of many of the issues that
should be considered before he decides when in the beginning course
he should begin to evaluate the students‘ speeches, when he should
evaluate the speeches in terms of the class period, what form(s) he
should use for the presentation of his critiques, what factors should
be included in his critiques appropos of appropriate principles for
effective learning (such factors as favorable versus unfavorable
comments, the nunber of items to be included in the critiques, and the
focus of attention upon the Speech just given or upon the next Speech),
and the vehicle for the written critique. with this sumrary of matters
pertaining to instructor critiques,we now turn to the area of student
critiques. Some issues regarding student participation in classroom
criticisms of Speeches will be drawn from the literature, and ration-
ales and methodologies for the peer evaluation of speeches will also

be reviewed.

122
Student Critiques

61 of C t es

Those teachers who do not permit student criticism believe
that there are so new functions to teach and perform that no time
is available for criticism by students.220 They further believe that
time is wasted because students are not always tactful in the criti-
cism of their peers, nor do they always know what to criticize.221
In the required course, in which the students, as a whole, will not
have special gifts for platform speaking, the technical aspects of
delivery as criteria for the evaluation of speeches should be reduced
to a minimum, and the criticism of them should perhaps be the pre-
rogative solely of the teacher.222 Barnes notes that students should
not be allowed to evaluate other students except by use, perhaps, of
the diagnostic blank. This method should be used only occasionally
and should be a teaching device for both speaker and listener.223

In short,some writers believe that under no circumstances
should the instructor use student critiques in the beginning public
speaking course. Others believe that the more technical aspects of
speaking, as criteria for evaluation, should be placed beyond the
province of the student critic. A few writers believe that the in-

structor in the beginning course should use only a particular form

 

2203mm pp. 70-71.
221M” P0 71
zzzneubieheck, p. 122.

223Barnes, The Smog Teafleg, III, p. 219.

 

 

I . I .ll‘

123

(for example, a diagnostic blank) as a medium for student critiques.
Many of the writers who would limit the use of classroom evaluations
by students assert that students should not be permitted to evaluate
the speeches of their peers early in the course. According to Heffron
and Duffey, class criticism, although effective at times, is dangerous
too early in the semester, for no standards of criticism have yet been
famed.22u The teacher should first. be confident that his students
know the standards of criticism to be used because evaluation by
members of the class is dangerous when no standards have been formed
or when these standards are not well understood or accepted.225
Furthermore, early in the course, the teacher is not sufficiently
acquainted with the students to trust their Judgment}26 Often,
according to Heffron and Duffey, the over-personal element in criti-
cism,which enters the class before the teacher can warn against it,
has to be nipped early in the course.

Very few statements from the literature may be found that
unconditionally recomend the use of no classroom evaluations by stu-
dents in the beginning course. As has been pointed out above, most
of the recommeniations against the use of evaluations by students are
based upon certain conditions (of time with respect to the course
[early or late], of standards of criticism), which the instructor in _the

beginning course may readily overcome. With the recognition of these

 

22“Heff'ron and Duffey, p. 102.

225Ba1cer and Seabury, p. 2149.

226Heffron and Duffey, p. 102.

124

conditions in mind, the next task of this paper is to review and inte-
grate materials from the speech literature which point out rationales

and methodologies for the use of evaluations by the students of their

peers in the beginning public speaking course.

Giging of Instrgctor and Student Critiques

 

Rationales for Student Critiques

"Members of the (speech) class should be encouraged to partic-
ipate in criticising."227 "Get.the class to participate in the criti-
cisms."228 ”Young people need to learn both how to take and how to
give criticism.“229 ”Evaluation in a class in speech...is not the
sole responsiblity of the teacher; it is a function of the entire
c1ass.”23O ”Criticism is a function of all members of the Speech
class. Efficient classroom zcriticism implies widespread use of student

criticism."231

These are just a few of the assertions from the speech
literature that suggest the importance of participation by the stu—
dents in the classroom evaluation of speeches.

weaver, Borchers, and Smith further point out that critical

skill and listening skill are the natural reciprocals of Speaking

 

227herrron and Duffey, p. 102.

228Crandell, The angterlz qurngl of Speech, XXVIII, p. 482.

229hriederich and Wilcox, p. nae.

2 O
3 Balcer and Seabury, p. 2&8.

231weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 519.

skill; and, therefore, the development of these skills is one of the
basic goals of Speech education.232 As Buell points out, the student
has the reSponsiblity in a speech class to listen to the Speeches that

233 On the basis of

are being given by various members of the class.
their personal experience with listening, students have learned to
Judge speakers outside the classroom; however, their critical faculites
will be sharpened by learning also to judge their classmates inside

the beginning public speaking class. Students are not likely to learn
how to make valid evaluations of speeches, Speaking, or speechmaking
(according to Balcer and Seabury) until they shall have actually exer-
cised their own judgments by participating in the evaluation in the
classroom of the speeches of their peers.23‘5

In other words, according to Buell, criticism by students

provides a situation in which the class members participate in a learn-
ing process.236 Speech instructors, therefore, should utilize criti-
cism by students as a means of teaching them critical listening with

a view to developing audience responsiblity, which is as important

37

as speaker responsiblity in communication.2 As weaver, Borchers,

and Smith point out, some of the most significant factors about speech

 

232Ibid.

ZBBBmzll, p. 72.

ll
23 Friederich and Wilcox, p. 438.

2
35Balcer and Seabury, p. 249.

26
3 Buell, p. 81. .

237hobinson and Kerikas, p. 2&5.

126

or language are illustrated only by the diversity of response which a
single performance will arouse in any representative group of audi-

tors.238

This factor should allay the fears of those teachers who
sometimes object to class criticism because they feel that the lack
of agreement among students will only confuse a beginning speaker.239
The fact of the matter is, however (according to Friederich and Wil-
cox), that this diversity is not peculiar to high school or college
speech classes; it is a normal reaction to be expected from any
audience. The variances of approval and disapproval, consequently,
will be most valuable because they demonstrate the differences of
opinion about a public performer and show' each speaker the problem of
audience adaptation.

Balcer and Seabury maintain that students should realize that
a variety of reactions from an audience is possible and, in fact,
usual.”0 Fbr example (as Balcer and Seabury go on to point out),
given the opportunity and encouraged to evaluate their own perfor-
mances, half the class may decide that one of their number spoke
with ”direct eye contact" and the rest may say that ”no real contact
was established." Or they may find that some of them indicate "clear
organization’ regarding a speech perfOrmance, whereas other students

indicate "lack of clear organisation."2u1 Wbaver, Borchers, and Smith

 

238Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 519.
239Friederich and Wilcox, p. #38.

2L’OBelcer and Seabury, p. 248.
2"11bid. , pp. aha-#9.

127

conclude that the recognition of these differences in audience response,
both inside and outside of the beginning public speaking class, and
the explanation of their significance for the student speaker is one
of the basic tasks of speech education; it is a task accomplished
largely through the medium of student criticism?+2 Student evaluation
of students is valid, therefore, in the sense that speakers are sub-
ject to the approval of their audience; and in a college class the
audience is composed of fellow etuden'ce.243 The immediate benefit of
student evaluation of students to the student speaker, according to
Robinson and Kerikas, is that it should help the speaker to kn0W'hOU
effective he has been in communicating with his peers in gaining the
response that he desires.2un
As has been noted before in this paper, the instructor and
his students are concerned with setting up standards and goals for
speech performance as well as for speech evaluation. Only through the
individual student's evaluation does the instructor in the beginning
course discover, oftentimes, the student's grasp of standards by
which to evaluate speaking and whether he is progressing toward goals
established by the class and the teacher.2u5 If, according to Balcer

and Seabury, a written comment by'a student disagrees with those

 

2“zweaver, Borchers, and Smith, pp. 519-20.

243David Curry, et a1, "Can Students Grade Students in a
Fundamentals Course?" Whatern Speech, XXVI (Fell, 1962), p. 239.

21“(Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2h5.
2"'5.Balcer and Seabury, p. 2&8.

128

prepared by the other members of the class, this fact may indicate
the individual student's failure to see clearly some basic concept.
Student evaluation of students, in short, should help the students
to develop high standards for speech performance.2I+6
If student evaluation of students is to enable each begin-
ning public speaking student to develop high standards for speech
performance and to ascertain how effective he is in communicating
'with his peers in gaining the response that he desires, the instruc-
tor must be careful to regulate the amount of time that is spent and
how the time is spent in criticism.by students.2u7 .According to
Montgomery, the instructor must allow sufficient time fer genuine

discussion. On the other hand, he should not so overstimulate his

students that prolonged criticism.de1ays the p,.g,.,. .f the cl". 2&8
Further, Crandell warns the instructor in the beginning course to
«249

central the students' time, lest they indulge in ”idle flattery.
Further values or rationale, suggested by the literature,

for the student evaluation of students may be summarised as follows:

(1) Student participation in criticism causes the class members to

feel that they are contributing to the improvement of the speaker;

and because they are permitted to contribute to the speaker's improve-

ment, they feel that they are accepted and belong to the group.

 

2z‘6Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2&5.
224‘73‘011 ’ pe 71o

2z‘tsl'lon‘l’gomery,' The S ech Teacher, VI, p. 203.

2“'9C2randell, The Qggrterly Journal of Spgech, XXVIII, #82.

129

A feeling of’belonging to the gooup, in turn, promotes harmony in the

250 Reid notes further that the strong approval of a class-

classroom.
mate is a good tonic for the performer.251 (2) Student evaluation of
students provides variety because of the differences of opinion, be-
cause of possible questions, and because of the simple fact that
_different voices areused.252 (3) By sheer weight of numbers
(according to HOOgestraat), the evaluation by the student speaker's
classmates should comprise some of the most valuable criticism that
he receives in terms of improvement based upon audience reaction.253
Student evaluation, as various members of the class must look for
possible items to criticise, causes the class to become more atten-
tive.2§h The greater attentiveness and more careful listening en-
couraged by student participation in criticism.enable: the students
to gain suggestions fer their own improvement.255 An attentive
audience also serves to encourage the student in the presentation

of his speech.2~56 (b) Often the use of class evaluation by the stu-

dents points out a weakness in the teacher's own evalation of a

 

25OBue11, p. 70.
251Reid, p. 2u8.
252311011, p. 65o

253wayne E. Hoogestraat, "Letters of Evaluationp- an Exercise
in Speech Criticism," The S ech Teacher, XII (January, 1963), p. 2°.

25"‘Buell, p. 72.
255Reid, p. 2%.

256Montgomery, The S ee h Teacher, VI, p. 201.

130

performance, or reveals his overemphasis on a minor point.257 (5)
Students, on occasion, will notice some faults that the instructor
has overlooked; hence, students may often be able to contribute criti-
cisms which the instructor missed because of his note taking or his
concentration on some other point in the Speech.258 (6) A peer
opinion may, at times, carry more weight or be more effective than
a similar instructor opinion.259 (7) Finally, according to Crandell,
such class criticisms will serve to liven up the group.

Buell concludes that if student criticism is controlled,
purposive, and accepted by the teacher, the use of student critics
can help the instructor in his task of evaluating speech perfor-
mances.260 As has already been noted, student evaluation of students
is also beneficial to the beginning public speaking student in enabling
him to develop high standards of Speech performance, as well as
appropriate standards of speech evaluation, and to learn how effec-
tive he is in communicating with his peers in securing the response
that he desires. Expressing the last two benefits in terms of Tyler's
principles of effective learning, student evaluation of students

first encourages and enables the student speaker to keep setting his

sights higher and shows him how he can improve his present level of

 

257Ba1cer and Seabury, p. 2&8.

2580rande11, The anrtegly Journal of sp_eeoh, mm, p. no.2.

2
59Holtzman, The Smech Teager, 11, p. 3.
260

Buell. pp. 72-73.

131

Speaking performance. Second, the evaluation of students by their
peers gives each student the satisfaction of the knowledge of the
results or effectiveness of his speaking, not only from his instructor
but also from his fellow students.

The speech literature has indicated several reasons why the
Speech instructor in the beginning course should provide for student
evaluation of students. The literature also contains many suggestions
regarding methods (both oral and written) criticism that the instructor
might use in the actual classroom practice of student evaluation of

students.

Methodologies for Student Critiques

Smith prefaces his discussion of the dialetic or "question"
approach to classroom criticism by reviewing some purposes or reasons
why instructors in the beginning course give criticism: (1) to stim-
ulate creative thinking, (2) to stimulate interest in and respect for
speechmaking, (3) to call attention to the Speaker's special strengths
and weaknesses, (h) to give specific instructions for practice leading
to improvement, and (5) to motivate both speaker and class.261 Accord-
ing to Smith, these objectives can.best be achieved in a classroom
atmosphere that is both pleasantly relaxing and stimulating. This
condition requires sufficient informality so that the more reserved
students feel free to participate, yet not so much that the class, at

262
times, seems to command the instructor. As has already been pointed

 

261Raymond G. Smith, "The Criticism of’Speeches: A Dialetical
Approach," The Speech Teacher, X (January, 1961), p. 59.

262Ibid.

132

out in this chapter, one of the first tasks of every Speech teacher is
to organize with class cooperation that discussion of criticism which
_will lead to setting a group pattern of permissiveness and objectivity
with respect to an atmosphere in which criticism is sought as a key

to self-help.263 In short, the instructor's discussion with his
students (in the beginning course) of the giving as well as receiving
of criticism in a classroom. climate that encourages permissiveness
and informality should provide the kind of atmoSphere that will en-
courage student participation, particularly in the giving of oral
criticism to their peers.

With this focus of attention on class discussion and the giv-
ing particularly of oral criticisms, this portion of the subsection on
"Methodologies for Student Critiques" will deal with "Oral Criticisms
by Students." First, under this heading will be a brief dicsusion
drawn from the literature concerning the instructor's handling of oral
criticism given by students.

Oral Critiques by Students.-- "The instructor should never
abrogate his responsibility for leading and controlling criticisms and
discussions?264 Reid also points out that the first exercises in class
criticism needs guidance, that teachers should themselves take the lead
in the giving of class evaluations until the students have gained a

265

clearer idea of what to listen and look for. Buell notes further

 

263Weaver, Borchers, and Smith, p. 509. See Supra p. 46.

26“Smith, The S ech Teacher, X, p. 59.

265Reid, p. 2148.

133

that if the critique period in which the students are to participate is
to be spent efficiently, the student must first be aware of the purpose
of his comments and of the objects and the basis of the criticism.266
As soon as the students have learned the objects and the basis of the
criticism and what to listen and look for in the evaluation of the
speeches of their peers, the instructor can then lead the class to the
proper critical attitude by, at first, inviting them to comment on the
desirable features of the student's performance.267
Crandell also suggests that the instructor keep the class
evaluations confined largely to suggestions for improvement, but he
warns the instructor to avoid letting the students indulge themselves
in idle flattery.268 Crandell advises that if the class is slow to
respond in the evaluation of a Speech, the instructor should prompt
their participation.by such leading questions as, What did you like
about '5 speech, or what suggestions would you make for the
improvement of 's speaking? This questioning by the instructor
of student critics will also help teach them to be more Specific.2(~39
If, for example, a classmate said that A's arguments in his persuasive
Speech were convincing, the teacher can follow up by asking what made
the arguments convincing, in which case the teacher may search out

details about evidence and reasoning, as well as the organization and

 

266Buell, p. 71.

2/
O7heid, p. zua.

268Crandell, The anrter 1 Journal of Speech. XXVIII: Po 482°
269Reid, p. 248.

13h

delivery of arguments. Interesting discussions often develop from the
use of this approachjwhich discussions give students in the beginning
course a feeling that basic principles are indeed being studied.270

Holtzman then recommends that the instructor should close each
critique period, however lengthy or brief, by adapting the student
commmus via example, emphasis, and edited summary to the aims of each
critique- desired response, focus of criticism, and progression of
criticism.271

The survey of the literature for oral evaluations by students
thus far has disclosed the recommendation that the instructor lead and
control criticisms and discussions of student Speeches, encourage stu-
dents to focus first upon strong points of their peers' speeches and
prompt student participation via the use of leading questions. In his
article, "The Criticsm of Speeches: A Dialectical Approach," Smith
elaborates in considerable detail about the speech instructor's use of
leading questions in prompting and guiding oral evaluations by students
in the beginning course.272

Smith, first, would have the instructor in the beginning course

look at some examples of poor questions-- questions that are often too

 

270Ibid.

271Holtzman, The Speech Teacher, IX, p. 3.

272The writer is indebted to Raymond G. Smith, "The Criticism
of Speeches: A.Dialetical Approach," The Speech Teacher, X (January,
1961), pp. 59-62 for this material.

135

general to be meaningful to the class or to teach the class anything--
with'which the instructor may’begin:273
‘What did you think of the strength of the speech? ‘What was
weak about the Speech? What did the speaker do? How about
the introduction? Comments? Questions, class? 'What are
we going to ask the speaker now? How about his conclusion?
Criticisms?

The response usually evoked by questions like these goes some-
what as follows:

I liked what he said. I thought it was good. It seemed to
me he looked at us a bit more this time, and he handled his
notes better. He didn't look out the window. The speech
had strength. I don't know how he could improve it any,
unless maybe if he talked louder so we could hear it.

Smith maintains that students whose class evaluations of speech-
making begin along these lines are likely to display little more per-
ception in criticism by the end of the course; consequently, neither

Q’h
they nor the academic reputation of the speech course is benefited. /
With the objective, therefore, of training the students to become
perceptive in the evaluation of the speeches of their peers, Smith
recommends the use of directed, leading questions.

Smith cautions the instructor that in planning the critique
discussions with the use of leading questions, he should consider the
amount of time available for the discussion of any principle or con-
cept and should respect the limited ability of the student to absorb
and remember the factors that have been discussed and evaluated. He

also suggests that the instructor prepare ahead of time a series of

questions, centering upon any desirable topic, so that he will be ready

 

27?;E¥§°9 P- 59-
2714'Ibid. , p. 61

136

when the opportunity for breaching the topic presents itself.275 The
‘instructor's inpclass preparation for the use of leading questions for
evaluations by students, as well as instructor, should consist of his
taking note, while he is listening to a classroom speech, of two or
three of the speaker's strengths and a like number of hisweaknesses.276
At the conclusion of the speech, the instructor, by means of a carefully
planned question, should initiate the discussion in whatever area seems
to offer the greatest promise of returns for both speaker and listeners.
Examples of such leading questions, categorized roughly accord-

ing to specific areas of speechmaking, appear below. Each of these
general questions, according to Smith, should be followed by one or
more specific questions until the concept has been adequately developed
or until the instructor himself, having reached a point of no return,
supplies the answer. Each general or original query should be direct-
ed to the entire class rather than to any one individual.277 Only after
a short pause, during which all class members have an opportunity to
fermulate their answers, should someone be singled out to answer the
question.

Ceptrgl Idea egg Spgech Purpgse

1 What was the speaker's purpose in this speech?

(2) was the purpose clearly stated?

(3) How well did the Speaker achieve his purpose?

(4) Did he achieve a purpose different from the one intended?

(5) Can anyone restate his central idea so that it is more in

line with what he actually acomplished?
(6) How does this speech relate to you personally?

 

2751mm, p. 61
2761mm, p. 60
277Ibid., p. 61.

137

Speaker Preparation

(i) Did the speaker obviously know more about his topic than
he covered in his speech?

(2) Has the speaker had personal experience with this topic?

(3) How did the Speaker gather his information?

(n) Did he seem to have sufficient sources?

(5) were his sources adequately identified?

(6) Do you accept his sources (or authorities)?

(7) Does he have adequate background for talking on this
subject?

(8) Does he have the latest information?

Main Points
1 How many main points did the speaker have?
(2) Can someone restate his first main point (second, etc.)?
(3) Did each main point support his central idea?
(h)'were his main points in the best possible order?

Su rt

(1) Did the speaker have adequate support for his points?

(2) What type of support did he use?

(3) Did the supporting materials relate directly to the point
at issue?

(4) Did you feel that he might well have included an illustra-
tion or two?

(5) Did he have a sufficient variety of support?

(6) were his statistics (etc.) vivid and clear?

(7) Might shortening the quotations have improved them?

Delive
(1) Could you hear the speaker at all times?
(2) were his gestures appropriate to his words?
(3) Did he articulate clearly?
(h) Which sounds did he misarticulate?
(5) Did anyone notice any misprounounced words?
(6) Was his voice quality pleasant?
(7) was his rate appropriate to his materials?
(8) Did he have variety in pitch? quality? rate? loudness?
(9) Did he look directly at you while speaking?
(10) Did he speak with energy and enthusiasm?
(ll) Did he manage his notes skillfully?
(12) Did his posture and movement aid or detract from his
performance?

(13) Did he talk in a conversational manner?

I1 '1! Ir trill? ill!!! All... I

138

Ian 3 e

(1) Did he talk in spoken or written language?

(2) Did he use vivid and colorful words?

(3) were his action words verbs, nouns, or adjectives?
(h) Did he use specific and exact terms?

(5) Did he make any glittering generalities?

(6) Did he talk on a high level of abstraction?

The Introduction

(1) Did_the opening sentence attract your attention?

(2) What kind of opening sentence was it?

(3) Can you think of any way in which it might have been
improved?

(4) What functions did the introduction serve?

(5) Did he state his central idea in the introduction?

(6) Did he partition his speech in the introduction?

Emotional_Appeal

(1) Did any part of this Speech stir your feeling in any
manner?

(2) How might the speaker have made an emotional appeal
to you with this material?

(3) In what way did he appeal to your patriotism?

Desire for good health? Desire for security?

The above listing of questions, according to Smith, is not
intended to be exhaustive but rather to suggest the direction and
manner of stating the initial question.

Leading questions (such as the above) asked of the classroom
audience for the oral evaluation of their peers serve the general
purpose or function of apprising the student speaker of how effective
he is in communicating with his peers in gaining the response(s) that
he wants. As Holtzman points out, presumably the student speaker is
sincerely concerned with obtaining a particular specific response

from his classmates who consititute a very real audience, not a pre-

2
tended one. 78 That audience, therefore (according to Holtzman), can

 

278Holtzman, The S eech Teacher, IX, p. 4.

139

be of great help in teaching the Speaker, by example (during the
question or discussion period), his next area of focus.

Holtzman further points out that listener's questions can
sometimes best bring to light critical errors of the speaker: errors
of motive, of ambiguity, of confusion in organization, and the like.
Or the student Speaker may think that he has very clearly developed
an idea, only to be subjected to questions which reveal anything but
clarity in the minds of the listeners. An alert instructor-critic,
then (according to Holtzman),,can make use of the class responses
that show themselves in short discussion periods, for purposes of
revealing to the speaker-- via clear, real, personal examples-- a
better understanding of the specific factors about his speaking
performance that created these audience responses.279 At the same
time, the questionpdiscussion period provides the teacher with some
clues to the evaluation of the Speaker's effectiveness, which in
the absence of the oral evaluations by the students, the teacher
may have overlooked.280

Smith notes that leading questions for discussion and evalua-
tion by the students (such as the above)281 serve three specific
functions: (1) They serve first to focus attention upon the desired
rhetorical principle or point. (2) They force the respondent to

commit himself, thus setting the stage for the followaup question.

 

2
79%" Po 5-

280Ibid.

281See su ra, pp. 136-38.

140

(3) If any of these questions should evoke incorrect responses, the
instructor may change to other respondents merely by asking, Does
anyone disagree?282

The sub-questions in each "dialectical chain" (headed by
each of the main or leading questions listed above) demand ever
increasing specificity from the student, requiring not only that he
state his position.but that he give reasons and evidence supporting
it. If, for example, the response to "Did he manage his notes skill-
fully," is “yes," the next question might be, "Just hOW'did he do
this;" or, if the response is "no," the instructor's next question
might be, "What might he do to overcome ?”

In order to help establish an intellectual classroom climate
conducive to achieving the best results from the dialectical approach,
Smith offers the following five general suggestions: (1) Before
initiating the use of leading questions (such as the above) for dis-
cussion and evaluation of classroom Speeches by the students, the
instructor must first cover the material under consideration with
his students. (2) The instructor should make his assignments spe-
cific and clear and should plan each day's work at least two weeks
in advance of the due date with early preparation and daily practice
made mandatory. Speech time limits should be announced and explicit
penalties set for breaking them, as well as for absenteeism and un-

preparedness. (3) The instructor should be capable of offering

 

282Smith, The Speech Teacheg, X, p. 61

1H1

criticism by example; that is, he should be capable of demonstrating
both correct and incorrect patterns of communicative behavior. Al-
though the instructor is not necessarily giving a speech, each time he
offers a criticism he should maintain a general high level of personal
speech performance. (h) All student contributions should in some manner
be acknowledged. Tacit, if not overt, approval should be given for a
desirable attitude or for exceptional industry, even when these factors
are not reflected in the grades assigned to the Speeches. Students
should be made aware of the point that constant improvement is re-
quired, and they should be verbally rewarded for unexpected improve-
ment. (5) The instructor should avoid lengthy discussion of moot

or controversial questions. 'While the asking of questions concerning
the content of the speech, according to Smith, certainly has a legit-
imate place within the framework of speech pedagogy, it should be
limited to demonstrating rhetorical principles or strengths and
weaknesses of preparation. Questions about content can (a) quickly
establish whether the speaker is well versed in his subject or, con-
versely, whether he has exhausted his knowledge within the scope of
one short speech; (b) quickly bring to light unacknowledged facts and
opinions or evidence taken out of context. The instructor must weigh
impartially and judiciously the opinions expressed from the viewpoint

of fair and adequate support.283

 

283Ibide’ Pp. 61-620

1&2

In Short, the dialectial approach to the oral evaluation of
classroom speeches by instructor and students, through the use of
leading questions, serves the students in the beginning course in
two respects: (1) As a speech critic, the student can.becomo more
perceptive in the evaluation of the Speeches of his peers. (2) As a
speech performer, the student learns to a greater extent how effective
he is in communicating with his peers in order to gain from them the
response(s) that he wants.

The Speech literature lists a number of other techniques or
methodologies for the oral evaluation by students of the speeches of
their peers, as follows:28u (1) Call on individual students to serve
as critics without notice and with the understanding that anyone is
likely to be selected to give the needed evaluation. This method,
according to Robinson and Kerikas, keeps each class member on his
toes.285 (2) Call for volunteers from the class to offer suggestions,
using a discussion method. .(3) After a series of performances, invite
students to make short talks of appraisal, with the following speci-
fications: (a) Name your student critics in advance, so they may take
proper notes. (b) Have one.student comment on ideas and their
organization, a second on developmental or supporting details, a third
on bodily action,a fourth on voice, a fifth on enunciation and articula-
tion, a sixth on poise and preparation, a seventh, perhaps on general

effectiveness, and the like. (c) Follow each performance with one

 

8“(See Balcer and Seabury, p. 249; Reid, p. 2&9; and Robinson
and Kerikas, p. 246.

285Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2H6.

143

oral student critique. (h) Use a panel of evaluators, during the
later part of the class period, for purposes of discussing the perfor-
mances of the day. (5) Have the students rate the speakers of the day;
then, call on individual students to justify their ratings with Specif-
ic reasons. (6) In a similar vein, have students rank the speakers of
the day; then, call on individuals to justify their rankings with
specific reasons. Occasionally, according to Robinson and Kerikas,
this procedure can be used to furnish a mild, competitive situation for
a group, eSpecially in a high school class, by the award of some in-
consequential but original object, such as a "certificate of merit,"
a candy bar, a "speech medal," or some similar item.286
As has already been noted, the speech literature recommends
A that the instructor should encourage his beginning public Speaking
students first to focus upon the strong points of their peer's speech-
es.287 Apropos of this recommendation, Reid suggests that the instruc-
tor in the beginning course guide the comments of his students in the
oral evaluation of their peers so that they will empahsize the strong

288 For

points rather than the weak points in their evaluations.
example, the instructor may open the critique session by asking, "Did
anyone notice anything unusually good about any of the Speeches this
hour?” A student may respond by commenting favorably upon the organiza-

tion of A's speech, which comment gives the teacher opportunity to

 

2851bid.

287396 supra, pp. 132-3“.

.9
28k‘Seo Reid, p. 246.

1m

review the Special features of good organization that the speech dis-
played: transitions, summaries, elements of coordination and sub-
ordination, and the like.

Proceeding to a further discussion of the talk, the instructor
might next pose the question, "Any other interesting featurs of A's
talk?" Since these compliments, according to Reid, should give A
a solid basis of reassurance, the instructor may decide to go to the
next speech without any adverse criticism whatever; or he may think
it wise to mention casually something like, "A, you seemed to look
nearly all of the time at these five students over here; next time
try to look at everybody in the room.” Reid recommends, however, that
the instructor overlook anything that comes under the heading of a
trifling sympton of nervousness that, in time, would correct itself.
After the discussion of A's talk is completed, the instructor may con-
tinue asking, ”Did you notice anything unusually good about some other
speech?" and thus proceed to a second discussion. Eventually the
instructor will have talked about every performance-- not necessarily
in chronological order, but in an easy and convenient way as various
points occurred to the class.289

Largely because of the problem of time, some speech instructors
in the beginning course prefer to use written evaluations by students
of their peers. The Speech literature reveals several methods which
instructors have used or which they may use in providing for written

evaluations by students.

;

289Ibid., p. 247.

1&5

written gritiques by Students.-- Cable points out that among
various methods and devices for the written evaluation of students by
their peers he has found the "student criticism card" to give good
results in affording the students an analytical insight into the prin-
ciples of effective speaking, in developing their critical judgment,
and in keeping them profitably employed wihile their peers are speak-
ing.290 Cable explains that the "student criticism cards" are multi-
graphed or mimeographed on half sheets of bond paper and sold to the
students at a price sufficient to cover the expense involved. The
students write their reactions to the speech in the proper spaces,
sign the paper as provided; and all cards are assembled and delivered
to the speaker for him to peruse with a view to self-improvement. As
a means of keeping check on the quality of comments made by the various
members of the classes, Cable recommends that the instructor have
each speaker, after he has looked over the criticism cards for his
speaking performance, hand his pack of criticisms to the instructor
to be returned to him at the next class session. For example, accord-
to Cable, there is a tendency of some students to put down general
comments, such as "good,” ”fair,” "poor.” The instructor should
caution the students against this inclination by requiring them to
state in.what specific respect(s) the item was good, fair, or poor.

Cable asserts that the instructor should not consider these

written criticism to be substitutes for oral criticism and discussion

 

290The writer is indebted to Arthur w. Cable, "A Criticism
Card for Class Use,“ The anrterly Journal of Speech, XII (April, 1926),
pp. 186-88 for the discussion of this method of written evaluations by
students of their peers.

146

of the speeches in class as they are given.
Nothing else can take the place of oral class criticism of
speeches in the light of the elements of effective Speaking;
but such discussion must of necessity be limited, and the
criticism cards serve as a welcome supplement.291
As another technique for the written evaluation by students
of their peers, Reid suggests that the instructor have each student

292 The instructor will give

write a comment about each other student.
each student a slip of paper for each of his classmates. At the end

of the class he will collect the comments and distribute them, so that
each student will take with him a number of slips of paper, bearing
comments about his speech.

A good variation of this procedure, according to Reid, is for
the instructor to collect the slips himself and prepare an exhibit for
the next day‘s class. Across the top of a bulletin board the instruc-
tor will write heading for columns: Critic A, Critic B, Critic C, and
so on. Along the side of the bulletin board the instructor will write
the names of the performers. He will then thumb tack the slips in the
proper square, so that all of Critic A's comments will appear in his
vertical column. The class will study the bulletin board and deter-
mine which critics seem to be the best. The instructor may notice such
revealing points as follows: He will observe that Critic G, for ex-
ample, observes nothing but delivery, his comments being on voice or

action; whereas Critic R notices only pronunciation or grammar. This

exhibit, according to Reid, reveals the listening habits of students.

 

2911bid., p. 18?

2921mm, p. 2u9.

11:»?

The instructor may repeat the exercise later to determine whether the
students have begun to look and listen for a greater variety of factors.
A third technique for the written evaluation of students by
their peers combines listeners' reports or critiques and some visual
aid materials into what Anderson calls a "profile of effectiveness."293
Anderson suggests that the student critics be asked to prepare a pro-
file of effectiveness immediately following the completion of the
Speeches on a given class day. The resources to be used in setting up
this chart include class participation comment, mimeographed rating
sheets, the same rating sheet form superimposed on transparent material,
and a visual aids projector for transparencies. The students fill out
the rating sheets for each Speaker. After the completion of the speech-
es, the class members exchange the rating sheets so that no one would
report results from a paper that he had marked. The instructor then
plots the speaker's effectiveness. This is done by writing with wax
pencil on the transparency rating sheet. Through the use of the pro-
jector, this plotting is projected on a large screen. A show of hands
indicates how many of the class rated the speaker as above average,
average, below average in each of the critique categories: organization,
materials, language, delivery, and the like. Each speaker can then
see the strong and weak points in the light of audience reaction rather

than simply receiving the instructor's grade or comments. Anderson

 

293John 0. Anderson, ”Marine Corps Techniques for Teaching
Effective Speaking," The Speech Teacher, III (September, 195N), pp.
193‘98.

148

does not suggest that this method be used as a means of grading but
simply as a tool to help the student increase his effectiveness. The
major drawback of this technique, as might be surmised, is that it is
time consuming. It may be most practical, according to Anderson, if
used only once or twice during the course.29b
Because of the gnawing size of the beginning public Speaking
class and the resultant decreasing amount of time available for oral
criticisms by the students, Hoogestraat suggests as an alternative in
the area of written criticism the use of "Letters of Evaluation," in
which a student simply writes a letter of evaluation concerning the
speaking of every other member of his class.295 In the use of this
technique for written evaluations by the students, the instructor at
the beginning of the course gives an explanation of the assignment.
Each class member, about midway in the course, is assigned to write a
detailed letter of criticism to every other member of the class. The
content of these letters is based upon the student critic's observation
of the individual speakers over a period of time, including several
oral performances. Thus in a class of 20, each student writes 19
letters; and each student receives an equal number, one from each class-
mate. The content of the letters is also based upon an established

critical standard in accordance with a class lecture devoted to the

presentation of a suggested standard of criticism296 The completed

29“Anderson, The Speech Teacher, III, p. 197.
295Hoogestraat, The Speech Teacher, XII, pp. 29-30.

296Ibid., pp. 29-30

149

letters are turned in to the instructor before they are distributed to
the recipients.
Hoogestraat includes in his article the following comments,
which he suggests are representative of the kind and quality of criticism
that this assignment has yielded: To a student who had been careless
about documentation:
By inserting your personal opinions on the topic into the
Speech you gave the speech an informal presentation. How—
ever, I think you should be careful to distinguish more
carefully between your ideas and the author's ideas.

To a student who was careless about articulation;
. . . This seems like only a minor point, but if not
corrected it may become a major one. Some of the words
which you pronounced incorrectly were "gonna," rather,
than "going to," "fur” rather than "for," and "preparin"
rather than "preparing."

Another student received the following compliment in regard to his

rapport with the audience:
The first thing that comes to my mind, when recalling your
speaking is your great ability to relax your audience. You
speakoas though you were a doctor, the audience your patient,
and your job to make them feel better.

When asked to evaluate this project via a brief anonymous
questionnaire, most of the students reaponded in a favorable vein. At
least one student believed "a lesser sample-- say eight or ten arbi-
trary [Sic] individuals or assigned individuals--” would be preferred
to the involvement of the whole class in the writing of letters for
each Speaker

Hoogestraat believes that with some modification to perfect the

technique and with some adaptation to fit it into local circumstances,

150

the writing by students of letters of evaluation can prove to be a
highly worth-while assignment.297
One other method, reported in the literature, for the written
evaluation.by students for other members of the same class is the use
of "Blue Book Criticisms." Hildebrandt avers that this method has
proved so effective in helping Speech students to improve their public
speaking that it is employed by most instructors in the beginning
course at the University of Michigan and by several instructors of
more advanced speaking courses.298 Their value at the University of
Michigan, according to Hildebrandt, has been feurfold:
(1) They serve in many instances as an adjunct to the daily
oral and written criticisms of the instructor and the
(2) Th:;SServe to reinforce, primarily through repetition,

areas where the individual student is especially weak.
(3) They serve as a circumspect exercise in listening.

(4) They serve as excellent summary critiques which the
instructgg can analyze in conjunction with his staff
members. 9
Essentially, this is what is done: Students are encouraged to
make written observations in a Speech notebook concerning each class
member every time that member presents a speech. These notebook
comments are then assimilated into a written essay of from one to three

pages in length for each member of the class. The essays are handed

in to the instructor, who grades and collocates them before returning

 

297Ibid., p. 30.

298HerbertW. Hildebrandt and walter W. Stevens, "Bluebook
Criticisms at Michigan,” The Speech Teacher, IX (January, 1960),
pp.20-22.

2991bid.

151

to each student in one neat, stapled sheaf all those criticisms addressed
to him. Each student is asked to summarize in simple chart form

the critiques which he has received. For example, he may utilize
headings similar to the major units of the course, such as delivery,
organization, evidence, reasoning, and language; and then simply tally
the number of remarks made pertaining to each.

In order for a subsequent conference meeting of the instructor
with each of his students (concerning the sheaf of criticisms that he
has received) to be beneficial, both the negative and the positive
criticisms are recorded-- the positive in order to chart possible im-
provement and the negative in order to identify areas requiring more
work. In conference the instructor and student discuss the student's
speaking in terms of comments made by the class members. The fact
that 10 or 15 fellow students mention a given difficulty tends to con-
firm its significance in the eyes of the person who receives the
comments. It is in the conference meeting between instructor and stu-
dent that the bluebook criticisms exhibit their value as a pedagogical
device.300 Here the instructor generally discovers (according to
Hildebrandt) that he has a motivated student with a desire to eliminate
his weaknesses. That is, throughout the conference the student often
evidences a receptive and ready predisposition to attend to the in-

structor's specific specific suggestions which are adapted and related

 

30°Ibid., p. 21. Hildebrandt and Stevens state that a signif-
icant part of this exercise on bluebook criticisms occurs in this con-
ference, at which time the instructors follow up the assignment ‘with
careful analyses of the criticisms received by their students.

to the student's own personal and unique problems in public speaking.

In order to guarantee criticisms of quality and to facilitate
the instructor's handling the hundreds of individual essays, the pro-
cedure of doing the written criticisms has to be organized and ad-
ministered carefully. Orally and in written form the class is given
the following instructions:

(1) Use bluebooks of a consistent size.

(2) Use ink or typewriter.

(3) Utilize only one sheet for each speaker.

E4) Place the name of the speaker at the top of the page.

5) Make the critiques anonymous. 'write your name on a
separate card and attach the card to your criticisms so
that you may receive credit for doing the assignment.

(6) Submit your critique for a Speaker the next class period
after his Speech during this round of speaking.

(7) Should you be absent during this coming Speech round, do
critiques for that day's program of Speakers based upon
your previous observations.

Hildebrandt and Stevens add the following instructions for the wording
of the bluebook criticisms:

(1) Base all criticisms upon the comments which are recorded
in your speech notebook as well as upon observations made
during the Speech round.

(2) Express your opinions honestly and frankly, even though
they may deal with such matters as the personality,
habits, and dress of the speaker.

(3) Employ established criteria for your evaluation. For ex-
ample, use headings consistent with material learned in
in the course:

1. Platform.Delivery
a. Vocal
b. Physical
2. Speech Organization
a. Types of idea movement
b. Clarity of movement

 

301Hildebrandt and Stevens note that beginning with the
rudiments of public Speaking and concluding with more complex material,
the students are exposed to basic rhetorical theory through the text-
book and the lectures by the instructor to enable them, after a per-
iod of time, to record reasonably intelligent appraisals.

153

(4) Provide specific examples to support your statements beneath
the above headings.
(5) Give each speaker an alphabetical grade on his speaking

to date.

The grading of each student by his peers is optional; but
(according to Hildebrandt and Stevens), when it is employed, there
is a suprising unanimity regarding the class standing of many of the
students. The critiques, though based upon observations made during
a period of perhaps two months, are written in conjunction with a
given Speech round, one usually toward the end of the semester.

Hildebrandt and Stevens report that student opinion tends to
support the significance of the bluebook criticisms assignment. The
students suggest that it offers them an opportunity to prepare ex-
tended and careful speech criticisms on their own. Further, it en-
ables them.to receive,in detail, a precise, personal appraisal of
their speaking from every other class member. Finally, the written
critiques serve as a basis for a valuable conference between them-
selves and the instructor.302

The speech literature briefly discusses (or just mentions) a
number of other techniques or methods for the written evaluation by
students of their peers. Raubicheck suggests that while most of the

class concentrates on one general phase of the subject (such as in

answers given to the four questions footnoted below),303’ fine or two

 

302Ibid., p. 22.

303(1)Whatwas the speaker striving to accomplis?
(2)Did he accomplish this aim (with his audience)?
(3)What logical, ethical, or emotional appeals helped to

”accomplish the speaker's end?

suse f what 3 ech fa tors hi dered the
”speaker'” 's e orts in accomplishing this and d?

154

students may be designated as special critics assigned to particular
phases. For example, if the purpose of the previous lesson has been
to give practice in organizing material, one student might be assigned
to report at the end of the period upon the organization of all the
speeches presented. Raubicheck also recommends that the beginning
public speaking class evolve a simple critique outline which can be
applied by the students in the evaluation of their peers until the
average student has acquired some practice in constructive criticism.
Such an outline should be characterized by brevity and should indicate
graphically the relative importance of certain speech factors that
pertain particularly to the speaker's securing appropriate audience
response.‘ It might contain such items as:

(1) Did I or did I not enjoy the Speech? Why?

(2) Did the speaker seem to be talk directly to us, or did

he seem to be reciting a memorized speech?
(3) In what wagofiould the speaker have made his Speech more
effective?

Further methods for written evaluations by students of their peers
briefly mentioned in the literature are as follows:305 (1) Give each
student a rating blank that allows for written comments or explanations

of the check marks, so that the student will be reminded to be specific

and thorough in his criticism. Each student should receive a rating

 

30*Raubicheek, p. 121.

305See Balcer and Seabury, pp. 249-50; Catt and Brandenburg,
The Speech Teacher. I, p. 113; Crandell, The Quarterly Journal of
Speech; XXVIII, p. 482; Friederich and Wilcox, p. #38; Heffron and
Duffey, p. 102; Robinson and Kerikas, p. 2H6.

155

blank for each person who is to speak during the class period. At

the end of the period the rating blanks are to be handed to the Speak-
er, signed or unsigned as the teacher and students elect. Balcer and
Seabury suggest that these ratings might be posted on the bulleting
board. Although (according to Friederich and Wilcox) class ratings
of their peers must be carefully supervised, they are an effective

300 (2) At least once or twice durinE

means of encouraging progress.
the semester have the students write personal, unsigned comments of
each other on separate blank sheets of paper, writing whatever comments
they believe to be appropriate about the speech performance. Crandell
warns the instructor, however, to guard against the student criti-
cisms developing into carping.307 (3) A variation of (2), suggested
by Catt and Brandenberg, is to have each class member submit a
"listener's report," on which he indicates a statement of what he
thought was the central idea or point of the speech. This assignment
of written evaluations by the class members alerts each speaker to

try to make the primary idea of his Speech as clear as possible.

(u) Have students rank speakers of the day and post the rankings on

the bulletin board. (5) Have each student write one important compli—
ment, one important suggestion, one rating, and one rank for each
performance in a series of Speech performances; and have these papers

handed to the teacher. Ask each student to Sign his paper, so that

 

306Friederich and Wilcox, p. #38.

307Crande11, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII, p. use.

156

the teacher can study the work of each evaluator and, after removing
the name of the evaluator from each paper, hand the papers to the
Speaker.

Balcer and Seabury note that many teachers of the beginning
course have found it wise to collect all completed rating forms and
paragraphs of compliments and suggestions at the end of a class
period, keeping them until the next period. In the interim, the
teacher can sort and assemble each student's evaluations and carefully
analyze the ratings, ranks, and remarks by members of the class for
each student. Any rating or remark which is "way out of line" may
be removed from the assortment and destroyed if it does not benefit
the student speaker. Then, the evaluations can be returned to the
students at the following class period. This close scrutiny can
also aid the teacher in discovering weaknesses in the evaluation
standards and in discovering individual students who need counsel in
applying standards for the evauation of speeches.308

In brief, (1) student written evaluations of students afford
the students an opportunity to prepare carefully speech criticism on
their own; and this activity teaches them to make valid evaluations
of Speeches, Speaking, and speechmaking. (2) At the same time,
written student evaluations of their peers enable the students to
receive in greater or lesser detail a personal appraisal of their
speaking from every other student. (3) Third, student written evalua-

tions of students serve as a basis for private conference sessions

 

308Balcer and Seabury, p. 250.

157

of the student with his instructor. (4) Finally, among other Possible
values, student written evaluations of their peers serve to give the
students an analytical insight into the principles of effective speak-
ing and to help them in developing their critical judgment.

In the context of Tyler‘s principles of effective learning,
the practice of preparing written evaluations of the Speeches of
their peers provides opportunities for growth in learning. (1) This
practice of evaluation or listening (in addition to speaking) gives
the student a different approach to his attempt at improving his
Speaking performance because he is able to see, in part, some strengths
and weaknesses in his own performance when he first observes them in
the speaking performances of his peers. (2) Student written evalua-
tions of students give each student the satisfaction of the knowledge
of the results or effectiveness of his Speaking, not only from his
instructor but also from his fellow students. (3) written evaluations
received by the students from their peers provide another source
from which the instructor may counsel and guide the students in their
efforts to improve their speaking performances. (h) The practice of
student written evaluations of their peers assists the students in
the development of their critical judgment to enable them beyond the
classroom, not only effectively to evaluate the speeches of others,
but also, as they become self-directive, effectively to evaluate their
own speeches.

Methodology and Rationale for the Evaluation of Speeches in

the Beginning Public Speaking Course has now been considered from the

158

point of view of the students, as well as of the instructor. Studies
and comments from the literature have been surveyed and f: integrated
for purposes of informing the instructor of many of the values (with
certain limitations imposed) in assigning students in the beginning
course to evaluate the speeches of their peers and for purposes of
apprising the instructor of several of the methods that he might use
to make student participation in the critique period a fruitful ex-

perience for the entire class.

The purpose of this chapter has been to survey and integrate
the sundry materials from the speech literature relative to specific
factors of methodology and rationale for the evaluation of Speeches
in the beginning public speaking course in college, and to relate to
these factors some of the pertinent principles of effective learning.

A careful study has been made from the literature of a number
of conditions for the effective evaluations of Speeches in the begin-
ning public Speaking course as follows: (1) The instructor should
understand the nature and purpose of criticism; (2) he should estab-
lish rapport between himself and his students; (3) the instructor
should use clear, explicit language for the evaluation of student
speeches. (h) The instructor should be certain that the evaluation
of the student's Speeches is based upon (a) the student's attainment
of goals previously set up by the class, (b) the class discussion of
rhetorical principles, (9) the application of objectivity to the

evaluation of speeches to lessen fear in the speech classs, to increase

159

the students' reSpect for the instructor and for Speech as an academic
subject, and to provide greater substance to the knowledge and under-
standing possessed by these students.

In the second section of chapter III, attention was given to
the time fgctor of the critique (both in terms of the course and in
terms of the class period), to the form of presentation of the criti-
que (oral, written, or both), to the content of the critique (focus
of attention upon favorable versus unfavorable comments, focus of
attention upon what the student should do for his next speech, and
focus of attention upon only a few of the most important strong and
weak points of the Speech), to the vehicle for the written critique.
and to the use of student critiques.

Insofar as the problem of when to criticize the student is
concerned, the literature seems to recommend that the instructor
use that time method of evaluation-- during the Speech, immediately
after each Speech (or after each third or fourth Speech), at the end
of the period, at the end of a round of speeches, outside of class
in personal conference-- that will enable him most effectively (1) to
motivate and to guide the students to recognize and accept their
Speech potential and Speech needs, and to assume a wholesome attitude
toward their peers and toward the suggestions for more effective
communication that they can give to one another; (2) to aid the
students in the development of their strong points and in the elimina-
tion of their weak points; and (3) to give them the needed tools by

which to judge their speaking performances over against the goals

160

or standards that they have set for their performances both inside
and outside of the classroom.

Chapter III has also pointed out that the instructor should
consider the use of that form for the presentation of the critique
(oral, written, or both) that will enable him most effectively to
achieve motivation of his students, improved patterns of their speak-
ing performance, and knowledge of the results or effectiveness of
their communicative efforts.

. The. literature notes that the securing of a balance between
favorable and unfavorable comments in the giving of a critique is
not a factor that can be adjustod to the whole class; it is one,
rather, that must bo adjustod to each individual within the class.
The speech literature doos suggest, however, the instructor should
placo moro omphasis upon favorable points than unfavorable points in
his evaluation of spooches in the beginning courso, in order (1) to
holp develop more offoctivoly tho studont‘s standards or goals for
improvement in spaking porformanco, (2) to incroaso the student'8
confidonco by giving him a sonso of achievement, (3) to motivate the
studont as it stimulatos him in tho achiovomont of his courso goals,
(it) to croato a rolaxod, positivo class climato, in which tho in-
structor's critiquo sorvos to encourage, not discourago, the student
in his efforts to improvo his opoaking porformauco, (5) to stimulate
the studont to ongago in a solfeappraisal of his offorts-- a nocossary
practioo for tho studont if his spoaking porformanco is to continue

to improve subsoquont to his class oxporioncoo.

161

Questions are raised in the literature concerning the focus
of attention in the content of the critique upon the speech itself
(the speech just given or the next speech) and upon the mmber of
points to be covered in the critique: (l) The instructor in focusing
attention upon weaknesses in the speech which the student has just
given,should concentrate his crituque upon a single, significant idea
for improvement involving a factor upon which there can be improvement.
(2) The instructor should focus attention, not upon the student's
current speech, but upon what he might do to strengthen his next
speech (a) to avoid being too blunt in discussing the communicative
weaknesses in the speech just heard, and (b) to abide by the principle
'of ”progressiveness' of the critique so that,the items focused upon
in the ctitique constitute the next logical step(s) in the student's
speech improvement. (3) The instructor in his evaluation should
withheld from the student's attention certain communicative problems
until such time as the student more fully understands the nature
of’the problems and is receptive to the instructor's discussion of
them

According to the speech literature, the use of a standard
of specific check list or rating scale and/or of a blank sheet of
paper with or without carbons constitutes the chief vehicle for the
written critique. Both the check list or rating scale and the blank
sheet of paper with carbons are efficient ways of helping both students

and the instructor to note progress and continued needs.

162

Unlike the blank sheet of paper, the check lists or rating
scales help the teacher to keep important, specific items for evalua-
tion and they crystallize the thinking of the teacher in order to pre-
vent uni from emphasizing the obviously good features of the perfor-
mance to the exclusion of the bad, or vice versa. Further, the develop-
ment of the use of the check list or rating scale helps students to
review the essentials of the speech process with the greatest value
resulting from the m, rather than the using of the scale to
add variety to classroom procedure.

Unlike the check list or rating scale, the blank sheet of
paper offers the instructor some advantages of individual treatment
and of focusing upon the individual speaker and identifying those
factors which merit praise and which call for suggestions.

‘Hithin the context of principles of effective learning, both
the check list and the blank sheet of paper, (1) give the student
speaker the satisfaction of knowledge of results or effectiveness of
his speaking and (2) not only shows the student how he can improve
his present speaking perfbrmanoe but also encourage“ and enable: the
to keep setting his sights higher. Both the check list and the blank
sheet of paper afferd the instructor an aid for the guidance of his
students: (1) The check list, with the list of criteria to serve as
a reminder of factors to be covered in the critique, affords an aid
to the instructor in providing specific suggestions in guiding the

the student in his efforts to improve his speaking performance.

163

(2) The blank sheet of paper affords the instructor an aid to the
guidance of his students with the use of individual treatment, with
focus upon the individual strengths and weaknesses to help each student
improve his speaking performance. At the same time, in the context of
principles of learning, the use of the check list or rating scale--
through the assignment to mgkg_rather than.merely use the instrument--
affords variation in class activity by enabling each student to practice
a different approach to his efforts in improving his Speaking perfor-
mance.

The speech literature notes certain conditions which are "out~
of-bounds' insofar as the practice of student evaluations of students
is concerned. (1) Some sources believe that the more technical aspects
of speaking (particularly of speech delivery) should be placed beyond
the province of the student critic. (2) Other sources believe that
the instructor in the beginning course should use only a particular
form (for example a diagnostic blank) as a medium for student criti-
(3) Many sources who would limit the use of classroom evaluations by
students assert that students should not be permitted to evaluate the
speeches of their peers early in the course before standards of criti-
cism have been formed for student understanding and acceptance.

Student evaluation of students, according to the speech
literature, is beneficial to the beginning public speaking student in
eanbling him to deve10p high standards of speech performance, as well
as appropriate standards of Speech evaluation, and to learn how effec-
tive he is in communicating with his peers in securing the response

164

that he desires. Expressed in terms of Tyler's principles of effective
learning, (1) student evaluation of students encourages and enables

the speaker to keep setting his sights higher as it also shows him

how he can improve his present level of Speaking performance; and

(2) the evaluation of students by their peers gives each student the

. satisfaction of knowing the results or effectiveness of his speaking,
not only from his instructor but also from his fellow studentS.

In addition.to the above values of student critiques, the
preparation of written evaluations of the speeches of their peers (1)
enables the students to practice a different approach in their attempt
to improve their Speaking performances, (2) provides the instructor
another means of channel by which to counsel and guide the students
in their efforts to improve their speaking performances, and (3)
assists the students in the development of their critical judgment
to enable then.beyond the classroom, not only effectively to evaluate
the speeches of others, but also, as they become self-directive,
effectively to evaluate their own speeches.

In short, the evaluation of Speeches in the beginning public
speaking course by the instructor and especially by both instructor
and student should constitute a learning experience for the student
that should enable him beyond the classroom effectively both to
communicate and to evaluate his own speaking, as well as that of
others. I

The instructor should base his choice of (1) when to criticize

relative to the course and to the class period, (2) what form of

165

criticism to use (oral, written or both), (3) what factors of content
to be embodied in the critique (favorable versus unfavorable comments,
focus of attention upon current Speech or next speech, number of items
to be covered in the critique), (h) what vehicle to use for the written
critique, and (5) whether or not to use student evaluations in addi-
tion to instructor evaluations upon the following conditions: (1)
student motivation, (2) needgfor improved Speaking performance, (3)
guidance, (h) materials and time for practice of materials, (5) satis-
faction stemming from knowledge of results or effectiveness of the
Speaking performance, (6) practice of different approaches to the task
of improving speaking performances, (7) the setting of higher standards
of performance, and (8) the practice of self~evaluation.

The bringing together or fusion of these various methods of
evaluation with these results of growth in learning in the beginning
public speaking classroom should create for the student an effective

climate for learning.

CHAPTER IV

REPORT OF INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES

Igtroduction
The writer believes that an investigation of the methodology

and rationale for the evaluation of Speeches in the beginning public
Speaking course is not complete without pursuing some means of ascer-
taining from instructors the methods that they use in the evaluation
of their beginning public Speaking students and the rationales behind
their use of these methods. A survey of the methods of evaluation
used and the rationales for the methods used by instructors in the
beginning course should serve to give an answer to the question con-
cerning the extent to which the theory of evaluation of classroom
speeches discussed in the speech literature corresponds with, or
differs from, the actual practice of evaluation by various teachers
in the beginning course.

Furthermore, as noted in chapter I, very few studies or
discussions in the literature reveal the nature of the reaction of
students, or the ”consumers” of the evaluations in the beginning
course. Do the students agree or disagree with the discussions in
the literature and with the points of view of instructors concerning
the most effective methods and the rationales behind the methods

used in the evaluaion of Speeches in the beginning course?

166

167

For purposes of finding answers to questions concering the
attitudes and practices of teachers and the attitudes of students re-
garding the.evaluations of speeches in the beginning course, question-
naires for a selected group of college teachers and other question-
naires for several groups of college students were constructed.

The materials of these questionnaires (content and rationale
for this content), the procedures of administration, and the data

gathered are as follows.1

Materials

The two questionnaires were prepared for Speech teachers in the
Central States area.2 The first questionnaire deals with methodology
of evaluations used ("Methods Used and/or Preferred in the Criticism
of Classroom Speeches in the Beginning Public Speaking Course in
College"). The second questionnaire deals with the rationale for the
methods used in the evaluations (”Rationale for Methods Used/or
Preferred in the Criticism of Classroom Speeches in the Beginning
Public Speaking Course in College”).

The decision to use 329 questionnaires for teachers was '
based upon two factors: reactions from a preliminary investigation,

and principles of questionnaires construction.

 

1The instructor and student questionnaires are reproduced in
full on the following pages so that every detail of them can be seen
as. the backdrop for the forthcoming section.

2The rationale for selection of this sample appears in the
next section of this chapter.

168

Him-10:33 USED MID/OR PIEFER‘LSD IN- THE CRITICISM OF CIASSPIJOM
SPEECPES IN TH; SEGII-zchm PUBLIC Shun-2C COURSE II: COLLEGE

INSTRUCTIONS:
_1. Please place a check in the space at the right of only the
Arabic-numbered methods or variables listed below which you
use and/or prefer in the criticism of classroom Speeches.

2. Please check ongy the small-lettered provisions or restric-
tions which appIy specifically to the checked methods or

variables which you use and/or prefer in the criticism of
classroom speeches.

I. INSTRUCTOR CRITIQUES

A. Time Factor of the Critigge in Terms of the Course

1. As a general rule, I criticize students early'in the
course only. 0

2. As a general rule, I criticize students after the
first two or three speeches (hereafter referred to
as later) in the course only.

.2...
3. As a general rule, I criticize students throughout
the course. 4521.

I criticize students throughout the course in terms of
one or more of the following (checked) provisions or

restrictions: '
a. Only if the critiques are oral 1]
b. Only if they are in written form. 11
c. Only if they focus primary attention on the

favorable factors concerning the speech. 2

d. Other provisions or restrictions.

e. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

4. As a general rule, I do not criticize students in con-
nection'with every speech—that they give. 18
I handle this method of criticism with the use of one
or more of the following (checked) provisions or
restrictions:
a. I criticize only every other speech that the students

give during the course, which fact I make known to
them.

 

*=Please underscore that part of the “used and/or preferred” portion
of the above title which applies to your particular situation.

169

b. I criticize only every other speech which the
students give during the course, which fact I do
ggt_make known to them.

c. I criticize only the first and the last Speeches,
which fact I make known to the students.

d. I criticize only the first and last Speeches, which
fact I do n23 make known to the students.

e. I criticize the students randomly throughout the
course (omitting the criticisms of one or more
rounds of speeches and/or of one or more speeches
‘within a round of Speeches), but the students will
be told at the beginning of a round or of a class
period of speeches whether or not they shall receive
critiques.

f. I criticize thestudents randomly throughout the
course (omitting the criticisms of one or more
rounds of speeches and/or of one or more speeches
within a round of Speeches), and the students will
'32: be told when they shall receive critiques.

g. Other provisions or restrictions:

h. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

B. Time Factor of_the Critigge in Terms of the Class Period
1. As a general rule, I criticize students during the
speech.

in

I use this m thod in terms of one or more of the follow;

ing (checked provisions or restrictions:
a. Only if the critiques are given early in the course.
b. Only if they are given later in the course.

c. Only if they can be given by signs so as not to
interrupt the Speaker.

d. Only if the deal primarily with factors of delivery.
e. Other provisions or restrictions:

f. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

2. AS a general rule, I criticize students immediately
after each speech.

I use this method of criticism in terms of one or
more of the following (checked) provisions or restric-
tions:

HS H»

h

3.

5.

6.

8-.

c.
d.
e.

f.

g.

170

Only if the oral and/or written critiques are given
early in the course.

Only if these critiques are given later in the
course.

Only if the critiques are in written form.

Only if they are oral.

Only if I am confident that the students involved
are ready right after speaking to profit from

oral and/or written critiques.

Other provisions or restrictions:

None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

AS a general rule, I criticize students during the

period allotted after the Speeches of the day have been

given.

W |~

F

F

I use this method in terms of one or more of the fellows
ing (checked) provisions or restrictions:

a. Only if time will not permit the giving of critiques

b.
c.

d.

6o

f.

g.

h.

after each speech.

Only if these critiques are given early in the
course.

Only if they are given later in the course.
Only if the critiques serve as a summary of the
essential strong and weak points of the speeches
of the day.

Only if they are individualized and include the
same cont-ntt as critiques given after each speech.
Only if I believe that some of the students are
not ready to profit by the critiques if given
immediately after the Speech. '

Other provisions or restrictions:

None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

From time to time during the course I use all three of
the above-mentioned time methods of criticism (during
the speech, immediately after the Speech, at the end
of the period.)

From time to time during the course, I use the first
‘532 of the above mentioned time methods of criticism.

From time to time during the course, I use the last
Egg of the above-mentioned time methods of criticism.

171

C. Presentation of the Critique

1. As a general rule, I give oral critiques only.

2. AS a general rule, I give written critiques only.

3.

As a general rule, I give both oral and written
critiques.

I use this third method in terms of one or more of the
following (checked) provisions or restrictions:

8..

Ce

d.

e.

f.

I give oral critiques only that are applicable and
beneficial to the class as a whole and written
critiques only that are Specifically applicable

and beneficial to the students whose speech is the
object of the critique.

I give oral critiques only immediately after each
speech and hand out written critiques at the end
of the period.

I hand out written critiques only after each speech
and give oral critiques only during the period
allotted after the Speeches of the day have been
given.

I vary the giving or oral and/or written critiques
from round to round or from Speech to Speech within
a. mllnde

Other provisions or restrictions:

None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

D. Content of the Critique

1. As a general rule, I give critiques with a greater
concentration upon unfavorable comments than upon
favorable comments.

I use this method of criticism in terms of one or more
of the following (checked) provisions or restrictions:

8.

Only if these critiques are given early in the
course.

Only if they are given later in the course.

Only if they are given orally.

Only if they are given in written form.

Only if I believe that the individual student in-
volved is capable of receiving such criticisms ob-
jectively and with profit.

Other provisions or restrictions:

10

10

14

N
\3

H

5.

172

g. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

As a general rule, I give critiques with a greater

concentration upon favorable comments than upon un-
favorable comments.

I use this method of criticism in terms of one or more
of the following (checked) provisions or restrictions:
a. Only if these critiques are given early in the
course.

Only if they are given later in the course.

Only if they are given orally.

Only if they are given in written form.

Other provisions or restrictions:

be
Ce
d.
e.

f. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.
As a general rule, I give critiques with about an even
balance between favorable and unfavorable comments.

As a general rule, I focus attention in the criticism
of Speeches upon what the student should do in pre-
paring for the next speech rather than upon what the
student did well or poorly in the speech just given.

As a general rule, I focus attention in the criticism
of Speeches upon only a few of the most important
factors concerning the student's Speech (strong and
weak points) rather than try to focus attention (the
amount of time spent in the criticisms being equal)
upon all of the factors (strong and weak points) rel-
evant to the student's Speech.

HsH» 38

[a

re
x:

68

 

E. Vehicle for the written Critigue
1. As a general rule, I use a standard check list with

room for comments.

2. As a general rule, I use a specific check list pre-
pared for each speech assignment with room for
comments.

3. As a general rule during the course of the term. I use
either the standard check list or the specific check
list.

173

I use either the standard or the specific check list
in terms of one (or possibly more) of the following
(checked) provisions or restrictions:
a. I vary the use of the two kinds of check lists

randomly from round to round. 5
b. I use the specific check list only for those

speeches which call for a concentration upon

Speech factors not listed in the standard check

liSte _1—

c. Other provisions or restrictions:

d. None of the aforesaid provisions or restrictions.

4. As a general rule, I use a blank Sheet of paper in
the giving of written critiques. 31

5. From time to time during the course, I use all three
vehicles for the written critique (standard check
list, specific check list, and a blank sheet of paper). 22

0. As a general rule, I use a standard or specific check

list for written comments and a blank sheet of paper
for notes from which to give oral comments. 5

Other methods or variables in the giving of instructor critiques:

II. STUDENT CRITIQUES
1. I do n23 'use student as well as instructor critiques. 12

 

\0
fl

2. I‘gg'use student as well as instructor critiques.

 

I use student as well as instructor critiques in terms
of one or more of the following (checked) provisions or
restrictions:

a. Only if I am sure that the individual students in-
volved will receive criticisms from their peers
objectively and with profit. 20

b. I use student critiques throughout the course.

c. I use student critiques only later in the course.

It!

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

me

ne

0.

q.

1‘.

5.

17h

Only if there is time for them after I have com—
pleted my comments.

I generally use student critiques before giving
my critiques.

I use both student oral and written critiques of
the same Speeches.

I use only student oral critiques of the same
speeches.

I use only student written critiques of the same
Speeches.

I vary the use of student oral and written critiques

from round to round of Speeches.

I vary the use of student oral and written critiques

from Speech to Speech within rounds of speeches.

I have student written critiques distributed to
Speakers after each speech and use student oral
critiques during the period allotted after the
speeches of the day have been given.

I use student oral critiques after each Speech and
have student written critiques handed out to the
speakers at the end of the period.

I inform all students at the outset of the period
that they should be ready to criticize the Speeches
of the day.

I do get inform the students at the outset of the
period that they should be ready to criticize the
speeches of the day.

I assign one or more students each to criticize one
of the speeches of the day.

I have the students use a standard or specific
check list (with room for comments) throughtout
the course for the giving of written critique.

I have the students use a blank Sheet of paper for
written critiques (throughout the course).

I have the students use a standard or Specific
check list (with room for comments) early in the
course and a blank sheet of paper later in the
course for written critiques.

-Other provisions or restrictions:

N
aft

 

 

LN?

b.)

Fig FF

Other methods or variables or comments in the giving of student
critiques:

175

RATIONALE FOR METHODS USED AND/OR PREFERRED IN THE CRITICISM
OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES IN THE BEGINNING PUBLIC
SPEAKING COURSE IN COLLEGE

Name and school of respondent

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Please place a check in the Space at the right ofo only the
Arabic-numbered method(s) or variab1e(s) (more than one may
be checked.) listed below'which you use and/or prefer in the
criticism of classroom speeches.

2. Please check only the small-lettered reason(s) (More than one
may be checked.) which serve as the rationale for your use of
the checked Arabic-numbered method under which the reasons
appear.

I. INSTRUCTOR CRITIQUES

A. Time Factor of the Critique in Terms of the Course
1. As a general rule I begin to criticize or evaluate the
students after the first two or three speeches in the
course because ‘ 2]
a. I believe that some of the students are too wrought
up or too nervous in the presentation of the early
speeches to be prepared te receive objectively criti-
cisms concerning their speeches. 8
b. AS a rule I assign.ninor presentations early in the
course primarily for the purpose of helping the
students to become more emotionally adjusted to the
speaking situation; hence I feel that criticisms of
these early Speeches would defeat this purpose. 10
c. I believe that any comments that are made concerning
student speeches early in the course should be
favorable only (and this really is not full-erbed
evaluatien) in nature in order to help the student
to become emotionally adjusted to the speaking sit-
uation. 8
d. Other reasons:

2. As a general rule I criticize students throughout the
course because 62
a. Every speech must be criticized or evaluated if the
student is to be able to improve the effectiveness
of his speaking (content and delivery). 55

176

b. Students must receive oral and/or written evaluations
throughout the course in order to learn the language
of speech evaluation sufficiently to be able to
evaluate the speeches of their peers. 2;
c. Students feel that they have been cheated if they
have net received some kind of instructor evaluation
for all of their speeches. 25
d. Other reasons:

 

3. As a general rule I do pg; criticize students in con-

nection with every speech that they give because 12
a. Time does not permit criticizing every Speech that
the students give during the course. 11

b. I find that evaluating every other Speech Which the
students give, beginning with the first or second
speech. gives the students all of the factors that
they can effectively concentrate on for the improve—
ment of their speaking.

c. Students will often be even more alert in the giving
of Speeches when they are ggt evaluated every round
than when they are evaluated every round, especially
if they do not know whether they are to receive an
evaluation for their speech.

d. Other reasons:

B. Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Class Period
1. As a general rule I make known the criticisms of
speeches to the students during the speech (in addition
to writing the critique while the student is speaking)

because 11
a. This method reveals immediately to the student the
Specific areas of his weakness. 1

b. This method forces the student to deal with his
weakness(es) on the Spot and gives him the oppor-
tunity to practice the correction of the weakness(es)
in the same speech.

c. This method enables the instructor to deal more
effectively with the Speakers' weaknesses with re-
Spect to delivery than is the case with criticizing
the Speeches at any other time during the same
class period. 2

d. This method is to be preferred to any other time
variable (See B. 2. and 3.) especially in dealing
with the particularly weak speeches in which extreme
cases of nonfluencies or oft-repeated simple errors
seriously undermine the speaker's effectiveness.

e. Other reasons:

177

2. As a general rule I criticize students immediately after
each Speech because
a. I feel that this time method of evaluating Speeches

is more effective than criticizing the Speech dur-

ing the Speech for one or more of the following

reasons: ‘

(l) Evaluations immediately after the speech are
less embarassing and less upsetting to the
student emotionally than are criticisms during
the speech.

(2) Criticisms during the speech often keep or dis-
courage the student from observing and respond-
ing, on his own, to audience feedback. The
student, instead, would let the instructor pro-
vide the feedback for him.

(3) Criticisms after the speech deal more specif-
icially with the content of the Speech than.do
criticisms during the speech.

(a) Criticisms after the Speech tend to be better
organized than are criticisms given during the
speech.

(5) Other reasons:

I feel that criticizing immediately after each

speech is more effective than criticizing during the

period allotted after the speeches of the day have

been given for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Students can better relate comments to strong
and weak points of the Speech.

(2) Students can better understand comments on
delivery.

(3) Students are anxious to hear criticisms of their
speeches as soon as possible.

(h) Criticisms tend to be more personal

(5) Students are better able to relate the pertinent

.50..

10

10

A)

HE IS 18 #3

criticisms of some of the other Speeches to their
own speeches when criticisms are given immediate-

ly after each speech.
(0) Other reasons:

3. As a general rule I criticize students during the
period allotted after the Speeches of the day have been
given, rather than immediately after each speech

, because

8.

Students are more emotionally settled to listen to
the criticisms when given at the end of the period.

I»
N

.23..

20

Ce

3.

178

Criticisms at the end of the period avoid breaks
between Speeches when students are anxious to give
their speeches.

All of the students will have given their speeches
before the critiques are given; hence, the students
will more likely listen more attentively to all of
the evaluations without having to worry about their
speeches yet to be given.

Criticizing the Speeches at the end of the period,
as a rule, requires less class time than does eval-
uating speeches immediately after each Speech.
Other reasons:

C. Presentation of the Critique
1. As a general rule I give oral critiques ogly because

2.

a.

b.

Co

8.

As
a.

b.

Ce

6.

Oral evaluations of a speech performance not only
help the student speaking but provide help for the
whole class.

I feel that through oral evaluations I can more
effectively teach Speech concepts and vocabulary to
the whole class than through written evaluations.
Oral critiques help me more closely to tie in and to
evaluate Specific performances by the standards set
up by the class and teacher.

Oral critiques enable the students to see clearly
in the speeches of their peers the presence of weak
points like those criticized in their own speeches,
which fact reinforces for the students the need for
correcting the weak points that have been discussed.
Other reasons:

a general rule I give written critiques only because
This method allows for the presentation of more
Speeches than is the case with the use of oral
critiques.

'Written critiques give the students a written re-
minder of weaknesses that should be dealt with in
preparing for subsequent Speeches.

written critiques, as opposed to oral critiques, can
deal with personal factors about the Speech.
‘Written critiques, more so than oral critiques, en-
able the teacher to give equal attention and time

to each of the students.

Other reasons:

10

l

ls Firth his

lshlm let

3.

L79

As a general rule I give both oral and written critiques
because 02
(Please check the reasons under 1 and 2 above which
most clearly articulate your rationale for using both
oral and written critiques.)
Other reasons, not mentioned above:

D. Content of the Critigue

1.

As a general rule I give critiques with a greater con-

centration'upon unfavorable comments than.upon favor-

able comments because 20

a. Critiques that focus primary attention upon favor-
able factors often fail to reveal to the students
all or even most of their weak points, which they
should know about to avoid making these same mistakes
again.

b. The instructor is cheating the student if he fails
to reveal to the student any weak pOint that has at
all undermined the effectiveness of his Speech. 12

c. Critiques do not have to focus primary attention
upon favorable factors in order to strengthen the
students' morale. 7

d. Other reasons:

12

As a general rule I give critiques with a greater con-
centration upon favorable comments than upon unfavor-
able comments because

a. Criticisms focusing primary attention upon the weak-
nesses of the students' speeches are bad for their
morale. ”2

b. Students should not be given critiques heavily
‘weighted with unfavorable comments lest they be-
come confused or frustrated, not knOWing what to
do to improve their Speaking.

c. Emphasis placed on favorable factors about the
speeches, especially in the giving of oral critiques,
shows many of the students some good qualities in
their peers' speeches which they should cultivate
in their own speaking. 7

d. Other reasons:

‘0

 

3.

5.

As a general rule I give evaluations with about an equal

balance between favorable and unfavorable comments be-
cause

(Please check the reasons under 1 and 2 above which
most clearly articulate your rationale for using an
equal balance between favorable and unfavorable
comments.)

Other reasons, not mentioned above:

As a general rule I focus attention in the evaluation
of Speeches upon what the student should do in pre-
paring for the next speech, rather than upon what the
student did well or poorly in the Speech just given
because . 22
a. Comments focusing attention upon the next Speech
can be presented in a way less embarassing to the
student than is the case with comments focusing
attention upon the speech just given. 8
b. Comments focusing attention upon the next Speech
more clearly reveal to the student what he should
do to improve his next Speech than do comments
focusing upon the speech just given. 12
c. Comments focusing attention upon the next speech
tend to encourage the students more Specifically in
the continued practice of the strong features of
the speech just given. '
d. Other reasons:

AS a general rule I focus attention in the criticism
of speeches upon only a few of the most important
factors concerning the students' Speeches (strong
and weak points), rather than try to focus attention
(the amount of time Spent in the criticisms being
equal) upon all of the factors (strong and weak points)
revelant to the students' Speeches because a
a. Students can focus attention upon the improvement
of only a few speech factors at a time. Q6
b. This approach readily lends itself to the focus of
attention upon those two or three factors dictated
‘hy the specific assignment for the Speech that is
to be presented. ' 32
c. Other reasons:

E. Vehicle for the Written Critique

1.

As a general rule I use either a standard or Specific

check list with room for comments because :fifi

a. The check list used throughout the course serves
as a constant first hand reminder to the student
of the points that he Should be working on L1 the
preparation and presentation of his speeches.

b. The check list can provide more quickly a broader
coverage of the strong and weak points of the
Speech than can the use of a blank sheet of paper.

c. The standard check list, especially, enables the
student more readily to compare comments about his
Speeches from one assignment to the next than is
the case with the use of the blank sheet of paper.

d. Other reasons:

N I\)
[‘0 p

In)
K»

As a general rule I use a blank Sheet of paper (or
write comments on the student's outline) in the giving
of written critiques because

a. The use of the check list tends to make me feel
more like a bookkeeper than a classroom Speech
critic.

b. I can generally make my criticisms more succinct,
more to the point, with the use of the blank sheet
of paper than with the check list.

c. I Can generally make criticisms more succinct,

more to the point wit the use of th bl nk h
of paper than with the check list. ° 8 8 ”t

we

F3

II. STUDENT CRITIQUES (Check one or more of the Arabic-numbered
variables below.)

A. I do 230;; use student as well as instructor critiques

because

1.

2.

3.
h.

5.

Many students would rather be evaluated by the instruc-
tor than by one or more of their peers.

The oral criticisms of many of the students tend to be
repetitious and generally not too helpful to the
Speaker.

Time generally does not permit the use of student
critiques.

Student critiques (especially oral) of their peers'
Speeches often tend to be a bit too severe.

Beginning speech students do not know enough about the
language of speech evaluation and how'to use this
language to be able to give valid Speech evaluations of
their peers' Speeches.

Other reasons:

l°|~|« H:

[a

B. I dg_use student as well as instructor critiques because

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Criticism is the function of all members of the speech
class.

The use of student evaluations informs the instructor
whether the students have graSped the standards for
the evaluation of Speeches.

The use of student evaluations sometimes points out

a weakness in the teacher's own evaluations of a per-
formance, or reveals his over emphasis in a minor
point.

Students are likely to become a more alert, attentive
audience if they know that they are responsible for
preparing oral or written critiques of their peers'
Speeches. '

Other reasons:

Is [a la

'4:
ta

ta

18-3

SPEECH 103 A and C
CHECK LIST FOR EVALUATIDNS OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES

As you recall, you have received instructor evaluations of your
speeches at two different time periods with reSpect to the class
hour:

1. Instructor evaluations in the first round of speeches
(the one point speech) were given to you at the end of
class hour after the speeches of the day were given.
(These evaluations were sumarized rather than individual-
189d.

2. Instructor evaluations, since the first round of speeches,
were given to you imediately after you finished your
speech.

Secenily, the two different approaches were used in the focus of
attention of the instructor evaluations:

1. In the next-to-the-last round of speeches (visual aid
speeches) an attempt was made to focus attention upon
one or two items that you should concentrate upon in pre-
paring fer the next speech (the final speech).

2. In the other speeches of the semester the focus of atten-
tion was more upon the evaluation of the speech just
given than upon cements as to what you should do in pre-
paring fer the next speech.

Furthermore, for the first two rounds of your speeches you re-
ceived instructor evaluations only. Since the second round of
speeches you received evaluations both from your instructor and
from your classmates or peers.

DBMCTIOIB :

1. Please place a check in the space at the right of gal;
the Arabic-numbered methods of evaluation (More than one
may be checked.) which you prefer to receive for your
speeches.

2. Please check 2331 the small-lettered roason(s) which
specify r reason(s) for preferring the Arabic-mmbered
method(s under which the reasons appear. (Note that
more than one small-lettered reason may "be checked.

184

A. Fae r of E ns Terms.of the. SS Hour
1. AS a general rule, I prefer.to.receive speech.evalua-
tions at the end of the class hour after the Speeches
of the day have been given (summarized.evaluations).
because
a. I am more emotionally settled to listen objectively
to the evaluations when given.at the end.of the
Chas houro ‘ __:L__
b. Evaluations at the end of the class hour avoid breaks
between Speeches whon'we are anxious to give our
speeches. l
c. All of the students will have given.their speeches
before the evaluations are given; hence, we will
likely listen more attentively to all of the evalua-
tions without having to worry about our speeches yet
to be given than.is the.case when.evaluations.are
given after each.speech. ' 2
d. Evaluating the Speeches at the end of the period,
as a.ru1e,.requires.less.c1ass.time.thanndoes‘evaluat-
- ing speeches.immediately after.each speech. .. J
e..Otherxreasons:

2. As a general rule, I prefer to receive instructor

evaluations immediately after the speech because . 3h
a. I can better relate the comments to the strong and
weak points of'qy Speech. 18

b. I can better understand the comments on delivery,
which is fresh in.mind immediately after the giving

 

of the speech. 22
c. I an anxious to hear evaluations of my Speeches as
soon as possible. __§__

d. Evaluations tend to be more persona1.whon given
immediately after the speech than‘when given at the
end of the class hour, especially since the comments
did not relate to Specific Speeches but to the
Speeches of the day in general. 23
e. I am better able to relate the pertinent evaluations
of some of the other Speeches to my own speech when
the evaluations are given immediately after each
Speech rather than summarised at the end of the class
hour. 12
f. Other reasons:

185

B. Focus of. Attention of Qgtrugto; Evguagogs (Speech Just
n Given ersus the Next Round Speech

1. I prefer to have instructor evaluations focused upon the
speech just given rather than focused upon the speech

to be given in the next round because 24

a. I understood better from the evaluations focused
upon the speech just given the strengths and weak-
nesses of aw present status as a speaker. 16

b. The evaluations focused upon the speech just given
seemed to be more specifically related to aw current
problems as a Speaker than were the evaluations
focused upon what I should do to prepare for aw next
speech.

c. The evaluations focused upon aw Speech just given
re'vealed to no more clearly the naimre of not strong
points than did the evaluations focused upon what I
Should do to prepare for my next speech. 2

d. The evaluations focused upon aw speech just given
seemed more personal than did the evaluations focused
upon what I Should do to prepare for aw next Speech. :2

e. The evaluations focused upon aw speech just given
enabled me more readily to make comparisons among
the various speeches during the class period in
terms of both strong and weak points than was the
case with the evaluations focused upon what I should
do to prepare for aw next speech. 5

f. Other reasons:

 

2. I prefer to receive evaluations focused upon what I
should do to prepare for aw next speech than to receive
evaluations focused upon my speech just given because 2
a. Instructor evaluations focused upon what I should do
to prepare for aw next Speech were less embarassing to
me than instructor evaluations focused upon aw speech
Just given.
b. I could more readily apply the evaluations focused
upon what I should do to prepare for aw next Speech
to those few factors that I should concentrate upon
for improving 11w next Speech than was the case with
evaluations focused upon aw speech just given. 12
c. The evaluations focused upon what I should do to
prepare for aw next speech encouraged me more
specifically in the continued practice of the strong
point(s) in my speech than did the evaluations
focused upon "V Speech just given.
d. Other reasons:-

186

C. Person 3 Present the Evalua

l. is a general rule, I prefer to receive evaluations from
the instructor only, not also from my classmates, for
one or more of the following reasons: 0‘-

2.

C.

b.

0.

d.

f.

is

I find that I am able to receive evaluations from
the instructor more objectively than I can receive
evaluations from my classmates.

The oral evaluations of some of the students teni to

be repetitious axxl generally not too helpful to the
“wakore

Student evaluations (especially oral) sometimes tend
to be a bit too exaggerated (favorably, sometimes
unfavorably).

Student evaluations (oral) require more time than
the class can afford to allot to them.

Beginning speech students do not know enough about
the language of speech evaluation std how to use
this language to be able to give valid speech
evaluations.

Other reasons:

M F ~

A)

 

a general rule, I prefer to receive evaluations from

my classmates as well as from the instructor for one
or more of the following reasons:

b.

On

d.

26
Opportunities for student evaluations help me to
unierstand the standards or criteria used for the
evaluation of speeches given in the classroom 10
he use of student evaluations enables me to find

out how more members of now audience have reacted to

my Speeches than is the case with the use of in- : O
structor evaluations only. ‘2
The use of student evaluations helps to make the

class period more interesting than is the case

with the use of instructor evaluations only. 8
Students are likely to become a more alert, attentive
audience if they know that they are responsible for
preparing oral and/ or written evaluations of their
ClassmateSe 10:
Other reasons:

187

SPEECH 103 E
CHECK LIST FOR EVALUATIONS 0F CLASSROOM SPEECHES

is you recall, you have received instructor evaluations of your
Speeches at two differenct time periods with respect to the class
hour:

1. Instructor evaluations in the first round of speeches
(the one-point speech) were given to you at the end of
the class hour after the speeches of the day were given.
(These evaluations, for the most part, were individualised
rather than summarised.) '

2. Instructor evaluations, Since the first round of speeches,
were given to you immediately'after you finished your
speech.

Secondly, two different approaches were used in the focus of
attention ef the instructor evaluations:

1. In the next-to-the-last round of speeches (visual aid
speeches) an attempt was made to focus attention upon one
or two items that you should concentrate upon in prepar-
ing for the next speech (the final Speech).

2. In the other speeches of the semester the focus of atten-
tion was more upon the evaluation of the Speech just
given than upon cements as to what you should do in pre-
paring fer the next Speech.

Furthermore, for the first two round of your speeches you receiv-
ed instructor evaluations only. Since the second round of
Speeches you received evaluations both from your instructor and
from you classmates or peers.

INSTRUCTIDEB :

1. Please place a check in the space at the right of 93;;
the Arabic-numbered metheds of evaluation (More than
one may be checked.) which you prefer to receive for your
speeches.

2. Please check 93;; the small-lettered reason(s) which
specify r reason(s) for preferring the Arabic-numbered
method(s under which the reasons appear. (Note that
more than one smell-lettered reason may be checked.

A. Time Factor of Evaluations in Tgrms of the glass Hon;
1. As a general rule, I prefer to receive speech evaluations

at the end of the class hour after the speeches of the

day have been given (indvidualised evaluations) because

a. I am.more emotionally settled to listen objectively
to the evaluations when given at the end of the class
hour.

b. Evaluations at the end of the class hour avoid breaks
between speeches when we are anxious to give our
speeches.

c. All of the students will have given their Speeches be-
fore the evaluations are given; hence, we will likely
listen more attentively to all of the evaluations with-
out having to worry about our speeches yet to be given
than is the case when evaluations are given after each
speech.

d. Individualized evaluations by the instructor at the end
of the period were often just as personal as were the
evaluations given after each speech.

e. Evaluating the Speeches at the end of the period, as a
rule, requires less class time than does evaluating
Speeches immediately after each speech.

f. Other reasons:

2. As a general rule, I prefer to receive instructor evalua-
tions immediately after the speech for one or more of the
following reasons: '

a. I can better relate the comments to the strong and
weak points of’my Speech.

b. I can better understand the comments on delivery, which
is fresh in.mind immediately after giving the speech.

c. I am.anxious to hear evaluations of my speeches as
soon as possible.

d. Oral evaluations when given at the end of the period do
not allow the instructor enough time to give an adequate
evaluation of each of the speeches.

e. Other reasons:

B. Fe s of Atte of structo Ev uatio (Speech just
given versus the next speech round
1. I prefer to have instructor evaluations focused upon the
speech just given rather than focused upon the speech to
be given in the next round because
a. I understood better from the evaluations focused upon
the speech just given the strengths and weaknesses of
my present status as a Speaker.

I\)

 

A)

 

In

F4 ' s4
to F6 4:

b. The evaluations focused upon the speech just given
seemed to be more specifically related to my current
problems as a speaker than were the evaluations focused
upon what I should do to prepare for my next speech.

c. The evaluations focused upon my speech just given re-
vealed to me more clearly the nature of my strong
points than did the evaluations focused upon'what I
should do to prepare for my next Speech.

d. The evaluations focused upon my Speech just given seem-
ed more personal than did the evaluations focused upon
‘what I should do to prepare for my next speech.

e. The evaluations focused upon.my Speech just given on-
abled me more readily'to make comparisons among the
various speeches during the class period in terms of
both strong and weak points than was the case with
the evaluations focused upon what I should do to pre-
pare for my next speech.

f. Other reasons:

2. I prefer to receive evaluations focused upon what I Should
do to prepare for my next speech than to receive evalua-
tions focused upon my Speech just given'because
a. Instructor evaluations focused upon what I should do

to prepare for my next Speech were less embarrassing to
me than instructor evaluations focused upon my Speech
just given.

b. I could more readily apply the evaluations focused upon
what I should do to prepare for my next speech to those
few factors that I should concentrate upon for improv-
ing my next Speech than was the case with evaluations
focused upon.my Speech just given.

c. The evaluations focused upon what I should do to prepare
for my next Speech encouraged me nor Specifically in the
continued practice of the strong point(s) in.my Speech
than did the evaluations focused upon.my speech just
given.

d. Other reasons:

0. Fe so s P sent e Ev a
1. AS a general rule, I prefer to receive evaluations from the
instructor only, not also from my classmates, for one or
more of the following reasons:
a. I find that I am able to receive evaluations from the
instructor more objectively than I can receive evalua-
tions from my classmates.

2.

Co

d.

190

The oral evaluations of some of the students tend to be _
repetitious and generally not too helpful to the speaker. 1
Student evaluations (especially oral) sometimes tend to
be a bit too exaggerated (favorably, sometimes unfavor-

ably). _1..
Student evaluations (oral) require more time than the
class can afford to allot to them. C

Beginning speech students do not know enough about the
language of Speech evaluation and how to use this lan-
guage to be able to give valid Speech evaluations. 1
Other reasons:

As a general rule, I prefer to receive evaluations from my
classmates as well as from the instructor for one or more of
the following reasons:

a.

b.

Co

8.

Opportunities for student evaluations help me to underb
stand the standards or criteria used for the evaluation

of Speeches given in the classroom. 7
The use of student evaluations enables me to find out

how more members of my audience have reacted to my speech-
es than is the case with the use of instructor evalua-
tions only. ll__
The use of student evaluations helps to make the class
period more interesting than is the case with the use

of instructor evaluations only.

Students are likely to become a more alert, attentive
audience if they know that they are responsible for pre-
paring oral and/or written evaluations of their class-
mates. . 10
Other reasons:

191

CHECK LIST FOR RESPONSES '10 EVALUATIONS OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES

As you recall, you have received instructor evaluations of your Speech-
es at three different time periods with respect to the class period:

1.

2.

3.

Instructor evaluations have been made knaln to you while you
were speaking.

Instructor evaluations have been given to you immediately
after you have finished your speeches.

Instructor evaluations have been given to you at the end
of the class hour after the speeches of the day have been
given.

Furthermore, for some of you Speeches you received written evalua-
tions but no oral evaluations .

INSTRUCTIONS:

.1.

2.

Please place a check in the space at the right of an);
the capital lettered (A,B,C,) method(s) of evaluation
(More than one may be checked.) which you prefer to
receive for your Speeches.

Please check 0 the Arabic-numbered reason(s) (small-
lettered reason s), p. 2) which Specify your reason(s)
for prefering the capital-lettered method (s) under which
the reasons appear. (Note that more than one Arabic-
numbered or small-lettered reason may be checked.)

A. As a general rule, I prefer to have evaluations of aw
Speeches made knownto me while I am Speaking because

1.

2.

3.

6
This method reveals immediately to me the specific
areas of my weaknesses. 5
This method forces me to deal with this weakness on
the spot and gives me the opportunity to practice the
correction ofthe woakness(es) in the very same Speech. 3
This method enables the instructor to deal more effec- -
tively with my woakness(es) in the area of delivery
than is the case with the evaluation of SW speeches at
any other time during the same class hour. 0
This method, more effectively than the other two methods,
enables the instructor to call my attention to certain
distracting mannerisms of word choice, or voice patterns, 4
or awkward bodily movements.

192

5. This method enables the instructor to point out on the
spot to the class effective uses of supporting points,
of word choice, effective practices of delivery, or
effective uses of other factors which a given round or
unit of Speeches is supposed to teach the students. ’4
6. Other reasons:

B. As a general rule, I prefer to receive instructor evalua-
tions immediately after each Speech.
1. I prefer this time method in the evaluations of UV
speeches to having the evaluations made 1mm to me while
I am speaking for one or more of the following reasons: .11..
a. Evaluations immediately after the speech are less
embarrasing and less upsetting to me emotionally
than are criticisms made known to me during my Speech. 11
b. Criticisms made known to me during the speech often
keep or discourage me from observing and responding,
on 11w own, to audience feedback. I would, instead, ,
let the instructor provide the feedback for me. 11
c. Criticisms immediately after the Speech deal more
specifically with the content of my speech than do
criticisms made known during 1w speech. 19
d. Criticisms immediately after the speech tend to be
organized than are ciriticisms given during the ,
speech. 18
e. Other reasons:

2. I prefer receiving instructor evaluations imediately
after each speech to receiving instructor evaluations
at the end of the class hour after the Speeches of the
day have been given for one or more of the following
reasons: ,

a. I can better relate the comments to the strong and
weak points of my Speech.

b. I can better understand the comments on delivery.

c. I an anxious to hear evaluations of my Speeches as
soon as possible.

d. Evaluations tend to be more personal

e. I am better able to relate the pertinent evaluations
of some of the other Speeches to 11v own Speech when
criticisms are given immediately after each speech. 12

1‘. Other reasons:

Mrs H: k:

C.

193

As a general rule, I prefer to receive speech evaluations

at the end of the class hour after the speeches of the

day have been given to receiving Speech evaluations

immediately after the Speech because

1. I am.more emotionally settled to listen objectively to
the evaluations when given at the end of the hour.

2. Evaluations at the end of the class hour avoid breaks
between speeches when students are anxious to give their
Speeches.

3. All of the students will have given their speeches be-
fore tho evaluations are given; hence, we will more
likely listen.more attentively to all of the evaluations
without having to worry about our Speeches yet to be
given.

U. Evaluating the Speeches at the end of the period, as a
rule requires less class time than does evaluating
speeches immediately after each Speech.

5. Other reasons:

As a general rule, I prefer to receive only a written

evaluation of no? Speeches because

1. This method enables us to hear more Speakers than is
the case when oral evaluations are also given.

2. This method use throughout most of the course would give
us time for more speaking experiences in class.

3. This method encourages us to take our notebooks to
consultations with the instructor to talk over our
Speeches.

4. This method enables the instructor to focus more atten-
tion upon the weak points of our speeches than is the
case when oral evaluations are also given.

5. This method allows the instructor more freedom to call
our attention to those weak points in our Speeches or
Speaking that are of a private or personal nature than
is the case when oral evaluations are also given.

6. Other reasons:

_«3.
.1:

le

+4 r4 no

le
\n

19h

CHECK LIST FOR RESPONSES TO EVALUATIONS OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES

AS you recall, for the last round of speeches just completed you
received written evaluations on the ”Speech Rating Chart” ("Purdue

Speech Rating Chart"). For the other three speeches you receiv-

ed written evaluations on blank sheets of paper.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Please place a check in the Space at the right ofo only
the capital-lettered (A or B) method of written evalua-

2.

tion which you prefer to receive for your speeches.

Please checko 211.11 the Arabic-numbered reason(s) which
specify your reason(s) for preferring the capital-
lettered method(s) under which the reasons appear.
(Note that more than one Arabic-numbered reason may

‘ be checked.)

A. I prefer to receive my written evaluations on a standard
evaluation form, such as the ”Speech Rating Form,” for
one or more of the following reasons:

1.

3.

5.

The mineographed data for the written evaluation for
the "Speech Rating Chart" reminds me of the points
that I should be focusing my attention upon in the
composition and delivery of my Speeches.

The written evaluation provided by the "Speech Rating
Chart” seems to provide a more thorough coverage of
the strong and weak points of my speech than is the
case with the use of the blank sheet of paper.

I think that I could more readily compare comments
about my speeches from one assignment to the next
through the use of the ”Speech Rating Chart” than
through the use of the blank sheet of paper.

The "Speech Rating Chart" provides a more Specific
standard for the comparison of my speech with the
Speeches of my classmates than is the case with the
use of the blank sheet of paper.

Other reasons:

195

B. I prefer to receive my written evaluations on a blank
Sheet of paper for one or more of the following reasons:

1.

I feel that the written comments of the instructor
are more direct, more personal in the use of the
blank sheet of paper than in the use of the ”Speech
Rating Charto”

The written evaluation placed on the blank sheet of
paper, as a rule, seems to be more to the point,

more specific than is the written evaluation prepared
on the "Speech Rating Chart.”

Some of the points appearing on the "Speech Rating
Chart" did not pertain to my Speech.

The blank sheet of paper seems to give the instructor
more flexibility in the preparation of his written
comments than is the case with his use of the "Speech
Rating Chart."

The blank sheet of paper gives the instructor more of
an opportunity to give the students suggestions for
improvement for the next Speech than is the case with
the use of the "Speech Rating Chart."

Other reasons:

.19..

16

 

11

196

SPEECH 101
CHECK LIST FOR EVAUJATIONS OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES

As you recall from.yeur speaking experiences in Speech 101 this
quarter, you are to give six speeches. For three of these speeches
you receive evaluations from.yeur peers (when you are in the peer
group). For the ether three speeches you receive evaluations from
your instructor (when the instructor is present).

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Please place a check in the space at the right of‘gglz
the Arabic-numbered method of evaluation which you pre-
fer to receive for your speeches.

2. Please check gal; the small-lettered reason(s) which
specify your reason(s) for preferring the Arabic-
numbored method under which the reasons appear. (Note
that more than one small-lettered reason may be checked.)

1. I prefer the evaluations given in the peer-group sections

to the evaluations given in the instructor-sectiens for

one or more of the following reasons: 32

a. Opportunities fer student evaluations help me to under-
stand the standards er criteria used for the evaluation
of speeches given in the classroom.‘ 13

b. The peer evaluations, in giving me an opportunity to
exercise my own judgment, have helped me to learn how
to make valid evaluations of speeches. 1“

c. The use of student evaluations enables me to find out
how more members of my audience have reacted to my
speeches than is the case with the use of instructor
evaluations only.

d. My peers constitute the vast majority of the classroom
audience; hence, I feel that it is even more important
that I hear their reactions to my speech than that I
hear the reactions of the instructor. 2“

o. Students are likely to become a more alert, attentive
audience when they knew that they are responsible for
preparing oral and written evaluations of their peers. 1E

f. The use of peer.evaluations helps to make the class
period more interesting than is the case with the use
of instructor evaluations only. I}

g. Other reasons:

197

2. I prefer the evaluations given in the instructor-sections

to the evaluations given in the peer-group sections for

one or more of the following reasons: _;£;_

a. I find that I am able to receive evaluations from the
instructor more objectively than I can receive evalua-
tions frem.my peers. 33

b. The oral evaluations of some of the students tend to be
repetitious and generally not too helpful to the speaker. 2?

c. Student evaluations (oral) require more time than the
class can afford to allot to them.

d. Student evaluations (particularly oral) sometimes tend
to be a bit too severe.

e. Student evaluations (particularly oral) sometimes tend
to concentrate too much on the favorable side.

f. Beginning speech students do not know enough about
the language of speech evaluation and how to use this
language to be able to give valid speech evaluations.

g. Other reasons:

w H

:1
1’. |{ '0'

193

CHECK LIST FOR RESPONSES TO EVALUATIONS OF CLASSROOM SPEECHES

As you recall, the evaluations that you received during the last two
rounds of your Speeches differed as fellows:

1.

2.

The next-to-the-last round of Speeches included an evalua-
tion period of ten minutes (approximately) at the end

of each speech. The last round of speeches included an
evaluation period of about five minutes at the end of
each speech.

The content of the evaluations fer the next-to-the-last
round of speeches was quite general, dealing with several
factors of content and delivery. The content of the
evaluations for the last round of speeches was specific,

focusing primary attention upon delivery.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Please place a check in the space at the right of only
the capital-lettered (A or B) method of evaluation
which you prefer to receive-for your speeches.

2. Please check only the Arabic-numbered reason(s) which
Specify your reason(s) for preferring the capital-
lettered method(s) under which the reasons appear.
(Nets that more than one Arabic-numbered reason may be
Che Cked o >

I preferred the evaluation periods fer the fifteenpninute
speeches to the evaluation periods of the eight-minute
speeches (the next-to-the-last round versus the last
round of speeches) for one or more of the following
reasons:

1. The evaluation period for the eight-minute speeches
was not long enough to permit a thorough evaluation
of many of the Speeches.

2. I like to know 5;; of the strong and weak points about
my speeches.

3. The longer evaluation period for the fifteenpminute
Speeches than for the eight-minute speeches gave more
of the class members an opportunity to participate
in the evaluations of each of the Speeches.

1+. The evaluation period for the fifteen-minute Speeches
gave me a more nearly complete picture of the strong
and weak points that I should consider in preparing
for later Speeches (inside or outside of class) than
was the case with the evaluation period for the eight-
minute Speeches.

199

5. Other reasons:

I preferred the evaluation periods fer the eight-minute
Speeches to the evaluation periods for the fifteen-minute
speeches (the last round versus the next-to-the-last
round of Speeches) for one or more of the following
reasons:

1. Shorter evaluation periods would allow for the
scheduling of more Speaking opportunities for the
class during the semester than could be provided fer
by the longer evaluation periods.

2. The comments offered in the longer evaluation periods
of the fifteenqminute Speeches in comparison to the
evaluation periods of the eight-minute Speeches tend-
ed to become repetitious, especially toward the end
of the round.

3. I ould prefer to concentrate on only one or two strong
and/or weak points in preparing for later speeches
(inside or outside of class).

4. Other reasons:

12

\O

 

200

The questionnaire for the instructors was first tested by graduate stu-
dents and instructors at Michigan State University during the summer
quarter of 1965. The reactions by both the students and the instructors
seemed to suggest that the construction of one reasonably brief and
clearly- and conciselyaworded questionnaire which would serve to secure
all of the desired information would be very difficult, if not impossi-
ble. Secondly, as Auer points out, questionnaires should be formulated
efficiently, should be concise as the topic under investigation will
allow, and should be phrased so that the meaning of each item cannot be
misunderstood.3

Because two major types of information were desired from this
study-- methods of evaluation and rationale for the methcdS-- it was
thought that one questionnaire should be formulated fer each type of
informationp- one for methodology and one for rationale. Other than
this one major point of difference, the areas of coverage of the two
questionnaires are essentially the same: Time factor of Critique in
Terms of the Course and of the Class Period, Form for the Presentation
of the Critique, Content of the Critique, Vehicle for the written
Critique, the Use or Nonuse of Student Critiques..

For purposes of securing answers to questions concerning the
reactions of the beginning public speaking students to evaluations
received fer their Speeches, student questionnaires were prepared for
five institutions within the Central States area-- two for Dordt
College and one each for Michigan State University, Donison University,

westmar College, and Northwestern College (Orange City, IOwa). (The

 

3J. Jeffo Auer, An Introduction To Research in S ech (New
YOrk: Harper and rothers lishers, 1959 , p. l 2.

201

last three of these institutions also received and returned the two
instructor questionnaires.) The area of coverage of each of the five
questionnaires was dependent upon the area of coverage actually in-
cluded at some time or other during the beginning course, in the class-
room criticisms used by the instructors at the five institutions.
Fbr'example, during a semester in one of the sections of the
beginning course at Dordt, the writer used three different types of
variables in the evaluation of the speeches of his students: (1) Time
factor of Critique in Terms of the Class Period: Fer one of the
rounds of speeches, evaluations were give in summary form during the
fine allotted for criticisms at the end of the speeches of the day;
and fer the other rounds of Speeches, criticisms were individualized
for the students immediately after each Speech. (2) Content (Focus
of.Attention) of the Critique: Evaluations were given that focused
attention upon one or two items concerning which the speaker should
work in preparing for the next Speech, and evaluations were given in
which the focus of attention was upon the speech just given. (3) The
Use or NOnuse of Student Critiques: Finally, in two of the rounds
evaluations were given by the instructor only; and in three rounds
they were given.by both the instructor and the students. The second
questionnaire fer Dordt was constructed because in three of the sec-
tions, with respect to (1) above, instead of summarizing his comments
at the end of the period to the class as a whole, the instructor in-
dividualized his comments for each student. Evaluations for three

of the four sections, then, were individualised for each student

R)
O
{0

during the time allotted at the end of the period; and, as in the case

of the fourth section, evaluations were given to the students immediately
after each speech. In all other respects the students in all four
sections received the same treatment; hence, items (2) and (3) are

the same in both (questionnaires.

At Donison University, during one semester in all sections of
the beginning public Speaking course, Dr. Lionel Crocker used two
different types of variables in the evaluation of the Speeches of his
students: (1) Time Factor of Critique in Terms of the Class Period:
Evaluations were made known to the students while they were Speaking;
they were given to the students during the time allotted at the end
of the Speeches of the day. (2) Form for the Presentation of the
Critiques: Written evaluations only were given to the students for
some of their speeches; both oral and written evaluations were given
to the students for the remainder of their Speeches.

At Westmar College, during one semester in all sections of the
beginning course, Mr. James Fletcher used for the evaluation of speech-
es, only one variable which pertains to the instructor questionnaires:
Vehicle for the written Critique: Written evaluations on a standard
evaluation form (the ”Speech Rating Form") versus written evaluations
on blank sheets of paper.

At Michigan State University, during one quarter, the instructor
used a variable which could readily be investigated via a questionnaire
but which does not directly relate to any of the variable listed in the

instructor questionnaires: The Use or Nonuse of Peer Groups: In the

 

ill. I. 1.- r . .1.|

203
peer~groupsections [The instructor is absent.], evaluations were given
by the students. In the instructor sections, evaluations were given
by both the instructor and the students in a number of the sections.

At Northwestern College, during one semester, Mr. William Love-
lady used avariable which could readily be investigated via a question-
naire but which does not at all pertain to any of the variables listed
in the instructor questionnaires: Length of Critique Periods at the
End of Each Speech: For one of the rounds of speeches a ten-minute
critique period was allotted for the evaluation of each speech. For
another round of speeches a five-minute critique period was allotted
fer the evaluation of each speech.

In short, the content of each of the student questionnaires
prepared for the above-mentioned institutions was made conformable to
the variables used by the instructors in the evaluation of speeches in
the beginning course.

TWO questions now arise concerning the inclusion of the par-
ticular student questionnaries that were constructed for this study:
(1) Why were not all of the variables included in the instructor
questionnaires covered in the questionnaires that were submitted to
the students? (2) Why were student questionnaires included which cover
variables other than the ones included in the instructor questionnaires?

In answer to the first question, it is believed that the se-
curing of a reasonably large sample of students for the investigation
of each of the variables included in the instructor questionnaires is

beyond the scope of this study. The time and expense that would be

20h

involved in contacting instructors who together would normally cover
in their beginning course in a given semester all of the variables of
classroom evaluations contained in the instructor questionnaires and
who would be willing to cooperate by asking their classes to fill out
questionnaires would be too extensive for purposes of this one study.

On the other hand, in answer to the second question, the area
of coverage in the instructor questionnaire does not include all of the
possible variables that may be applied by the instructor in the eval-
uation of speeches in the beginning course. Such factors as length
of the critique period, use of peer grouping, a study of the form of
the presentation of the critique in relation to the time factor of the
critique- for example, the use of written or oral critiques or both
early or late in the course, or during the speech, immediately after
the speech, or during the period allotted after the Speeches of the
day have been given--, together with various other combinations of
time, form, and content factors, are not included in this study. It
was decided, threfore, that it might be well to make a preliminary
investigation of reactions to only two of the variables-- peer group-
ing and length of critique period-- that are not covered in the in-
structor questionnaires.

The content of the instructor and student questionnaires and
the rationale for this content have been discussed. Next is a dis-
cussion of the steps that were taken in the selection of a sample to
receive the questionnaires and of other steps in the handling of the
questionnaires for purpose of securing the data essential to this

portion of the study.

 

ll I'll. I I J . ‘“ Innulll I.

2C5

Pgocedures

As soon as the first instructor questionnaire ("Methods Used
and/or Preferred in the Criticism of Classroom Speeches in the Begin-
ning Public Speaking Course in College") was initially prepared, it
was submitted for testing by several staff members of the Department
of Speech at Michigan State University, where the study was being
undertaken.

While the questionnaire was being studied and tested by the
staff members in Speech at Michigan State, the writer made the selec-
tion of the sample that was to receive the instructor questionnaires.u
This sample was to include instructors in charge of the basic Speech
course at all foureyear institutions of higher learning within the
Central States area that are listed in the Directogy of the Speech
Association of America as offering a major program in speech. The
Central States was selected as the geographical area for the sample
simply because both the residence of the writer and that of the in-
stitution at which he has been doing the study are located within the
thirteen-state area. Four-year institutions (as opposed to junior
colleges) that offered majors in speech were selected for purposes of
this study because it was believed that this sample of institutions

would more likely have a basic course with a strong emphasis upon

 

gOne suggested revision was to give the respondent the
opportunity to indicate (in connection with the title of the first
instructor questionnaire) whether he used the methods checked because
of a departmental requirement. '

206

public Speaking than might perhaps be the case with junior colleges or
with four-year institutions that do not have major programs in Speech.

Upon completion of necessary minor revisions, the first .
questionnaire was sent to the above-mentioned sample, along with
additional materials, according to the following procedure: In addi-
‘tion to the questionnaire for each institution included in the sample,
two letters were prepared indicating the nature and purpose of the
study.5 These materials were sent to the chairman of the Department
of Speech with a self-addressed envelope for the return of the
questionnaire. One of the two letters sent was addressed to the
chairman of the Department of Speech, and the second one was addressed
to the staff member in charge of the basic Speech course. (the latter
letter pledged the sending of a data report on the questionnaire as
soon as the report would be availablh) The names of the departmental
chairmen of all SAA member institutions were found in the Directo ;
however, the writer had no way ofascertaining the names of the men at
the institutions of the sample who were in charge of the basic course.
In addition, threfore, to a brief statement of background and purpose
of study, the first of the two letters asked each departmental chair-
man to place the second letter and the questionnaire in the hands of
the staff member in charge of the beginning course.

The above-mentioned procedure brought a return of just under

70 per cent. A follow-up letter was sent to a few institutions,

 

5See appendix for Samples of the four letters that were sent.

207

not too distant from Dordt College, and this letter served to bring
the return ultimately to 7u.16 percent.

Statistics concerning the variables marked by the respondents
were indicated on their capies of the questionnaire; and a data report
was prepared for the questionnaire, summarizing the comments of the
respondents on the questionnaire. One letter each was again pre-
pared fer the departmental chairman and for the staff member who had
filled out the first questionnaire. The respondents were invited to
refer to the first questionnaire (1) to take what information from it
that they desired, and (2) to aid them in filling out the second
questionnaire on rationale by refreshing their memories concerning the
variables on methodology that they had marked before on this first
questionnaire.

In short, each departmental chairman received a manila envelope
(again containing a self-addressed envelope with enough postage to
allow for the return of both the first and second questionnaires) to
be handed to the staff member in charge of the basic Speech course-
This envelope contained (1) the respondent's copy of the first ques—
tionnaire (marked with statistics of results), (2) a data report on
the first questionnaire, (3) the second questionnaire ("Rationale
for methods Used and/or Preferred in the Criticism of Classroom
Speeches in the Beginning Public Speaking Course in College"), and
(4) a letter of instructions to the staff member who filled out the
first questionnaire. Each respondent was invited to keep his copy
of the data report but to return his copy of the first questionnaire

with the second questionnaire at his earliest opportunity.

208

This time the above-mentioned procedure yielded only a ’40 per-
cent response at the end of one month; at the end of this period a
followaup letter was sent to the delinquent respondents. This letter
increased the return from 40 percent to 60 percent. Four weeks after
the first followaup letter was sent out, a second followuup letter
was sent out urging the delinquent respondents to return their ques-
tionnaires before the end of the school year. This second letter
increased the return on the second questionnaire to 70.6# percent.

The choice of the sample that was to receive student questions
naires was based upon four primary considerations. The writer wished
to include his own students among the sample as a first-hand learning
experience for him. (The questionnaire form was submitted to a differ-
ent group of beginning speech students at Dordt College during the
fall semester for testing purposes for its use as an instrument in
securing the desired information from the student sample.)

Second, the Denison University beginning public speaking stu-
dents were selected as a sample for two reasons: (1) Dr. Cracker
‘wss quite willing to submit the questionnaire to his beginning speech
students, and (2) Dr. Cracker was the only instructor in the available
sample who madeluuflnihis criticisms to the students while they were
Speaking. Third, the Westmar College beginning speech students were
selected as a sample because (1) The college is located within a
thirty-minute journey from.Dordt, which fact conveniently allowed for
a conference with Mr. Fletcher for purposes of setting up the question-

naire for his students, and (2) Mr. Fletcher was the only instructor

209

in the available sample who used both a blank sect of paper and a
check list as forms for the presentation of his critiques.

Finally, as was noted in the previous section, the Northwestern
College and Michigan State University students were selected as part
of the student sample for this study because this portion of the
sample gave the writer an opportunity to investigate two variables in
the evaluation of speeches that lie outside the coverage area of the
instructor questionnaires: peer grouping and length of critique
period. (Further, Michigan State was selected as part of the student
sample because Dr. Ralph had agreed throughout the course of this
study to make available his beginning speech students for a question-
naire study. Finally, the proximity of Dordt to Northwestern (as in
the case of Westmar) also allowed the writer to arrange a conference
with Mr. Lovelady to formulate the questionnaire for his beginning
speech students.

The steps taken in the selection of the instructor and student
samples that were to receive the questionnaires and the procedures of
securing adequate returns for the instructor questionnaires have been
discussed. The final portion of chapter IV is a report of the data

received from both the instructor and student questionnaires.

210

Data Report6

Data from the first and second instructor questionnaires
(both methods of evaluation and rationale for methods) and from the
student questionnaires, which call for data pertinent to the data from
the instructor questionnaires, will be integrated into a pattern
followed by the instructor questionnaires, which pattern constitutes

the formate of Chapter III.

Instructor Critiques

 

Time Factor of Critigue in Terms of the Course

Critiques Given After the Second or Third Round of Speeches
Respondents to the two instructor questionnaires indicated
the fellowing methods used in handling criticisms early in the course.7i
(1) Oral critiques are given after the second speech. The inp

structor stresses primarily the few goals that have been
set up pertaining primarily to organization.

 

6Subsequent footnotes will record statistics (numbers and per-
centages) with respect to instructor preferences in regard to methods
of evaluation used (the substance of the major'headinge of the two
instructor questionnaires and of a large portion of the format of
Chapter III). In some instances the nature of the responses in the
two questionnaires created questions of interpretation. However, (1)
the writer was attempting to report what he believed appeared to be
(in every case) the spirit of the response; moreover, (2) the number
of instances involving problems of interpretation were comparatively
small. Because problems«of interpretation were comparatively small,
it is assumed that the distortion stemming from matters of interpretation
is minor.

7Seven of 109 (6.42 percent) respondents to the first question-
naire and 21 of 77 (27.27 percent) respondents to the second question-
naire indicated that occasionally or as a rule they waited until after
the first two or three speeches in the course to evaluate student
speeches.

211

(2) The first few rounds of speeches receive oral, generalized
comments, applying to most class members; later rounds of
speeches receive personal, written comments.

(3) One instructor notes that he criticizes the first speeches,
but that he places emphasis on praiseworthy aspects of the
speaker and his speaking.

(4) Comments early in the course focus attention.upon only one
or two factors about the speech.

(5) One of the respondents reported that he usually does not
finish the first round of speeches but that he also has
the students comment in writing for those who speak.

(6) The first few speeches receive written criticisms; speeches
in later rounds receive both oral and written criticisms.

(7) Critiques are given by the instructor during the first half
of the course, by instructor and students during the re-
mainder of the course.

(8) Specific and individual critiques are not given for the
first speeches.

Respondents to the two instructor questionnaires noted chief-
ly two reasons for their not criticizing their beginning speech stu-
dents early in the course:

(1) A few of the reSpondents wait to evaluate students until
after the first two or three speeches primarily as a means
of helping students to become emotionally adjusted to the
speaking situation and to develop ease and security during
the beginning stages of the course

(2) One respondent asserted that he wanted his students to be
concerned only with the communication of ideas, that the

instructor's evaluation should not be another concern early
in the course.

Critiques Given Throughout the Course
Respondents to the two instructor questionnaires added two

methods which they use for evaluating students throughout the course: 8

 

8One-hundred seven of 109 (98.16 rcent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 6901' 77 (59 9:57 percentgerespondents to the second
queStionnaire indicated that they generally evaluate students throughout
he cmsee

212

(l) Criticisms throughout the course will (should) not only
teach the students how to give Speeches but also teach
them something about the wide range of choices available
to them in a communication setting. A very successful
classroom speech may be a ”dud" in other settings, and
only by indicating this as a part of the critique will
students learn something about rhetorical theory.

(2) The giving of critiques throughout the course (oral) en-
courages considerable ”Talking" discussion about the speech-
es for the benefit of the entire class.

(3) The amount of criticism received by students throughout
the course varies with individual students, on the basis
of an assessment of the student‘s reaction to the course.
Some who give evidence of an eager desire for comments
for the sake of improvement (as differentiated from the
"eager4beaver-- What was wrong, what grade did I get?”)
will get more comments than others who may not desire
more.

(4) One respondent asserted that there is little time to wait
for the giving of criticisms.

(5) Another respondent believes in concentrating on the most
essential requirements first; hence, early criticisms are
less detailed than are the later ones.

Critiques Not Given in Connection with Every Speech Presented9

A few of the instructors who indicated that they do not criti-
cize students in connections with every speech specified that:

(1) They do not criticize every speech orally.
(2) They do not criticize every speech orally in depth.

(3) They do not criticize or evaluate minor presentations.

 

9Eighteen of 109 (16. 51 ercent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 12 of 77( (15.55 percent) respondents to the second
questionnaire indicated that occasionally or as a general rule they
do g9; criticize students in connection with every speech that they
give.

213

Time Factor of Critigge in Terms of the Class Period

Critiques Given (Made Known) During the Speech

V Respondents to the two instructor questionnaires introduced
the following methods which they use in making known to the students
criticisms while they are speaking:10

(1) Most of the instructors who indicated that they make known
the criticisms of speeches to the student during the
speech revealed the use of this method in connection with
at least one of the other two in-class time variables (after
each speech or at the end of the period).

(2) One of the respondents disclosed that if he believes that
he will need to interrupt a student in the future, he
tells the students that he is marking on their four by
six record card in red ink the word "interrupt," which
serves notice upon the students concerned that he may
interrupt in the future.

(3) The instructor might have a student whose speech is in-
effective re-do parts of the speech until he ”gets the
idea." In extreme cases the student may be asked to re-
do the entire speech the next class period.)

In addition to the reasons listed in the second instructor
questionnaire, the respondents revealed that they gave oral criti-
cisms during the speech

(1) In extreme cases of speaker nonfluencies,

(2) In instances of oft-repeated simple errors.

(3) Occasionally for purposes of pointing out a rhetorical
principle.

(4) It the nature of the fault is such that it can.best be illus-
trated by calling attention to it as it occurs.

 

10Eleven of 109 (10.37 percent) respondents of the first
questionnaire evaluate students during their speeches. Eleven of
77 (14.28 percent) occasionally or as a rule evaluate students
during their speeches.

214

( 5) Only in special cases in which a fault can best be identified
and corrected by interrupting the student because students

do not like interruptions.

(6) As a helping or training device to all of the rest of the
class who have similar problems, in which case all stu-

dents may then benefit from the mistakes of their peers.

One teacher who makes known his evaluations to students while
they are Speaking asserts that he finds himself doing less and less
of interruptive criticism because this practice wrecks the student's
train of thought and because students do not appear to like this
method of criticism as a rule.

Beginning Speech students at Donison expressed mixed reactions
to receiving criticisms while they were speaking. Six out of the 62
respondents to the questionnaire (9.? percent) preferred this method
to any other time variable with regard to the class period. Four
out of 62 respondents (6.25 percent) indicated equal preference for
criticism during the speech and criticism immediately after the speech.
Two out of the 62 respondents (3.2 percent) disclosed equal preference
for both criticism during the Speech and criticism at the end of the
period. Three out of 62 respondents (4.8 percent) noted equal prefer-
ence for all three of the time variables of criticism in relation to
the class period.

Donison students who expressed a preference for receiving
criticisms during the speech specified the following reasons for their
preference:

(1) This method helps the class to realize areas of general
weakness. (The effect on listeners is probably more pro-

nounced than on the speaker, insofar as interruptions are
concerned.)

215

(2) This method is most meaningful to the extent that it is
used to point out specific actions, mannerisms, and voice
factors, as opposed to specific contextual or content
faCtorSe

(3) This method helps other students as well as the speaker.

(h) It helps the speaker better to remember Specific areas of
his weaknesses.

(5) This method will discourage an individual from memorizing

his speech (Although criticism.during the speech at
first might break up the student's train of thought,
eventually he will get used to it).

(6) This method will train the individual to cope with interrup-
tions which occasionally will arise during a speech.

Denison students who dislike being criticized while they are Speaking
asserted that:
(l) Criticisms given during a speech interrupts the continuity
of the speech, the attention of the audience, and dis-
rupts the mood or emotional atmosphere which the speak-
er is tnying to create.

(2) Generally speaking, criticisms given during the speech
are impolite to the speaker.

A second time factor relative to the class period concerning
which instructors and students added cements to those included in
the questionnaires pertains to criticism immediately after each

SpeeChe

Critiques Given Immediately After Each speech11
Respondents who added some suggestions to the questionnaire
concerning the handling of criticisms after each Speech indicated

the following:

 

11Fifty-five of 109 (51.4 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire evelnauaimmediately after each speech. Forty-one of 77
53-25 percent) respondents to the second questionnaire occasionally
or 35 a general rule evaluate immediately after each Speech.

216

(1) Most of the instructor‘s individual criticisms are in the
form of written comments which are usually started during
the speech and finished afterwards.

(2) written critiques and occasionally oral critiques are
given after each speech.

Respondents indicated the following additional rationales
to Justify their use of criticisms immediately after each speech:

(1) As opposed to the giving of critiques during the speech,
criticisms given after each speech
(a) enable the instructor to consider the whole Speech
with its total effectiveness, and
(b) enable him to "beam" the criticisms to the entire
class, emphasizing in each instance the basic prin-
ciples which a given speech assignment aims to teach.

(2) As opposed to the giving of critiques at the end of the

period, criticisms given after each speech

(a) help the student to remember a given point of
evaluation for a longer period of time,

(b) help to reinforce appropriate speech behavior,

(c) provide for the setting of future goals for the stu-
dent, and

(d) serve to minimize excessive competition which is often
prevelant in the Speech classroom.

(3) One respondent who suggests the method of giving criti-

cisms after groups of three speeches as an alternative to
giving criticisms after each speech indicated that the

student is more receptive "psychologically" to receive
criticisms via first of the two methods.
Of the two samples taken at Dordt of 17 and 3? students respectively
14 (82.35 percent) and 34 (89.2 percent) preferred to receive criti-
cisms after each speech rather than to receive them at the end of the
period. One student of the 17 and one of the 37 (8.1 percent and 2.7

9
percent r°5P’°t1V°IY) liked to receive both time methods of criticism.1”

 

12The large percentage of preferences for evaluations given
after each Speech, as opposed to evaluations given at the end of the
period may be accounted for, in part, by the fact that the first round
was used for four of the five rounds of speeches, whereas the second
method was used for only one of the five rounds of Speeches.

217

None of the students added further reasons for preferring to receive
criticisms immediately after each speech.

Exactly 50 percent or 31 of the 62 respondents to the student
questinnaire at Denison preferred to be criticized immediately after
each speech. Four of the 62 students (6.25 percent) indicated equal
preference for criticism_after each speech and at the end of the period;
and, as has already been noted, four (6.25 percent) of the students
expressed equal preference for criticism immediately after each speech
and during the speech.

The Denison students disclosed the following reasons for their
preference of being criticized immediately after each speech:

(1) Criticisms given immediately after each Speech, as opposed
to criticisms given while the student is speaking,will
not interrupt the Speaker's train of thought, will not
disturb the continuity of the Speech, will not disrupt the
mood or emotional atmOSphere which the Speaker is trying
to create.

(2) The other students will be more likely to comment on each
Speech when critiques are given after each Speech rather
than at the end of the class period, at which time they
have several Speeches on which to comment.

(3) Effective criticism can be given only immediately after the
speech is completed; otherwise, too much is forgotten by
the critic as he tries to criticize the various Speeches.

(4) The evaluations come forth more readily when comments are
asked for immediately after the speech; they are more
spontaneous.

(5) Working with one Speech at a time, the critics can concern
themselves fully'with that one Speech.

(6) Criticisms given immediately after the Speech will probably
be better assimilated by the speaker than those made while
the speaker is speaking.

218

(7) Psychologically,thcre are two gradients along which learning
is Spread, one of which is the temporal. To the degree that
learning (in this instance criticism) is immediate, it will
be retained longer.

(8) Criticisms given immediately after the speech allow the stu-
dent to concentrate on his speech so as not to be forced to
worry about mistakes until after the speech instead of while
he is Speaking, as in the case of criticisms made known to
the student during his Speech.

A third time factor for in-class evaluation of Speeches con-
cerning which instructors and students within the samples added comments
to the statements included in the questionnaires is criticism at the
end of the period.

Critiques Given at the End of the Speeches of the Day13

Instructors who added some comments to the questionnaire con-
cerning the presentation of criticisms at the end of the period dis-
closed the following:

(1) Criticisms are given at the end of the period when no time
exists for individual oral critiques.

(2) Oral critiques are given at the end of the period, while
written critiques are handed to the student on his outline
the next period.

(3) Oral critiques are given after short groups of Speeches

(3-4), while written critiques are handed out at the end
of the peridd.

(4) If time permits, criticisms are given both after each speech
and at the end of the period.

(5) Students are criticized half way through the period and at
the end of the period, this method allowing for the comp
parative evaluations of two or three Speeches and for
stressing important points more easily.

 

13Sixtya-three of 109 (58. 88 percent) respondents generally eval-
uate students at the end of the period. Forty-four of 77 (57.14 percent)

0 ents occasi nal as a eo in r the second uestion-
naige , evaluate s seals" at the e theeperi 3'3. q

219

One instructor indicated that he evaluates students at the end of each
round of speeches

Instructors who reported that they evaluated speeches at the
end of the period indicated the added rationale to attempt to justify
their use of this method.

(1) By giving an oral critique after all the speeches have
been delivered in a class period, the instructor knows
better how much time can be devoted to oral criticism.

(2) criticizing at this point permits the instructor to
group the problems of various speakers in his critique.

(3) The use of this time method provides greater variety
fer classroom procedures.

(4) The program must be maintained. If the instructor
evaluates during the program, he may be tempted to talk
too long.

(5) Constant emphasis of.the Special goals of each round of
speeches after each speech means that each successive
Speaker has an advantage over the preceding ones; hence,
the last Speakers are favored over the first "guinea
pigs," and grading is unfair.
(6) Evaluating at the end of the period allows the appli-
cation of principles to Several of the speeches on a
comparative basis and for illustrative purposes.
Of the two Dordt samples of l? and 37 reSpectively, two
(11.76 percent) and three (8.1 percent) preferred to receive criti-
cisms at the end of the Speeches of the day. It will be recalled that
each member of the sample of 17 received a summary of the strong and
weak points made by the Speakers of the day, while each member of
the sample of 37 received his critique individualized after the speech-
es of the day'had been given. None of the students added further

reasons for preferring to receive criticisms at the end of the period.

220

Eight of the sample of 62 students at Denison (12.9 percent)
preferred receiving criticisms at the end of the speeches of the day.
As has already been noted, four (6.25) indicated an equal preference
for criticisms immediately after each Speech and at the end of the
period; and two (3.25 percent) indicated an equal preference for criti-
cisms received during the speech and at the end of the period. The
Denison sample added no further reasons to the statements already
Specified in the questionnaire for preferring the presentation of cri-
tiques at the end of the speeches of the day.

Although no opportunity in the instructor questionnaires was
given the respondent to indicate his reactions to critiques given in
private conference with students, a few comments concerning the use of
the conference session were included by instructors in responding to

the first questionnaire.

Critiques Given in Private Conference with the Student

One instructor indicated the use of a conference session with
the students inside the class, and a second instructor noted the use
of this procedure outside of class:

(1) The instructor may hold public or private interviews rith
the student.;g class (concerning his Speech or Speech
prdblems in general) while the class is preparing a written
exercise.

(2) The instructor may arrange a conference period as soon
after a given class period as possible to discuss Speeches
intensively with those speaking that day. Personal and
direct comments are to be discussed here, not in class.

As we move in our investigation from the time factor for the
giving of critiques to the form for the presentation of the critique,
it may be noted that the two questionnaires submitted to the instruc-
tors succeeded in securing data on the methodology and rationale for
the use of oral, written, and both oral and written critiques, in addi-
tion to the data Specifically prescribed by the questionnaires. Further,
the questionnaire submitted to the students at Denison indicated the
reaction of this sample (however limited in size) to receiving written

evaluation only.
Form of Presentation of the Critique

Giving of Oral Critiques Only

No added comments were indicated by the instructors concerning

14

methodology for the use of oral critiques only. In regard to ratio-

nale for the effective use of the oral critique, one instructor asserted
that the oral critique should be geared to the individual student's

readiness and level of performance.

Giving of written Critiques Only

Respondents added chiefly two suggestions for the handling of

written evaluations in the beginning Speech class:15

ll"Ten of 109 (10.09 percent) respondents to the first question-
naire and five of 77 (6.4# percent) reSpondents to the second question-
naire noted that they gave oral critiques only.

15'13'en of 109 (10.09 percent) respondents to the first question-
naire and seven of 77 (9.09 percent) reSpondents to the second question-
naire indicated that they give written critiques only.

{\D
{0
m

(1) One respondent indicated that she returns her written evalua-
tions on the students' outlines three or four days after the
speeches have been presented.

(2) Another instructor prepares thoroughly detailed written cri—l
tiques with a carbon copy for himself.

Respondents to the two questionnaires supplemented the rationales
listed in the second questionnaire with the following reasons for the
use of written critiques:

(1) Ethos problems, which could crush students if aired in
public, Should be communicated to the student via written
critiques, a method which avoids embarrassment to the stu-
dent. "The dearest possession of a student is his ability
to Speak; the instructor must not undermine the stu-
dent's self-confidence."

(2) written critiques provide a permanent record for the student.
(3) They can deal specifically with the problems of each speaker.
(4) They can point out minor individual errors.
The Denison students indicated only favorable reactions to the
receiving of written evaluations:

(1) "When the evaluation is written, I can look back over it
when preparing my next speech, in order to try to correct
the problem and to make sure that I do not make the same
mistakes again."

(2) Oral evaluations, contrary to written evaluations,are
listened to and forgotten.

(3) with written evaluations it is easier for the student to
correct general weak spots.

(#) Oral evaluations, as opposed to written evaluations, take
away much needed time for the giving of Speeches since
eight or nine speeches must be crammed into 50 minutes.

(5) Written evaluations provide for a part of a long-range
improvement program.

(6) Written evaluations come closer than do oral evaluations
to telling the true story of the Speech, and they tend
to come more to the point.

223

(7) Written evaluations give a record of progress which shows
repeated mistakes needing attention.

(8) Written evaluations enable the instructor better to present
an overall view of speeches rather than one minor point.

Giving of Both Oral and Written Critiques

Instructors added to the questionnaires the following sugges-
tions for the use of both oral and written critiques:16

(1) Oral critiques focus attention on content, written critiques
on.delivery.

(2) One respondent noted that his written critiques follow a
particular scheme or pattern of evaluation, while his
oral critiques are adapted to the speeaker and to the
situtation.

(3) The oral critique is general; the written critique is in-
dividualized and is handed to the speakers at the end of
the h011ro

(4) Oral critiques are given after short groups of Speeches

(3-4).

( 5) One instructor indicated that his oral critiques contain
only general criticisms that apply to all students while
his written critiques contain any negative, personal
items that need to be communicated to the student.

(6) This method provides reinforcement of eye and earg and it
helps students see their weaknesses immediately.

(7) Another instructor who uses both oral and written evalua-

tions disclosed that his oral critiques attempt to answer
two questions:
(a) Which speech met the assignment best and why?

(b) Which Speech met the assignment poorly and why?

 

. 16Ninety-two of 109 (84.4 percent; respondents to the first
questionnaire and 62 of 77 (80.52 percent to the second questionnaire
disclosed that they gave both oral and written critiques.

(\J
M
1:-

Concerning the content of the critique, respondents indicated
methodologies and rationalesin addition to those listed in the two
questionnaires for the use of critiques with:

(l) A greater concentration upon unfavorable than on favorable
comments .

(2) A greater concentration upon favorable comments than upon
unfavorable comments.

(3) About an equal balance between favorable and unfavorable
comments.

,Content of the Critique

Critiques Given.with Greater Concentration upon Unfavorable
than upon Favorable Comments

The instructors noted the following suggestions for the hane

dling of unfavorable comments, especially those that tend to focus

more attention upon the unfavorable than the favorable aspects of the

17

Speech:

(1) Students are acquainted early in the course with research
materials indicating the value of negative or adverse
criticisms.

(2) Occasionally if the Speech is a vivid example of "good or
bad, " the teacher might make an oral issue of the example
in class as a teaching device; or it may be preferable to
call the speaker into conference.

(3) One respondent specified that a given critique will not
cover all of the student's weak points. Weaknesses and
positive suggestions for improvement are included in each
critique.

 

17TWentya-seven of 109 (24. 77 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 20 of 77 (25. 96 percent) respondents to the second

questionnaire concentrate more on unfavorable than on favorable comments
in their critiques.

’)
2L5

(4) One instructor noted that he places greater concentration
upon unfavorable comments at the close of the course.

(5) Another reSpondent indicated that he usually tries to
point out some favorable aspect of the presentation but
that he tries to focus attention on the weak points so
that they may be corrected.

Respondents also added the following rationale to the list in
the second questionnaire for the use of critiques placing greater
concentration upon unfavorable than upon favorable comments:

(1) One respondent asserted that the instructor should not be
severe with students who know that they have done poorly.

(2) With the concentration upon unfavorable comments, the in-

structor should always be careful to give the students
something praiseworthy, if at all possible; otherwise,
they will become hopelessly frustrated and feel that im-

provement is impossible.

Critiques Given with Greater Concentration upon Favorable than
upon Unfavorable Comments
Concerning the giving of critiques that are more favorable

than unfavorable in content, the respondents added the following

Suggested methods to the questionnaires:18

(l) Favorable critiques are given in class, unfavorable critiques
in conference.

(2) One reSpondent noted that he starts the wording of his cri~
tique from a positive point of view: "This element is
present and is good, but it can be made stronger and im-
proved upon."

(3) One instructor indicates that he places greater concentra-
tion upon favorable comments at the start of the course.

 

18Twenty of 109 (18.35 percent) res ndents to the first
questionnaire and nine of 77 (11.69 percent§orespondents to the second
questionnaire indicated that they give critiques with a greater con—
centration upon favorable comments than upon unfavorable comments.

226

The respondents added to the questionnaires the following
rationales for the giving of critiques with greater concentration upon
favorable than upon unfavorable comments:

(1) Reinforcement of effective behavior is the best learning
method.

(2) An undesirable Spread effect of negative comments to other
class members often occurs when coments are more unfavor-
able than favorable.

(3) The greatest service that can be performed for students
is to build self-confidence.

(4) ”Students grow by developing their strengths and capacities,
which developments tend to compensate for weaknesses."

(5) "Students learn what the instructor pays attention to."

If he attends to mistakes, they learn mistakes; if he
attends to strengths, they learn strengths.

Critiques Given with about an Equal Balance between Favorable

and Unfavorable Comments

The instructors reSponding to the two questionnaires made no
additional suggestions concerning methodology but did add the following
rationale for focusing about equal attention upon favorable and un-

favorable factors in the Speeches:19

(1) Unfavorable comments only are too negative and unrealistic;
the instructor should evaluate.

(2) The instructor needs an open, impartial mind; and he needs

to be honest. The balance of favorable and unfavorable
comments in the critiques is dependent upon the instructor's
”calling the shots as he sees them."

(3) The weighing_of favorable versus unfavorable comments depends
upon the student and upon his performance.

 

19Fifty-two of 109 (47.71 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 39 of 77 (50.65 percent) respondents to the second
questionnaire noted that they concentrate about equal attention or
weight upon favorable and unfavorable comments.

227

(4) The instructor who places greater concentration upon
favorable comments at the start of the course and greater
concentration upon unfavorable comments at the end of the
course observed that as a student matures and gains con-
fidence, he can better handle and profit from more severe
criticism. ,

(5) The approximate balance of favorable and unfavorable
comments should be affected by not only the quality of
the speech but the personality of the speaker.

Focus of Critique upon What the Student Should Do in Preparing
for the Next Speech

None of the respondents added either methodology or rationales
to the two questionnaires concerning the focus of the critique upon
what the student should do in preparing for the next Speech. It may
be noted, however, that 20 of the 109 respondents to.the first ques-
tionnaire (24.17 percent) and 27 of the 77 respondents to the second
questionnaire (28.57 percent) denoted the use of this method of
evaluation.

As was disclosed earlier in this chapter (see p. 194), the
writer in one round of speeches made a special effort to focus atten-
tion upon what the students should do in preparing for the next round
of Speeches. In the next round of Speeches, the writer focused atten-
tion specifically upon the strong and weak points of that round. In
their response to these two methods in the questionnaires, 13 of 37
students and 9 of 17 students (35.14 percent and 58.83 percent reSpec-
tively) preferred to receive evaluations focused upon what they should
do to prepare for the next Speech; and 24 of 37 students and 7 of
17 students (64.86 percent and 41.17 percent respectively) preferred

to have evaluations focused upon the speech just given.

228

One student who added comments to his questionnaire noted that
he preferred to have the critique focus upon what he should do in
preparing for the next round of speeches because the student constantly
wants to improve, and this is a way to improve for the next Speech.
Students who added comments to the questionnaires indicated that:

(1) It is hard to tell just what problem one will incur with
each succeeding Speech and, therefore, hard to determine
ahead of time just what should be stressed in preparing

for the next Speech.

(2) The student can apply comments made about the Speech just
given to the next speech anyway, in terms of his weaknesses.

(3) Some reference to the next Speech should be given to help
the student improve weak points.
Focus of Critique upon Only a Few of the Most Important Strong and
weak Points of the Speech
Respondents added only one methodology to the questionnaire
with respect to the focus of the critique upon only a few of the most
important strong and weak points of the speech:20 Oral comments are
given on the obvious unfit factors, written comments on the less
obvious weaknesses. Instructors added at least four items to the
rationale for the use of this method of evaluation:
(1) Time limitations may force the instructor to focus atten-
tion upon only one or two of the most important factors

rather than to try to focus attention upon all of the
factors relevant to the student's speech.

 

20Sixty-eight of 109 (62.38 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 58 of 77 (75.32 percent) reSpondents to the second
questionnaire disclosed that they focus their critiques upon only a few
of the most important strong and weak points of the speech.

220

/

(2) The use of this method depends on the unit of study being
emphasized in class at the time; attention should be focused
on the specific assignment of the particular Speaking sit-
uation.

(3) Students cannot possibly focus attention on a great many
things at one time.

(h) Often, a too detailed critique, which covers more points

than the student can possibly overcome all at once, tends

to "depress" the student rather than "impress" him.

Moving now from a consideration of the content of the critique
to the vehicle for the presentation of the written critique, we may
take note of the added methodologies and rationales indicated by the
instructors on the two questionnaires for the use of the check list
or rating scale and the blank sheet of paper. Attention will also
be called to the reactions of the sample of westnar beginning Speech

students to the use of these two vehiclesfor the written criticisms

of their Speeches.
Vehicle for the written Critique

Use of the Standard or Specific Check List with Room for Comments
Respondents who use the check list or rating scale to give

written critiques to their students added the following comments on

methodology to the two questionnaires:21
(1) One respondent indicated that prior to the use of a check

list, the instructor should first note the major problems
that the students need to work on.

 

21Twenty-nine of 109 (26.60 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 35 of 77 (45.45 percent) reSpondents to the second
questionnaire noted that they use a standard or specific check list
with room for comments as a vehicle for their written critiques. Another
five respondents to the second question (6.49 percent) noted an occa—
sional use of the check list for written critiques.

(2) Another respondent disclosed that he is careful to add
personal comments to the check list that he gives his
students.

(3) One of the comments suggested the occasional use of the
check list for the evaluation of the final speeches.

(4) Pages in the form of modified check lists with room for
written comments may be included in the course syllabus
for purposes of the preparation of written critiques.

(5) One instructor revealed that he uses an analysis form pre-
pared by his students to allow for more specific comments.

(6) Respondents included three examples of modified check
lists (in the questionnaires) with ample room for addi-
tional comments, the three lists separately consisting of
the following criteria for evaluation:

(a) content, organization, and delivery;
(b) content organization, language and delivery;
(c) delivery, compositon, and audience psychology.

(7) One respondent indicated the use of both the check list and
the blank sheet of paper.

(8) As a variation to the use of the check list, one instruc-
tor noted that once during the course he makes comments
directly on the student's outline.

(9) Another instructor, who uses the check list form through-
out the course, disclosed that he varies the content of
the check list with each speech.

Instructors who use the check list or rating scale as a vehicle
for the written critique added the following rationale in their
response to the second questionnaire:

(1) The check list reveals a pattern to the instructor.

(2) It reminds the instructor not to "get carried away" with
one element that is on his mind at the moment as it calls
his attention to the basic items that deserve comment.

(3) The use of the check list to check the strong and weak

points of the speeches seems tomotivate the students to
a greater extent in preparing for future'speeches.

2.31

The reactions of the Nestmar beginning speech students to the

instructor's use of the "Purdue Speech Rating Chart" as a vehicle for

. . .. . .. 9
their written evaluations are as follows:2~

(1) Written comments pertaining only to my speech may still
be made on this form.

(2) This rating chart, as opposed to the blank sheet of paper,
makes it easier for the student to see exactly "where he
is“ (what he has done well and what he needs to do better).

(3) Evaluations are much easier to read when recorded on a
mimeographed sheet than on a blank sheet of paper.

(4) One student indicated his preference for the "Purdue Speech
Rating Form," provided the instructor adds his own comments
to the form.

(5) This form tells the student how he has fared in everything,
not just what he did very poorly or very good; it gives
the student a direct evaluation of average abilities that
he has.

Use of Blank Sheet of Paper
Instructors who prefer the use of the blank sheet of paper as a

vehicle for the written critique appended the following suggested
73

methods to the questionnaires:~

(1) Each student is required to keep a notebook in which his
critiques are entered and which he brings with him to
conference sessions with the instructor

22Sixteen of 40 (40 percent) of the Westmar students preferred
to receive their written critiques on the "Speech Rating Chart."

23Thirty-one of 109 (28.44 percent) respondents to the first
questionnaire and 29 of 77 (37.66 percent) respondents to the second
questionnaire disclosed that they use a blank sheet of paper for their
written critiques. Another five respondents to the second question-
naire (6.49 percent) noted an occasional use of the blank sheet of
paper for written critiques.

232

(2) One respondent employs a blank "order-book" which has
one white page that is carboned on the reverse side and
a yellow page immediately following the white page.
One such book is provided for each student. The in-
structor gives the student the origional copy of the
critique after each speech. The yellow carbon copy of
the critique provides the instructor a record of past
problems of each student, and this record is before the
instructor as each student prepares to speak.

(3) Another respondent disclosed that he writes notes on top
of the outline of his student's speeches while a few of
his instructors, at times, use rating scales.

Respondents to the inStructor questionnaires contributed the
following rationale for the use of the blank sheet of paper as a vehicle
for the written critique:

(1) One respondent noted that he changed from the use of the
check list to the practice of writing critiques on the
student's outlines because he believes he can be more
Specific about relating his comments to particular aspects
of the speech.

(2) Another respondent indicated that he had not as yet found

a check list that was satisfactory to him, one to which

he could easily adapt his comments.

The westmar students noted the following comments on their
questionnaire concerning the use of the blank sheet of paper alone,
as well as along with the check list as instruments on which to
receive written critiques:24

(1) The instructor can be more Specific in his criticism

with the use of the blank sheet of paper than with the

standard evaluation form.

(2) One student noted that a combination of the two methods

would be a better method for the written evaluation of
Speeches than the use of either of the two methods alone.

 

24Nineteen of 40 students (47.5 percent) preferred to receive
their written critiques on a blank sheet of paper. .Five of the stu-
dents (12.5 percent) denoted equal preference for the two vehicles for
the written critique.

“33

(3) Another student indicated equal preference for the

"Speech Rating Chart" and the blank sheet of paper for

the written critique.

Many of the respondents to the two questionnaires appended
suggestions to the two questionnaires for both methodology and rationale
in the use of student evaluations of students. A few of the respondents,
on the other hand, indicated a rationale for the nonuse or restricted
use of evaluations by students. Brief mention will also be made of

the results of the Dordt College questionnaires on student reactions

to the use and nonuse of student evaluations of their peers.
Student Critiques

Giving of Instructor Critiques Only 25

Instructors who do not use or who only occasionally use
student evaluations of students added the following comments to the
questionnaires for the nonuse or limited use of student critiques:

(1) One respondent notes that in each round of speeches the
students are given an assignment to improve their
listening (arrived at via content analysis); thus, they
concentrate on improving their listening rather than on
helping the speaker to improve since they can concentrate
on only one thing at a time.

(2) One instructor noted that he starts with instructor
evaluations only and works toward student evaluations.

(3) Another respondent noted that the extend of student
evaluations over against instructor evaluations varies
according to the class.

 

250n the first instructor questionnaire 12 of 109 (11.01
percent) respondents indicated the nonuse of student evaluations. On
the second questionnaire 11 of 77 (14.28 percent) repondents noted
the nonuse of student evaluations by students. Six of 77 respondents
(7.19 percent) occasionally used student evaluation.

'3!
2,4

(4) Once in a great TWhile students are assigned to rate

(5)

speakers on a criticism sheet.

One respondent, who seldom uses student critiques

reports that he invites student comments when he

believes that more effective results will accrue from
teacher comments alone. The students give their comments
first; then the teacher presents a "wrap-up” of student
achievements.

Respondents who do not make a regular practice of using stu-

dent participation in the evaluation of speeches added the following

rationale to the questionnaire to justify their nonuse or limited use

of student critiques:

(1)

(2)

(3)

One respondent averred that he knows more about evalua-
tion in terms of the objectives of the course than do
Freshmen; otherwise he would not consider himself an
adequate teacher.

Beginning speakers have little rhetorical knowledge with
which to criticize. They tend to feel that elements of
delivery, especially mannerisms in speaking are all
important.

Student critiques are used only occasionally lest a
student fear what his peers will say.

One of 17 students (5.88 percent) and nine of 37 students

(24.32 percent) in the two samples of students at Dordt College pre-

ferred to receive evaluations from their instructor only. None of the

students added comments concerning this method of classroom criticism.

Giving of Instructor and Student Critiques

Respondents who regularly use student evaluation of students

from time to time in the beginning course appended the following

comments to the questionnaires concerning the handling of student

235

Critiques:20

(1) Speech majors in the beginning public speaking course who
are also taking, or who have taken advanced speech courses
are required to write critiques of class speeches during
the last half of the beginning speech course.

(2) One instructor has each student critic outline each speech
that he or she is to evaluate.

(3) One respondent indicated that he uses only oral critiques
from students, and he encourages them to make constructive
suggestions, preceded by at least one compliment, if at
all possible.

(4) Student critiques and evaluations are used for two rounes
of speeches during the semester.

(5) From time to time, two students are assigned to evaluate or
criticize each speaker.

(6) Student panels are selected to evaluate speeches; the
question method is used. For example, the panel may ask
what are the best things about the student's speech.

(7) The heckling speech may be used occasionally with students
interrupting the speaker.

(8) The peer group method may be used with student critiques
only (no instructor critiques) from time to time during
the course.

(9) Students may be required to fill out a critique form, which
the teacher examines and then returns to the speaker, to
indicate audience feedback. Student oral critiques may
also be called for at the end of’the period.

(l0) Students are allowed to use a standard check list later
in the course after it has been explained.

(11) One respondent notes that he uses both a blank sheet of
paper and a standard check list for student critiques at
different times during the course. written critiques by
students may be handed to the speakers the next period
after the teacher has examined them, or they may be handed
to the speakers the same period that they Speak.

 

26In the first questionnaire, 97 of 109 respondents (88.99 per-
cent) indicated the use of student critiques. In the second question-
naire 60 of 77 respondents (77.92 percent) noted the regular use of stu-

dent criti d... f :7 Fr.8 t .fisd th. ‘, 1'
use of stu ght’cggtiaufis? 7' (I O percen ) SPQCI ' ” occasioral

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

.
,
P f\

, K2

Each student is assigned to prepare a written critique of
one speech during the course. Student oral critiques are
given, as time permits, on a class discussion basis.

One instructor indicated that he uses class discussions
from time to time for oral student critiques and often
has the class rank by ballot the top speakers for the day
and/or for the round of Speeches.

Students are informed at the outset of the semester that
they are to give constructive criticisms during the last
half of the course when called upon to do so.

Students are informed at the outset of the period that
they should be ready to criticize the speeches of the
day; however, they are also warned that they should not
sit with pen or pencil poised ready to record criticisms.

Student written critiques are placed on a 5 x 8 blank
sheet of paper (The lower half is blank.); however, each
sheet contains a summary of teChniques to "consider in
writing comments," and asks the student critic to record
the specific purpose of the speech as he perceived it.

Each speech is rated and ranked by the whole class each
period; then criticisms are given by both instructor and
students.

One reSpondent disclosed that his class's last listening
assignment (the last round of speeches) is to listen and
evaluate each speech in terms of both content and delivery.
These evaluations are written and given to each Speaker

at the end of the round.

Student written critiques are picked up at the end of the
period and handed to the speakers the next period. The
names of the critics are removed, but grades are recorded
for good or poor student evaluations.

One of the respondents revealed the use of the following
method for student criticisms:

All students prepare index cards with critique material
(criteria) typed on them. These are placed on the students'
desks at the beginning of the speech class. As the speaker
approaches the rostrum, the instructor taps two or three
students on the arm. These know by that sign that they are
to write a critique of the coming Speech on their cards.

The speaker is unaware of the students elect to write
critiques of his speech. Only the speaker's name appears

<21)

237

on the critique card. At the end of the class all cards
are placed on the instructor's desk. The instructor then
reads out the name on each card and the speaker claims

the cards. In this way the speaker received approximately
feur judgments on his speech-- oral expression from the
teacher and three cards from students. This method is
used three times during the course; otherwise all student
criticism in oral.

One respondent, who uses student critiques occasionally,
noted that he tries to have a personal interview with
every student for purposes of discussion personal problems
that may hamper the effectiveness of the student's speak-

ing.
Respondents added to the questionnaires the following rationales

to Justify their use of student critiques:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(h)

(5)

(6)

(7)

One respondent disclosed that he tries to impress upon
his students the fact that criticism is the function of
all members of the Speech class.

Student evaluation of students gives the class practice
in critical listening.

Students often point out factors missed by the instructor,
and they often appear to take the comments of their peers
more to heart than they do the comments of their instructor.

Student participation in evaluation encourages students to
develop their own standards for evaluating public speaking.
Self-discovery of knowledge is vital to the students' learn-
ing. They should leave the course prepared to evaluate their
own speaking and especially the speaking of others since

the majority of the students are going to be spending much
more time listening to speeches than giving speeches.

Ono respondent believes that_students can be made to en-
joy helping their peers, despite the idea that they do
not want to criticize for fear that they will make the
same mistakes.

A student may be more impressed if 21 people react to good
or poor elements in his speech than if only the teacher
does the reacting.

Student evaluations help to develop classroom rapport be-
cause the students believe that they are helping each
other to accomplish a common goal.

238

(8) One instructor noted that he is teaching future teachers,

that their ability to evaluate others accurately and tact-

fully is important for their future work.

In the two samples of Dordt College beginning speech students,
13 of 17 (76.1w percent) and 26 of 37 (70.27 percent) preferred to
receive evaluations from their classmates as well as from the instruc-
tor. Three of 17 (17.65 percent) and two of 37 (5.1a percent) Dordt
students indicated equal preference for receiving instructor evalua-
tions only and instructor evaluations with student participation. One
of the students in the larger sample, in support of student critiques,
asserted that if a student evaluates other speeches, he is more alert
to study these speeches; hence he is helped in the preparation of his
own Speeches.

Finally, for purposes of a preliminary ifiVestigation in the
evaluation of speeches of two issues or variables (length of critique
period and peer grouping) that are outside the coverage of the two
instructor critiques, the writer prepared questionaires for the begin-
ning speech students at Northwestern College (Orange City, Iowa) and

Michigan State University.

Preliminary Survey in the Evaluation of Classroom
Speeches of Issues or Variables Outside the

Scope of the Instructor Questionnaires

Data Report of‘the Northwestern Qgestignnairg

Reactions of Students to the TeneMinute Critique Period

Of the 7% beginning speech respondents to the Northwestern

239

questionnaire, 62 students (83.78 percent) preferred the ten-

minute critique period for the evaluation of their speeches these

students added the following comments to the questionnaire:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

The ten-minute critique period helped me to learn my faults.
This fact gave me a chance to improve them for my last speech.

Greater participation by the students in the longer evaluation
period provided a greater means of self-improvement than
was the case with the five-minute evaluation period.

Evaluations in the ten-minute critique period could be both
specific and general, helping both speaker and listeners.

Evaluations during the ten-minute critique period apprised
the speaker of what he is best able to work on in order
to improve his method or procedure of talking.

The ten-minute evaluations allowed enough time for the
speaker to see how good or poor he really was since they
noted factors of delivery and content, pg; just delivery.

One student noted that it is helpful to him.to have his
Speech criticized by more people as a means giving him a
better over-all picture than is the case with the shorter
evaluation period.

In a speech class a student can learn by the mistakes of
others, and a thorough evaluation helps to point out these
mistakes as well as good points.

Tenpminute evaluations with fewer speeches per period gives the
instructor more of an opportunity after class is finished
to cover what was missed during the class period.

Tenpminute evaluations give the class the necessary opportu-
nity to discuss, "tear apart,” the subject matter of the
speeches; and the subject matter itself motivates a "marvel-
ous exciting discussion." Class discussions are beneficial
in the provision of a good, informal atmosphere, which

is quite rare in other classes.

The five—minute critique period hindered the students in
the amount of items to criticize; hence, they caught them-
selves repeating what someone else had just said. In the
tennminute critique period the students could criticize
the whole speech, not just the presentation.

(11)

(12)

ZhO

One of the reSpondents indicated that the opportunity to
express himself in class about the various Speeches gave
him.a better understanding of the-speeches..

By allowing greater participation (in the tenpminute cri-
tique period versus the five-minute critique period) more
people are encouraged to do more thinking than when only
a few criticize speeches.

(13) One student noted that the criticisms in the ten-minute

critique periods prior to the giving of his speech were
very helpful to him in teaching him more about speaking,
perhaps, than anything else during the course.

Reactions of Students to the Five—Minute Critique Period

Twelve of the 7% reSpondents to the Northwestern questionnaire

(16.22 percent) preferred the fiveeminute critique period for the

evaluation of their speeches. A few of these students appended the

following comments to the questionnaire:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

<5)

The long evaluation period did not seem to help too much.
More speeches with more and shorter evaluations focusing
on one or two things would have been more helpful.

Evaluation periods of five minutes appear to be long enough
to give the speaker all of his good and bad points.

One student indicated that the evaluations of the five-
minute critique period, though shorter, appeared to be
more detailed and more helpful than the evaluations of the
tenpminute critique period.

Criticisms given during the ten-minute critique periods
often covered irrelevant material that was of no help to
the speaker.

Not only might students be able to give more speeches with
the use of the shorter evaluation periods but, by concen-
trating on a different aspect or speech factor with each
round of speeches (quite possible within the time limit
of the five-minute critique period), a student would gain
a better opportunity to improve his speeches with each
succeeding round.

241

General Reactions of Students to the length of the Critique Period
Some of the Northwestern students added the following general
comments concerning the length of the critique periods:

(1) One student indicated that he liked the idea of having first
long and then shortevaluation periods for the last two rounds
of speeches, starting with Specific comments and then moving
to more general comments in the last round.

(2) Another student averred that it should be unnecessary to go
completely around the room for student comments after each
speech because under these circumstances many of the remarks
become repetitious. Students knew that they had to say some-
thing; for some Speeches it was easy to find something to
say; but for the poorer speeches the class seemed to bluff
its way through without really saying anything at all.

(a) Maybe evaluations could go partly around the room
whereupon the instructor can” ask for any other comments.
(b) Perhaps a board of several students could be set up
to evaluate each speaker, and these could be rotated.

(3) One of the respondents indicated that he wished that the
class would have been more honest. They try to ”polish
the apple" of the speaker and not hurt his feelings.
Favorable criticism according to this student, is good;

but he knew that he had faults in speaking that needed to
be corrected.

Data Report of the Michigan State Questionnaire

Reactions of Students to Evaluations Given in the Peer-Group
Sections

0f the 96 beginning speech students responding to the Michigan
State University questionnaire, 37 (38.5“ percent) indicated a prefer-
ence for the evaluations received in the peer-group sections. A
number of these students added the following comments to the question-
naire to justify their preference:

2&2

(l) One student noted that his peers seemed to evaluate his
Speeches to the same degree as the instructor; however,
their grade was not quite so critical or low. (The
peer group, according this student, does not, however,
give an easy grade.)

(2) Class evaluations may tend to look at the whole Speech
rather than to get bogged down'with technical considera-
tions.

(3) The students are more nearly like the general audience to
whom they will be Speaking later in life; hence, it is
the students that Should evaluate. An instructor may tend
to Spot items that an audience would not spot or that
would be of little concern to an audience.

(h) The evaluations by the peer groups help the students to
know their audience better as the students prepare for
subsequent speeches. (The instructor's evaluations are,
nontheless, valuable because he has more knowledge on
which to base his judgments.)

(5) With student evaluations, the Speaker becomes more familiar
with the class. This fact creates an easier atmosphere
in which to speak, which factor, in turn, creates a more
relaxed delivery.

(6) One of the reSpondents indicated that although the stu-

dents tended to mark slightly lower than the instructor

(Some of the students believed that the reverse was true),

he believed that his best Speeches were given when the

instructor was not present. This student added, however,

that it would be ideal if the instructor were present for

all Speeches; student evaluation could still be made.
Reactions of Students to Evaluations Given in the Instructor-
Sections

Fiftyafour of the 96 students responding to the Michigan State
questionnaire (56.25 percent) indicated that they preferred the evalua-
tions given in the instructor-sections to those given in the peer-
group section. Five of the respondents (5.21 percent) noted an equal

preference for the evaluations which they received in the two sections.

243

Many of the instructor-sections appended the following comments to the

questionnaire:

(1) In the instructor-sections, the Speaker received comments

(2)

(3)
(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

from his peers along with the criticisms of a trained and
experienced person.

One student averred disbelief in the peer groups' knowing
enough about giving speeches themselves, much less about
judging the performances of others.

The attitude of the peer-group section at times is somewhat
haphazard-- ”Let's get this over."

One reSpondent noted that he is much more relaxed with stu-
dents than with the instructor in the audience as critic(s).

Although the grades of student evaluators are usually fair,
their oral and written comments are usually too few and too
shallow.

One student asserted that he took the course in order to
learn effectively how and when to translate his feelings
with confidence into words. In so doing, he believes that
he needs the instructor's opinion and advice. The peer
group is helpful, however (according to this student), in
that he learns, if nothing else, what other peoples' views
are, what their preferences are, what their likes and dis-
likes are .

The peers do not evaluate orally when the instructor is not

.present; however, these who evaluate and comment on the cri-

tique Sheet provide help to the speaker.

Criticism or praise from the instructor has a stronger
effect on some of the students than do the comments of
their peers. \

Peer group evaluations, if not effectively guided, tend to
"bog down” after the first peer speech.

(10) One of the reSpondentS noted that he much preferred the

instructor's evaluations because

(a) The students tend to hold back on giving good grades
because they will be compared to their own in the
future;

(b) Many students simply say, "It was a good speech"; they
are afraid to cricize orally;

(c) Further, many in the class prefer professional evaluation.

244

(ll) Favoritism, akin to cheating, is used when students grade
each other. For instance, students say, ”I'll give you
a ”7" if you give me a ”7."

(12) One student indicated a preference of both kinds of criti-
cisms: The instructor offers expert criticism.which is
valuable; but at the same time by having the students
evaluate, there is an opportunity for a broader range of
opinion.

(13) Another student disclosed that he enjoys the half-instruc-
tor and half-student grading because the class receives

an authoritative grade, plus comments and opinions from

the students, which contributions are also important, since

future speeches will most likely be presented in front of

many people with various thoughts and ideas.

The purpose of this chapter has been to report the findings
of the two instructor questionnaires and six student questionnaires,
which were designed to secure answers to questions concerning the
attitudes and practices of teachers and the attitudes of students in
regard to the evaluation of speeches in the beginning course. The
materials of theme questionnaires (content and rationale for this content),
the procedures of administration, and the data gathered have been

presented.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of Chapter V is (l) to reassemble some basic cri-
teria for effective learning and for effective evaluation of speeches
in the beginning course and (2) topically to evince m the methods
and rationales for the evaluation of Speeches (a) suggested in the
speech literature, (b) indicated on the two instructor questionnaires
as preferred by the respondents, and (c) noted on the other question-
naires in the ferm of reactions or preferences by the beginning Speech
. students, ggnform to (or, perhaps, depart from) the above-mentioned
learning and evaluation criteria.

In keeping with this statement of purpose, some basic criteria
for effective learning and for effective evaluation of Speeches, as
gleaned from Chapters II and III, may first be stated: (1) Establish-
ment of rapport between students and teacher, both at the beginning and
throughout the course; (2) The establishment of student goals, moti-
vated by an awareness of inadequacy of present speech performance;

(3) Guidance of the learner's efforts; (4) Learner satisfaction de-
rived from knowledge of results of the student's speaking performance;
(5) Variation in method or approach to the securing of improved
speaking performance; (6) Setting increasingly higher standards of
speech behavior or performance for each successive performance; and
(7) Training students in the self-evaluation of their speeches as well

as of the speeches of others.

2&5

246

Each of these seven criteria for effective learning and for the
evaluation of Speeches will now be included as points of reference with
which to relate (l) applicable or pertinent comments concerning the
evaluation of Speeches drawn from the speech literature, (2) comparable
comments drawn from the two instructor questionnaires, and (3) like

comments drawn from the Six student questionnaires.

I Establishment of Rapport between Stgdents and Tsacher

 

As was pointed out in Chapter III, one of the tasks of the
speech teacher at the outset of the course is to organize with class
cooperation a discussion of factors of criticism.which will lead to
the effecting of a group pattern of permissiveness and objectivity in
an atmosphere in which criticism is sought as a key to self-help. This
positive classroom climate (1) encourages students to make constructive
use of the criticism given and (2) helps to give them a sense of achieve-
ment as they improve, an achievement in which they may take pride.
This student-teacher rapport, thus secured in the beginning of the
course, Should be maintained throughout the course. The preservation
of this classroom rapport (in opposition to a punitive or defensive
class atmosphere) throughout the course will encourage the beginning

speech students readily to accept criticism from the instructor.

Comments from the Literature on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to Establishment of Class Rapport
The speech literature suggests the following comments on the
evaluation of speeches that relate, indirectly at least, to the estab-

ment of student rappgrt in the beginning public speaking classroom:

(l)

(2')

(3)

(it)

(5)

(6)

(7)

247

Individual criticism of student performances should not be-
gin until the instructor has established with his class a
feeling of mutual understanding, which will be conducive

to the most candid appraisal of Speech performances. Other
wise, students will believe that they are being criticized
before they have had an opportunity to improveg- a feeling,
which if allowed to persist, will cause the apprehension
of the sudents and the resultant loss of class rapport.

The teacher should spend the early weeks of the beginning
course in the building of class rapport, particularly in
order to prepare the students to receive criticisms of an
adverse nature.

As a means of avoiding embarrassment to any student in the
offering of negative criticisms, the teacher should summarize
the main weaknesses of the majority of the speakers at the
end of each day of performances, or perhaps even after the
entire class has performed a short, simple assignment.

The instructor should handle criticisms given in private
conference with students in such a way that these con-
ference periodswill become non-disciplinary in nature and
will contribute to the creation of high class rapport.

The instructor may see the need in some instances to focus
more attention in the giving of unfavorable comments than
in the giving of favorable comments; however, for the

sake of class as well as individual student rapport, he
should be able to find at least one aspect of the perfor-
mance that is conducive to praise.

The placement of emphasis in the critique upon strengths
facilitates class and individual student rapport by
providing a ”cooling off” period fer the speaker so that
by the time the instructor arrives at the comments for
improvement, the student is more relaxed and in a re-
ceptive mood.

An emphasis upon favorable criticism in the beginning
public speaking course creates a relaxed, positive class
climate, in.which the instructor's critique serves to en-
courage, not discourage, the student in his efforts at
improved speaking performance.

2MB

(8) For the sake of the preservation of class or individual stu-
dent rapport, the instructor, rather than mention a partic-
ular fault to a student before he is ready to make the de-
sired improvement, should write the fault in his private
notes and not comment about the fault to the student or
class. ‘When the shortcoming occurs again at a later date
and the student has progressed to a point where he can begin
to deal with this shortcoming, the instructor may comment
on the fact that the shortcoming has occurred before but
that now the speaker has progressed to a point where in
future Speeches he should be able to correct it.

(9) Student participation in criticism effects class rapport by
causing the student to feel that they are contributing to
the improvement of the speaker; and because they are per-
mitted to contribute to the speaker's improvement, they
feel that they are accepted and belong to the group.

(10) The instructor's discussion with his beginning Speech stu-
dents of the giving as well as the receiving of criticism
in a classroom climate that encourages permissiveness and
informality should provide the kind of atmosphere that will
encourage student participation, partiularly,1¢ in the
giving of oral criticisms to their peers, largely because
class rapport has been established.

(11) The instructor's focus of attention in his critique upon
what the student should do in preparing for the next Speech
serves to preserve individual class rapport or student con-
fidence by stating the Speaker's problem obliquely, putting
the whole matter into the future without being too blunt
about the speech just heard.

Comments from Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of
Speeches Related to Establishment of Class Rapport
The respondents appended to the two instructor questionnaires
the following comments which relate to the establishment of student
rapport in the beginning speech course:

(I) The evaluation of students is postponed until after the
first two or three speeches primarily as a means of helping
students to become emotionally adjusted to the speaking
situation and to develop ease and security during the be-
ginning stages of the course, in short to secure class and ‘
individual student rapport.

249

(2) Criticism immediately after each Speech serves to establish
class rapport by minimizing excessive competition which is
often prevalent in the speech classroom.

(3) In order to preserve class and individual student rapport,
written critiques should be used as an instrument for any
necessary airing of ethos problems, which, if exposed via
oral critiques in the classroom, would embarass the stu-
dent and crush his class morale.

(4) With the concentration of the critique upon unfavorable
comments, the instructor, as a means of sustaing class
and individual student rapport, should always be care-
ful to give the students something praiseworthy, if at
all possible; otherwise, they will become helplessly
frustrated and feel that improvement is impossible.

(5) Student evaluations of their peers help to develop class-
room rapport because the students believe that they are
helping each other to accomplish a common goal.

(6) In opposition to evaluations made known to students during
their Speeches, some instructors assert that this inter-
ruptive criticism undermines individual class rapport and
morale by wrecking the students' train of thought, by
subjecting them to a method of criticism which they do not
appear to like.

(7) Some instructors maintain that more than an occasional use
of student critques undermines class rapport because stu-
dents sometimes fear what their peers will say.

(8) Some instructors recommend the giving of critiques that
focus upon only a few of the most important strong and
weak points of the Speech because often, a too detailed
critique, which covers more points than the student can

possibly overcome all at once tends to "depress" the stu-
dent rather than "impress" him or raise his class morale.

Comments from Student Questionnaires on Evaluation of
Speeches Related to Establishment of Class Rapport
The;§tudents, in responding to their questionnaires, indicated

one key issue relative to the establishment of class rapport: Some of

250

the students objected to the giving of critiques during the speech be-
cause it hinders the maintenance of class rapport by interrupting the
continuity of the Speech and the attention of the audience, and by
disrupting the mood or emotional atmosphere that the speaker is trying
to create. 0n the other hand, some students encourage the giving of
critiques immediately after each speech because, contrary to the above,
criticisms given at this point will not interrupt the speaker's

train of thought, will not disturb the continuity of the Speech, will
not distract the attention of the audience, and will not disrupt the

mood or emotional atmosphere which the Speaker is trying to create.

II The Establishment of Student Goals Motivated by an Awareness
of Inadgguacy of Present.Spgech Perfbrmance
A second criterion for effective learning and for the effective
evaluation of Speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III, is the
establishment of student goals motivated by an awareness of inadequacy

of present speech performance.

Comments from the Literature on Evaluation of JBpeeches Related
to the Establishment of Student Goals Motivated by

an Awareness of Inadequacy of Present
Speech Performance
The speech literature notes the following methods and accom-
panying rationale concerning evaluation of Speeches related to the
establishment of student goals for achievement motivated by an aware—

ness of the inadequacy of present patterns of speech performance.

251

(1) The instructor should wait in his criticism of his beginning
public speaking students until he feels that he understands
the students well enough to present criticism in the light of
their potential goals.

(2) The teacher should instill confidence and enthusiastic moti-
vation through pointing out to the student methods of using and
improving what are already his recognizable assets.

(3) As a means of showing the student the inadequacy of his present
performance and of helping him get rid of conspicuous weak-
nesses, which may prove to be the quickest road to Speech
improvement, judgment may dictate that the instructor should
use adverse criticism as an actual starting point.

(4) The instructor Should consider the use of the personal con-
ference with students as a means of dealing with the problem
of goal-setting.

(5) Instructors Should give written critiques in order to per-
sonalize and diversify his comments according to the individual
goals of the students, as well as goals for the course.

(6) The teacher should utilize oral evaluations in order to
vocalize for the students the Speech goals and Speech values
of the class.

(7) The instructor, in the presentation of adverse criticisms,
should strive to point out specific instances in which some
students noticeably succeeded in avoiding the more common
pitfalls of the majority in order to provide a positive and
concrete goal for the rest of the class to aSpire to achieve.

(8) The instructor's placement of more emphasis upon favorable
than upon unfavorable comments in his crithaes serves to
motivate the student as it stimulates him in the achieve—
ment of his course goals. This sense of achievement of his
course goals in turn increases his confidence as he prepares
for his speaking tasks.

Comments from the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to the Establishment of Student Goals Rotivated by an
Awareness of Inadequacy of Present Speech Performance

The instructors added to the two questionnaires the following

methods and rationales which relate to the establishment of student

252

goals for achievement, motivated by an awareness of the inadequacy
of present patterns of their speech performance:

(1) The oral critique should be geared to the individual student's
readiness and level of performance, a critique which should
not transcend his reCOgnizable assets or potential goals.

(2) Evaluations with greater emphasis upon favorable than upon
unfavorable comments serve to give the student a sense of
achievement by reinforcing effective behavior, a practice
which is the best learning method.

(3) The instructor's use of the critique that focuses upon only
a few of the most important strong and weak points of the
speech, for purposes of recognizing student and class goals
in Speech evaluation, should be governed by the unit of
study being emphasized in class at the time and by the
specific assignment of the particular speaking situation.

Comments from the Student Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches

Related to the Establishment of Student Goals Motivatedgby an
Awareness of Inadequacy of Present Speech Performances
The studentgresponses to their questionnaires indicated one

point that is related, indirectly at least, to motivation stemming from
an awareness of the inadequacy of present patterns of their Speech
perforrance: The instructofls revelation of criticisms to the students

while they are speaking helps the class to realize areas of general

weakness and helps them better to remember these areas of weaknesses.

III Guidance of the Leagner's Efforts
A third criterion for effective learning and for the effective
evaluation of Speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III, is guidance

of the learner's efforts.

 

I. ll '1 ilk-11.411! l a.“ 1:].

Comments from the Literature on Evaluation of Speeches

Related to Guidance of the Learner's Efforts

‘

I
The speech literature discusses the following methods and
accompanying rationales on the evaluation of speeches related to the
guidance of the learner's efforts:

(1) Instructors-- for purposes of guiding, not confusing,
the learner-- should keeptheir criticisms in line with
[and in reinfOrcenent of] the student's grasp of Speech
theory. They should remember that early in the cours
the student will have no speech terminology.

(2) The instructor's revelation of criticisms to the student
and drilling with the student while he is speaking, in
many cases, is the only means (for example) of enabling
him to attain the objective of the synchronization of
voice variety with bodily action.

A
\O
\J

The oral critique is a valuable teaching device, enabling
the student to learn not only from the criticisms of his
own Speaking, but also from the criticisms of other
students' speeches.

(4) Oral evaluations vocalize for the students the speech con-
cepts and vocabulary, which the instructor is attempting
to present to the class.

(5) The instructor's critique should serve as an effective
teaching device by being progressive; by beginning with
a few fundamental requirements or eXpectations, to which
he adds one or two items for each successive speaking
experience.

(6) Oral evaluations enable the instructor to avail himself of
the opportunity to teach principles of rhetorical theory
suggested by one or more examples of effective class speech 3:
for instance, the teaching of audience adaptation from a
Speech that effectively adapted materials to the audience.

(7) The check list, with the list of criteria to serve as a
reminder of factors to be covered in the critique, aids
the instructor in providing specific suggestions for guid-
ing the student in his efforts to improve his Speaking
performance.

(8)

The blank sheet of paper, as a vehicle for the tritten
critique, aids the instructor in the guidance of his
students by focusing upon the individual strengths and
weaknesses to help each student improve his speaking
performance.

The instructor should utilize criticism by students as a

means of teaching them critical listening with a view to

developing audience responsibility, which is as important
as Speaker responsibility in communication.

Comments from Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of

Speeches Related to Guidance of the learner's Efforts

Respondents appended to the two questionnaires the following

methods and accompanying rationales concerning the evaluation of

Speeches related to the guidance of the learner's efforts:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Criticisms given throughout the course will (should) not
only teach the students how to give speeches but also
teach them s nothing about the vide range of choices
available to them in a communication setting. A very
successful classroom speech, for example, may be a "dud"
in other settings: and only by indicating this as a part
of the critique will students learn something about
rhetorical theory.

The giving of oral criticisms during the speech is a
helping or training device to all of the rest of the class
who have similar problems, in which case all students may
then benefit from the mistakes of their peers.

Criticisms given immediately after each speech, as opposed
to critiques given during the speech, enable the instruc-
tor to beam the criticisms to the entire class, emphasizing
in each instance the basic principles, both which are
related to the speeches and which the speech assignment
aims to teach.

In the giving of critiques with a greater concentration
upon unfavorable than upon favorable conments, the in-
structor, occasionally if the Speech is a vivid example
of "good or bad," may make an oral issue of the example
in class as a teaching device.

(5) The giving of critiques with a greater concentration upon
favorable than upon unfavorable comments not only stimulates
the student in the achievement of course goals by giving
hiniisense of achievevent but, at the same time, serves as
a most effective teaching or learning method.

(6) The instructor's focus of his critique upon only a few of
the most important strong and weak points of the speech
guides the student" in centering his attention upon only
those factors that he can effectively handle at any one
time.

(7) The instructor who uses the check list as a vehicle for the
written critique should first guide or instruct the stu-
dents concerning thc major problems that they need to work
on.

Comments from Student Questionnaires on Evaluation of
Speeches Related to Guidance of the Learner's Efforts
Students added the fellowing comments to their questionnaires
relative to the use of evaluation of Speeches as aids to teaching and
learning:

(1) The disclosure of criticisms during the Speech is most
meaningful to the student to the extent that it is used to
point out specific actions, mannerisms, and voice factors,
as opposed to specific contextual or content factors.

(2) This method of criticism will train the student to cope with
interruptions which occasionally will arise during a speech.

IV Learner Satisfaction Derived from Knowledge of Results of
the Student's Speaking Performance
A fourth criterion for effective learning and for the effective
evaluation of speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III, is the learner

satisfaction derived from knowledge of results of the student's speaking

performance.

 

I .II i‘l.l ‘Iv till-1.". .[ f. ,...

256

Comments from the literature Related to learner Satisfaction
Derived from Knowledge of Results of
Speech Performance
The speech literature discusses the following methods and
accompanying rationales related to learner satisfaction derived from
the knowledge of the results of speech performance:

(1) Criticisms should be given after each speech so that con_
structive suggestions may be given while the teacher,
speaker, and class can still recall what has occurred and
can quickly relate the suggestions to points needing im-
provement.

(2) Written critiques give the student definite, tangible
suggestions for improvement, as well as a definite idea
of the improvement which is being made.

(3) The focus of attention upon only a few of the most important
strong and weak points of the Speech not only guides the stu-
dents in centering his attention upon only those factors
that he can effectively handle at any one time but at the
same time prevents the student from becoming so confused
and discouraged that he will fail to recognize appreciably
any of the suggestions for improvement.

Comments from Instructor Questionnaires Related to learner
Satisfaction Derived from Knowledge of Results
of Speech Performance
The instructors added to the two questionnaires the following
methods and accompanying rationales concerning the evaluation of
speeches which relate to learner satisfaction derived from the know-

ledge of the results of speech performance.

(1) The instructor's use of the blank sheet of paper as a vehicle
for the written critique gives the student satisfaction of
knowledge of progress by offering the instructor some ad-
vantages of focusing upon the individual speaker and iden—
tifyingjxlhim, his speech, and his Speaking points which
merit praise and which call for suggestions.

(2) Student evaluations of students are valuable in giving the
student' the satisfaction of knowledge of how effectively
he is in communicating with his peers in order to gain
from them the response(s) that he desires.

Comments from Student Questionnaires Related to Learner
Satisfaction Derived from Knowledge of Results
of Speech Performance
Comments of student respondents to the questionnaires and of
students who were involved in the Hinde study are as follows:

(1) Criticists should be given early in the course as well as
later in the course for there is little time for the stu-
dent to wait in securing knowledge of the results or of
the effect of his Speaking.

(2) Some of the respondents to the Hinds study, with particular
reference to the revelation of criticisms during the speech,
noted that flash cards offer no tangible evidence to which
the students may’refer for specific, detailed suggestions
for improvement.

(3) On the other hand, criticisms revealed during the speech
do give the student immediate knowledge of the general
effect of his Speaking, particularly if it is inadequate.

(4) In regard to giving the students knowledge of the effect
of their Speaking, to the degree that learning (the
evaluation of the strong and weak points of the speech) is
immediate, learning (or the knowledge of the effect of
one's speaking) will be retained longer.

(5) Written evaluations give the students a knowledge (record)
of progress which shows repeated mistakes needing attention.

(6) written critiques enable the instructor better to give stu-
dents a knowlege of the overall view of Speeches rather than
of one minor_point.

(7) The check list, unlike the blank sheet of paper, is a valu-
able tool to the instructor in revealing to the students
how they fared in every rhetorical aspect: what they have
done well and what they need to do to improve their speaking
performance.

258

V Variation in Method or Approach to the Securing

of Improved Speakigg Performance
A fifth criterion for effective learning and for the effective

evaluation of speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III, is the varia-

tion in method on approach to the securing of improved Speaking perfor-

mance 0

Comments from the Literature Related to Variation in.hethods or

Approaches to the Securing of Improved Speaking Perfbrmance

The speech literature notes the following methods and accompany-

ing rationales related to variation in methods or approaches to the

securing of improved speaking performances:

(l)

(2)

(3)

The use of the rating scale and check list as vehicles for
the written critique encourages students to review the
essentials of the speech process, with the ”greater value
resulting from the making, rather than the using of the
scale," a value which can'bring variety to classroom pro-
cedure.

Student evaluation of students provides variety because of
the differences of opinion, because of possible questions,
and because of the simple fact that different voices are
used- all of which introduces into the beginning Speech
classroom a variation in method or approach to the instruc-
tor's task of helping the student to secure improved Speak-
ing performances.

Student written evaluations of their peers places at the
instructor's disposal a possible different approach to
helping the student secure improved speaking performances
because these student evaluations give the students an
analytical insight into the principles of effective Speaking
as they help the students in developing their critical

judgment.

259

Comments from the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation
of Speeches Related to Variation in Method or Approach
to the Securing of Improved Speaking Performances
Respondents to the two instructor questionnaires indicated
one key factor concerning the evaluation of speeches related to
variation in method or approach to the securing of improved speaking
performances: The use of evaluations during the time allotted after
the speeches of the have been given provides greater variety in
classroom procedures. For example, the time at the end of the period
enables the instructor not only to summarize the strong and weak
points of each speech or to personalize these points for the benefit
of each speaker, to apply certain rhetorical principles to several of

the speeches on a comparative basis and for illustrative purposes.

Comments from the Student Questionnaires on Evaluation of
Speeches Related to Variation in Method or Approach
to the Securing of Improved Speaking Performances

One of the respondents to the student questionnaires called
attention to one key item concerning the evaluation of speeches re-
lated to variation in method or approach to the securing of improved
speaking performances: Student evaluations of the speeches of their
peers stimulate the students to be more alert in the study of these
speeches; and this factor aids the students in the preparation of

their speeches.

260

VI Setting Increasingly Higher Standards of Speech
Behagior for Each Successive Performance
A sixth criterion for effective learning and for effective
evaluation of speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III, is the setting
of increasingly higher standards of speech behavior (or performance)

for each successive performance.

Comments from the Literature on Evaluation of Speeches Related
to the Setting of Increasingly Higher Standards of
Speech Behavior for Each Successive Performance
The speech literature notes the following methods and accompany-
ing rationales concerning the evaluation of Speeches related to the
setting of increasingly higher standards of speech behavior (or
performance) for each successive performance:

(1) The focus of greater attention on favorable than on'un-
favorable comments prevents the student from considering
himself a failure so that not only will he be prompted to
work hard for the next assignment also but he will continue
working for improvement as he is prompted with each suc-
cessive performance to increase the level of his standards
of speech performance.

(2) The focus of the instructor's attention upon the next Speech
(rather than upon the Speech just given), in dealing with
any of the student's weaknesses, encourages the setting of
higher standards of Speech behavior for successive Speech
performances, not only because this method obviates the
giving of critiques that are too blunt about the speech
Just heard, but (on the other hand) facilites the focus
of attention of the critique upon the item(S) that should
constitute the next logical step(s) in the student's Speech
improvement.

(3)

(4)

261

The check list, as a vehicle for the written critique, is
valuable as a basis upon which the ::tudent may set in-
creasingly higher standards of Speech behavior for suc-
cessive performances because this instrument forms a ready
means of charting the student's progress in speaking and

of presenting the the student with a profile of his present
achievements on both the content and the technical sides.

Carbon cepies prepared from the blank sheet of paper (used
as a vehicle for the written critique) provide the in.
structor with a file which is an excellent aid not only
in forming judgments concerning individual needs and in-
dividual progress, but also in helping the student to set
higher standards of speech performance with the presen-
tation of subsequent speecheS.

Comments from the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches

Related to the Setting of Increasingly Higher Standards
of Speech Behavior for Each Successive Performance

Respondents appended to the two instructor questionnaires the

following methods and accompanying rationales concerning the evaluation

of Speeches related to the setting of increasingly higher standards

of Speech behavior (or performance) for each successive performance:

(1)

(2)

(3)

The evaluation of Speeches immediately after each perfor-
mance, as opposed to the valuation of Speeches made known
during the performance, provides for the setting of future
goals for the student, a practice which encourages the
student, on his own, to set higher standards of Speech per-
formance with the giving of each subsequent speech.

The giving of critiques that are more favorable than.un-
favorable in content encourage the students to set higher
standards of speech performance with each subsequent Speech
because students grow as they develop their strengths and
capacities, deveIOpments which tend to compensate for
their weaknesses.

The use of the check list to mark the strong and weak points
of the Speeches tends to stimulate the students to set in-
creasingly higher standards of speech performance with each
subsequent ‘speech because the use of this vehicle for the
written critique (as opposed to the use of the blank sheet
of paper), in some instances, seems to induce the students
to greater extent in preparing for future speeches.

262

Comments from the Student Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches

Related to the Setting of Increasingly Higher Standards
of Speech Behavior for Each Successive Performance
Students added the following comments to their questionnaires
concerning the evaluation of speeches related to the setting of in-
creasingly higher standards of speech behavior for each successive
performance:

(1) The giving of written evaluations facilitates the student's
setting of higher standards for successive speech perfor-
mances beause this form for the evaluation of speeches
enables the student to look back over the critique in pre-
paring for his next speech for purposes of correcting the
problem(s) and of making certain that he does not make
the same mistake(s) again.

(2) The giving of written critiques encourages the student to
set higher standards for subsequent speech performances
because this form for the criticism of Speeches provides
the student with successive steps in a long-range improve-
ment program.

(3) The focusing of the critique upon what the student should
do in preparing for the next round of Speeches is an
effective inducement to him to set higher standards for
successive Speech performances because the student, as a

rule, constantly wants to improve, and this method of
critique is a way to improve for the next speech.

VII Training Students in the Self-Evaluation of Their
Speeches as well as of thegSpeeches of‘Othegs

A seventh and final criterion for effective learning and for
effective evaluation of Speeches, gleaned from Chapters II and III,
is the training of students in the self-evaluation of their own

speeches as well as of the speeches of others.

 

 

263

Comments from the Literature on the Evaluation of Speeches Related
to the Training of Students in the Self-Evaluation of
Their Speeches as Well as Those of Others
The speech literature discusses the following methods and
accompanying rationales concerning the evaluation of speeches related
to the training of students in the self-evaluation of their own
speeches as well as of the speeches of others:

(1) The instructor may use the individual, personal conference
period with his students for purposes of dealing with and
encouraging the student's practice of the self-appraisal of
his speech performances.

(2) The instructor's emphasis favorable comments (as opposed to
unfavorable comments) in his evaluation of Speeches in the
beginning course stimulates the student to engage in in
a self-appraisal of his efforts-- a very necessary prac-
tice for the student if his Speaking performance is to
improve subsequent to his class experiences. In other
words, the instructor, by giving the student as many
sources of encouragement as possible, will interest the
student in teaching himself, thereby unleashing a force
that will guide and direct him years after he has left
the beginning Speech classroom.

(3) Student written evaluations of students in the beginning
course afford the students an opportunity to prepare
careful speech criticisms on their own; and this activity
teaches them to make valid evaluations of the speeches,
Speaking, and Speechmaking [of others, as well as to help
them to make valid evaluations of their own Speeches.]

Comments from the Instructor Questionnaires on the Evaluation
of Speeches Related to the Training of Students
in the SelfAEvaluation of Their Speeches
The instructors added to the two questionnaires the follow-

ing methods and accompanying rationales concerning the evaluation

264

of speeches related to the training of students in the self-evaluation
of their speeches as well as those of others:
(1) The participation of students in the evaluation of speeches

in the beginning course encourages them to develop their

own standards for evaluating public Speaking and enables

them to leave the course prepared to evaluate their own

Speaking and the Speaking of others. It is especially

important that the students be able to evaluate the speech—

es of others since the majority will be spending much more

time listening to speeches than giving Speeches.

(2) The instructor in the beginning course, in training the
students in the evaluation of the speeches of others, as

well as of their own speeches, should recognize that at

least a few of his students are future teachers whose

ability to evaluate others accurately and tactfully is

important for their future work.

Rene of the respondents to the student questionnaires, which
parallel the areas of coverage of the two instructor questionnaires
added comments related to the training of students in the self-
evaluation of their Speeches, however, one of the respondents to the
Northwestern College questionnaire asserted in behalf of the ten-
minute critique period, as opposed to the five-minute critique
period (both coming immediately after each speech), that greater
participation.by the students in the longer evaluation period provided
a more effective means of self-improvement than was the case with the
shorter evaluation period. 'While the students are gleaning suggestions
from the critique periods for the self-improvement of their Speeches,

they are, at the same time, practicing at least some measure of self-

evaluation of their Speeches.

 

265

This paper has reassembled some basic criteria for effective
learning and for effective evaluation of Speeches to indicate their
relationships with comments concerning evaluation of speeches collated
from the Speech literature, the two instructor questionnaires, and the)
four student questionnaires which lie within the scope of the two
instructor questionnaires. The question now arises concerning relation-
ships among comments from the literature, the two instructor question-
naires, and the four above-mentioned student questionnaires: In what
reSpects or areas do these three sources agree on certain methods and
accompanying rationales? Agreement among three, or even two, of the
sources concerning a method or methods (and accompanying rationale)
would tend to commend the method(s) as an effective means of evaluating
speeches in the beginning course.

A review of the listing in this chapter of the methods and
accompanying rationales of evaluation of speeches related to some basic
criteria for effective learning reveals the following points of agree-
ment among two or three of the sources (the Speech literature, the two
instructor questionnaires, and the four student questionnaires that
parallel the coverage areas of the two instructor questionnaires).

(l) The literature and instructor questionnaires agree that
individual criticism of student performances should not

begin until the instructor has established rapport with
his students.

(2) Again, for purposes of establishing teacher-student rapport,
the literature and instructor questionnaires concur in the
emphasis that the instructor in his critique should always
mention something praiseworthy.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(9)

266

Both the literature and the instructor questionnaires agree
that the instructor should seek to motivate the beginning
Speech student to establish goals for achievement by gear-
ing his criticisms to the student's potential level of
performance.

According to the literature and the instructor questionnaires,
the oral critique (whether given during the s eech, immediately
after the speech, or at the end of the period should serve

as a teaching or training device to all of the ClaSS'UhO

have similar problems.

The literature, the instructor questionnaires and the stu-
dent questionnaires agree that the written critique is a
valuable means of giving the student the satisfaction of
indicating bothtdj;progress and the mistakes that need
attention.

The literature and student questionnaires concur in ex-
pressing the value of student evaluations of students for
purposes of variation in approach to the securing of improved
speaking performance because students, in evaluating their
peers, gain insight into the principles of effective Speak-
ing, insight which, in turn aids them in the preparation

of their own Speeches.

The literature and instructor questionnaires agree that the
instructor's placing more emphasis upon favorable than upon
unfavorable comments in his critiques stimulates the students
to set higher standards of performance for subsequent Speeches
as they are encouraged to continue to build upon their
strengths and capacities to compensate for their weaknesses.

The literature, the instructor questionnaires, and the stu-
dent questionnaires concur in the use of the written cri-
tique (especially the check list), which provides each stu-
dent with a written record of individual needs and progress,
as a means of encouraging the student to set increasingly
higher standards of performance for each successive speech.

The literature and the instructor questionnaires agree that
student evaluaions of students enable them to secure from

the beginning course the ability to evaluate their own speech-
es as well as those of others.

267

In short, the above-mentioned statements of methods and
accompanying rationales for the evaluation of Speeches, related to
some basic criteria for effective learning, Should give the instructor
in the beginning college course a brief list of theoretically sound,
widely used, favorably received, and reported effective methods for
the evaluation of the Speeches of their students.

Furthermore, these statements should provide the basis for a
number of empirical and/or eXperimental studies designed to test the

”effectiveness" of the respective procedures which they represent.

APPENDIXES

Appendix-A

Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa
November 15, 1965

Chairman of Department of Speech

I am currently engaged in a dissertation research project,
which purports to ascertain methods of criticism of classroom
speeches used and/or preferred by college teachers of the begin-
ning public Speaking course. As a speech department chairman,
you doubtlessly’sharezmy concern for the use of every effective
means available in the criticism of our beginning public speaking
students, especially Since these students in many institutions
consititute a large portion of the student body.

I would therefore appreciate your placing the enclosed letter
and questionnaire in the hands of your staff member who is in
charge of the beginning public Speaking course.

Sincerely yours,

hfllliam Iothers,

Associate Professor
of Speech

268

 

 

Iilii‘lii“ ll.l‘li'lei

269

Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa
November 15, 1965

Chairman of’Beginning Public Speaking Course
Department of Speech

Dear Colleague:

One of the basic "bread-and-butter" tasks of the college Speech
teacher is the criticism of classroom Speeches. Perhaps, in the
process of carrying out this task, you have wondered how other
college Speech teachers handle classroom criticisms of speeches.
"Are there more effective methods in the criticism of speeches than
the ones that I have been using?" Or, it is quite possible that
one or more of your methods have proved to be very effective for
you and could be just as effective for other college Speech teachers
in the beginning public Speaking course.

my concern for more information about effective methods in the
criticism of classroom speeches in the beginning public speaking
course in college has led me to undertake a survey study in this
specific area; and I am writing you because I believe that, as a
college teacher of the beginning speech course, you must share a
little of the burden that I have for such a study. I am asking
you simply to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it to
me in the self-addressed stamped envelope at you earliest oppor-
tunity. Personal or individual responses to the questionnaire
will be kept strictly confidential; however, you will receive group
data concerning the questionnaire as soon as they have been com-
piled.

Sincerely yours,

William Lothers,
Associate Professor of Speech

27C

Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
March 21, 1966

Chairman of Department of Speech

This envelope contains a data report of a questionnaire
sent to you last Novermber, which purported to ascertain methods
of criticisms of classroom speeches used and/or preferred by
college teachers of the beginning public speaking course. The
task of ascertaining the most effective methods in the criticism
of classroom speeches is really not complete, however, without
also ascertaining some of the reasons behind the methods used.
As a means of supplementing ultimately the data report on method-
dology of the evaluation of classroom Speeches with a data report
on rationale behind methodology, I am enclosing a seqond ques-
tionnaire, which purports to ascertain some of the reasons for the
use of a number of the variables or methods of evaluation that
were marked on the first questionnaire.

Please place the enclosed letter, data report (first ques-
tionnaire and summary of comments made by its reSpondents), and
second questionnaire in the hands of your staff member who is in
charge of your beginning public Speaking course and who filled
out the first questionnaire.

very truly yours,

William.lothers

Associate Professor
of Speech

 

2?l
Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Karch 21, 1966

Chairman of Beginning Public Speaking Course
Department of Speech

Dear Colleague:

The data report on the questionnaire "Methods Used and/or Pre-
ferred in the Criticism of Classroom Speeches in the Beginning
Public Speaking Course in College," which you, along with more
than a hundred other teachers of the beginning public speaking
course in the Central States area, filled out last fall, is en-
closed herewith. You will find noted on your copy of the ques-
tionnaire statistics concerning the variables marked by the respon-
dents. I have also enclosed a summary of the comments made by the
respondents concerning both instructor and student, or peer,
evaluations of speeches. Please take what information you desire
from the questionnaire and return it to me at your earliest oppor-
tunity. The copy of the summary comments on instructor and stu—
dent critiques is yours to keep.

Now, I believe that the task of ascertaining the most effective
methods in the criticism of classroom speeches in the beginning
public speaking course is not complete without also ascertaining
some of the rationale behind the methods used. ‘With this objec-
tive in view, I am enclosing a second questionnaire, which asks you
to mark the variables that articulate for'you methods in classroom
evaluations of speeches, methods of variables, which you marked in
your response to the first questionnaire. In addition to referring
to the first questionnaire for the data report, you mgy‘wish to
refresh your memory concerning the variables that you marked last
fall, and then proceed to note some of these same variables or
methods and to check the rationale for using them as you prepare
the second questionnaire.

If the second questionnaire (along with the first questionnaire)
is returned to me in time, I shall be able to send you a second (and
last) data report before spring commencement. Your cooperation in
making this study helpful to the college speech teacher of the begin-
ning public Speaking course is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

'William Lothers

P.S.: Please note if you use peer-grouping in your beginning public
speaking course. ‘

272

Appendix-B
Supplementary Data Appended to Student Questionnaires

This appendix consists of comments from the student question-

naires outside the scope of the instructor questionnaires on evaluation

of speeches related to some of the basic criteria for effective learning.

Comments from the Student Questionnaires Outside the Scope of

the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to Establishment of Student Rapport

Student respondents to the Northwestern College and hichigan

State University questionnaires noted the following comments on the

evaluation of Speeches related to the establishment of student rapport:

(1)

(2)

(3)

One of the respondents to the Northwestern College question-
naire suggests the importance of the establishment of class
rapport in his comment supporting the ten-minute evaluation
periods,which give the class the necessary opportunity to
discuss the subject matter of the Speeches, thus providing a
good, informal atmOSphere.

One of the Michigan State University respondents intimates
the importance of the establishment of class rapport in
emphasizing the practice of student evaluations of stu-
dents in the peer group section for purposes of familiariz-
ing the speaker with the class. This fact creates a more

co enial atmosphere in which to speak, a situation which,
urn, creates a more relaxed de ivery.

A second hichigan State University respondent intimates the
value of the establishment of an appropriate class atmo-
sphere for student-teacher rapport in indicating a preference
for the evaluations given in the peer-group sections because
some of the students are more relaxed with students than
with the instructor in the audience as critic(s).

273

Comments from the Student Questionnaires Outside the Scope
of the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to Guidance of the Learner's Efforts
The hichigan State Univertsity repondents appended the follow-
ing comments to their questionnaires on the evaluation of Speeches re-
lated to guidance of the learner's efforts:
(1) One respondent who favored the giving of evaluations in
both the peer groups and instructor groups commented favor-
ably upon not only the "SXpertness" of the instructor’s
critiques but also the breadth of the student's critique.
(2) One of the respondents who preferred the evaluations given
in the instructor sections to those given in the peer
sections noted that some of the peer group evaluations
lacked effective guidance and became "bogged down," thus
depriving the speakers of the guidance which they needed.
Comments from the Student Questionnaires Outside the ScOpe of
the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to Learner Satisfaction Derived from Knowledge
of Results of the Student's Speaking Performance
The Michigan State University students added the following
‘comments to their questionnaires on evaluation of speeches realted to
learner satisfaction derived from knowledge of results of the student's

speaking performance:

(1) One student, commenting favorably upon the half-instructor
and half-student evaluations in the instructor-sections,
noted the value of the comments from the students whose
contributions (similar to the reactions that he may receive
to his Speeches before different audiences later in life)
provide hiM‘With knowledge of the results of the effective-
ness of his Speech performance.

27M

(2) Another student respondent, in suggesting the importance of
securing knowledge of the results of his speaking, indicated
a preference for the instructor-section critiques which aid
him in translating his feelings with confidence into words by
securing his instructor's opinion and advice and by learning
from his peers their views, preferences, likes and dislikes.
Comments from the Student Questionnaires Outside the Scope of
the Instructor Questionnaires on Evaluation of Speeches
Related to Variation in Method or Approach to the
Securing of Improved Speaking Performances
One Northwestern College respondent added to the questionnaire
the following comment on evaluation of speeches related to variation
in method or approach to the securing of improved speaking performances:
The ten minute critique periods prior to the giving of his Speech were
very helpful in teaching him more about Speaking, perhaps, than any-
thing else during the course. The critique periods, in short, con-
stituted a variation in the method or approach of pure practice in

Speaking for purposes of securing improved speaking performancses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Auer, J. Jeffery. An Introduction to Research in Speech. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1959.

Balcer, Charles and Seabuny, Hugh. TeachingfiSpeechzip Today's
Secondggy Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
Inc., 1965.

Bernard, Harold W. Psycholqgwof Learning and Teagh__ing. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1954.

Dickens, Milton. S e h: ' i at . New Iork: Harcourt,
Brace and 00., 199+.

Eisenson, Jon, Auer, J. Jeffery, and Irwin, John. The Pachology of
C%%mmication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. ,
l 3.

Friederich, Willard and Wilcox, Ruth. Teaching Spgech in High Schools.
New York: Haanfllan Co., 1953.

Gagne, Robert. The Conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, I95 . .

Garry, Ralph. The chholog of Leam___ing. Washington, D. C.: The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. , 1963 .

Hence, Kenneth, Ralph, David, aui Wiksell, Milton. Principles of
W. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub. Co., Inc. 1962.

Heffron, Pearl ani Duffey, Hillim. Teaching 32301). 2 vols.
Minneapolis: Eirgess Pub. Co., 19118.

Kingsley, Howard and Garry, Ralph. The Nature and Conditions of learn-

ing. 2:! ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.= Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1957.

Ogilvie, Hardel. Teac 8 ch in the Schco . New York:
Appleton-Cenmry-Crofts , Inc. , 19%1.

Oliver, Robert 1. ed. Effective Speech: Notebook. Rev. ed. Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, 1958.

275

 

'11.!!! illl'i‘} I’ll ill!

Raubicheck, Letitia. Teanhnng Speech.;n Senondanx Schogls. New York:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1935.

Reed, Lawson. Lennnnng ang Behaznnr. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1960.

Reid, Loren. T°£§hl£8 Snnegh. 3d ed. ColuMbia, No.: Artcraft Press,
1960.

Reid, Loren. Teanning Sneegh in the High Sghool. Columbia, Mo:
Artcraft Press, 1952.

Robinson, Karl and Kerikas, E. J. Teanngng Snnech Methods nng Materials.
New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 19 3.

Toad, 0rdway. lelege Teachnng and Cnllege Leanning. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1 .

Thonssen, Lester and Gilkinson, Howard. Basic Tr‘lfléflfi in 32299!-
Boston; D. C. Heath and Co., 1947.

Thorndike, E. It The Pnngnologx o: wants, Interests and Attgtudes.
New York: Appletoanentury Crofts., 1935.

weaver, Andrew, Borchers, Gladys, and Smith, Donald. The T a of
m. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 19%.
Articles and Periodicals

Anderson, G. Lester. "Introduction," Learning nng Instnngtion,
Fbrtybninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part I, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1950: 12.

Anderson G. Lester, and Gates Arthur. ”The General Nature of Learn-
1389" £55££$E£.83d Instruction, Fortybninth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1950, 12-35.

Anderson, John 0. ”Marine Corps Techniques for Teaching Effective
S aking," Inn Snnenn Ienchen, III (September, 195“),
1%- 98 o

Barnes, Harry. ”Teaching the Fundamentals of Speech at the College
level,” The Snnech Teannen, 111: (November, 1954), 239—53.

Burton, William H. ”Basic Principles in a Good Teaching- Learning
Situation," Phi Delta Kappan, mu (March, 1958). 242-248-

I“ )
\j
\1

Cable, Arthur W. "A Criticism Card for Class Use," The @arterlx
Jogml 0; Smog, XII (April, 1926), 186-88.

Cassel, Russell N. ”Primary Principles of learning," Peabody Journal
0;: Edunnticn, XXII, (January, 1951)), 215-22.

Catt, Harold and Brandenburg, Earnest. ”Speech Training for Air
Force Teachers,” The Smech Ieanhen, I (March, 1952), 111-16.

Clement, Stanley. "Seven Principles of Learning,” Cleaning House,
XXXVI (September, 1961), 23-26.

Crandell, Judson. "The Teaching of Public Speaking in High School,"
go meg; Jmn; of Sngech, XXVIII (December, 190(2),
77.830

Curry, David. e3; 41;. ”Can Students Grade Students in a Fundamentals
Course?” West-em Smog, XXVI (Fall, 1962), 238.41.

Densmore, G. E. "The Teaching of Speech Delivery,” The ter
Jongnal n; Sngng, XXIII (February, 19146), 7-71.

Drew, G. C. ”The Function of Punishment in Learning," Journal of
Genenic ngnolog, Vol. 52, 257-67.

Eisenson, Jon. ”Confirmation and Information in Rewards and Punish-
ments,” Anghins o; Psxgolon, XXVII (May, 1935).

Gibb, Jack R. "A Climate for Learning,” my. Education, IX (Autumn,
1958). 19-21.

Hance, Kenneth, "Some Values of a Study of Rhetoric and Public Address
in a Liberal or General Education,“ Sggflern Sngnch Journal,
XXIII (Summer, 1958), 179-88.

Hayworth, Donald. "A Search for Facts on the Teaching of Public

Speaking," The Mark Jam of Spneg, XXVI (February,
19%), 31-38-

Hildebrandt, Herbert W. , and Stevens, Walter W. ”Bluebock Criticisms
at Michigan,” 113p Sgenn Teachen, IX (January, 1960), 20-22.

Holtzman, Paul D. “Speech Criticism and Evaluation as Commication,"
The Sngenh Tnnggn, IX ( January, 1960), 1-7.

Boogestraat, Wayne. "letters of Evaluation-- an Exercise in Speech
Criticism," The 8329 Teager, XII (Jamary, 1963), 29-30.

1“.)
(A)

Kelley,‘William.D. “Objectivity in the Grading and Evaluation of
Speeches,” The S ech Teache , XIV (January, 1965), 65h-58.

McClelland, D. C. ”Studies in Serial Verbal Discrimination Learning,"
Journal of Enngrimgntal Psypholngz, XXXI, 1942, hh-56.

McKeachie, Wilbert J. ”Motivating Students' Interest,” The Two Engs
o; the Lng, ed. Russel M. Cooper, Minneapolis: University
of'Minnesota Press, 1958, 36-39.

Millscn,‘William.. "The Appraisal of the Teaching Methods of'Dale

Carnegie.” W XXVII (February.
1991). 67-fl

Monroe, Alan.H. ”Testing Speech Performance," National As cc atio
WW. XXIX (November. 179555. 15339

Montgomeny, K. E. ”How to Criticise Student Speeches," The Sneech
Te che , VI (September, 1957), ZOO—Oh.

Russell, David H. "Finding Out Mere from Research Studies," Lnnnning

55% fine Teagher, 1959 Yearbook of the Association fer Super-
3 iculum.Development, Washington, D. 0.: National

Education.Association.
Shelton, R. L., Arndt, W} B., and Miller, June. ”Learning Principles

and Teaching of Speech and Language,” Jouzngl 0% Sneenh and
Hanging Dinordenn, XXVI (November, 1961 , 3 -7 .

Smith, Raymond G. ”The CriticiSm of Speeches: A Dialetical Approach,"
The Sngeg Teagen, X (January, 1961), 59-62.

Stroud, J. B. "The Role of Practice in Learning," The Pnzchologx of
[Lnnnnnng, Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1942, 353-76.

Tyler, Ralph. ”Conditions for Effective Learning," National Education
Associnninn Jonnnnl, XLVIII (September, 1959 , 47-h9.

Tyler, Ralph. "What is Evaluation," Pnnceedings of the Annual Con-
Read Ed. Helen Robinson, Snnnlementnnx Educa-

W
tipnal Monngnanns XX (December, 1958), h-9.

 

 

 

 

‘1illl'lj‘.

Unnnblished Material

Buell, Arthur L. "A Study of Basic Principles and Methods of Oral
Criticism in a Beginning Speech Classroom.” Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Department of Speech, Kent State University,

1959.

Cashman, Paul H. "A Preliminany Study of Evaluation Acts of Fundamentals
of Speech Students." University of Minnesota, Abstracted in

Sneenn Monngranhs, XXV, June, 1955.

Hinds, Dorothy Mae. ”An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Criti-
cism of Speech Delivery When Given Before, During, and After
Speech Performance." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department
of Speech, State University of Iowa, 1949.

Sabah, Franklin D. "Some Effects of Student Judgment and Criticism of
Undergraduate Classroom Speeches." Unpublished Master's thesis.
The Ohio State University, 1956.

Schrier, William. "What Are the Meet Effective Methods of’Evaluating
and Guiding the Student in Speech?" A Symposium at the fall
Meeting of the Michigan Speech Association (October 5, 1963).