key point speech analysis

Having evaluated that speech, here�s how I would respond to it.

Invention. The speaker:
included and explained appropriate main points that clarified the speech topic.
included and explained appropriate support that clarified the main points.
Evaluation: Good (4/5)
Comments: You might rearrange the support in your first point. Since the point
deals with your teaching, you might start with the courses you teach. You say you
teach, but then spend quite a bit of time talking about the nature of the students
in the class. I think it might work better to start of describing the classes and
then shift into the student population. On that, describe what you teach in the
classes you list. For example, you say you teach from campus to career. That sounds
interesting, but I don�t know what it entails. For me the class titles aren�t quite
as important as the class content. I thought the support in the other key points
was good, but could also benefit from fewer lists of things you do and a few more
snapshots of what these activities look like.
Arrangement. The speaker:
arranged the speech elements appropriately.
orally highlight speech structure clearly and effectively.
previewed, transitioned, and reviewed the main points clearly and effectively.
Evaluation: Excellent (5/5)
Comments: This was very easy to follow along with. You had a clear preview in the
introduction. Your pauses on transitions clearly marked the boundaries between key
points. I didn�t think this was a problem, but you might indicate the differences
between �teaching� and �workshops.� I think I can see how those are different, but
a sentence or two (probably in the workshops point) might sharpen this distinction.

Style. The speaker:

phrased main points clearly and concisely.
discuss support clearly and concisely.
Evaluation: Good (4/5)
Comments: The main points were well phrased and concise. As mentioned above, I
think the support could have had more snapshots of what these things look like when
you do them. You discussed your support concisely, perhaps too concisely. The
speech was close to going under-time and you certainly had enough time to expand a
bit on each piece of support.
Delivery. The speaker:
appeared confident and animated.
breathed and projected appropriately and effectively.
performed pitch and rate appropriately and effectively.
used notes effectively and appropriately.
moved and gestured appropriately and effectively.
Evaluation: Good (4/5)
Comments: You have nice delivery style. You don�t go too fast and you smile a lot
when speaking. I think you added much to your ethos by presenting yourself in such
a positive way. You seem genuinely enthused about the speech and your job. I also
quite liked your gestures. Speaking on video is tough, especially when it comes to
thinking about what to do with your hands. I liked your �resting gesture� of tented
fingers in front of your body.
Now, I do think the speech pacing could use a bit more variation. You speak in a
way that�s easy to understand, but many of the sentences had the same �sound� to
them. That is, each one (perhaps due to the energy of your talk) sounded like it
was an important line, but not all of them were. I think you could have balanced
out the important key ideas with some sentences that were a bit faster or without
such pronounced deliberate pacing.
Speech length. The speaker delivered a speech that was:
An appropriate length (~3-6 minutes)
Too short (1:30-2:45 minutes) or too long (6:15-7:30)
Significantly too short (under 1:30) or too long (over 7:30)
Evaluation: too short (2/3)
Comments: This speech was under two minutes. This goes back to some of the
invention and arrangement issues. Only having one example in point two and not
discussing the support in much depth cost some time.
Overall. Please include a few comments assessing the entire speech.
Comments: Thank you for letting me view your speech.