Date : June 3, 2017 Evaluator: Jeonghaeng Lee Speaker: Joon Bum Kim Assignment Title : Unit 4
1. What was the overall purpose of the speech. Try to restate or summarize the main point. How well was it addressed? He wanted to explain the four stages of volcanic eruption. The stages (main points) are: the creation of magma, pressurizing the magma chamber, explosive eruption, and flowing lava. It would have been better if he used visual aids, because it was a bit hard to understand the scientific process.
2. Was there a hook? Was it effective? How could it have been improved? Before he started his speech, he showed us a short video clip from the movie 2012. It was highly effective in getting my attention. It’s was fine, but if I should make a suggestion, I would have gotten a clearer video. I thought it was a nuclear explosion, not a volcanic explosion, until he started his speech.
3. Was the structure logical? Point supported by evidence or examples? Good transitions between ideas? Yes. Because his topic is about the scientific process of a volcanic eruption, the structure was definitely logical. There wasn’t an example (like introducing Mt. St. Helens), but he had a time limit, so maybe he had it in his draft but took it out, because of time reasons. Transitions were superb. I knew when he was moving on to the next step.
4. Was the conclusion concise? Were main points restated or summarized? Was the closing memorable? His conclusion was also excellent, main points (the four stages) being restated. He also made sure that the audience is aware of the stages when visiting a volcanic eruption site.
5. Did the speaker use enthusiasm, pauses, humor, visual aids, He was highly enthusiastic about his speech, and made great use of pauses. But humor wasn’t present—acceptable, regarding the theme. Like how I wrote above, visual aids might have helped the audience’s understanding.
6. What did you notice about the speaker’s body language? Posture, eye contact, gestures. Body languages were OK. He maintained calm during his speech. All were fine.
7. Was the volume good? Did the speaker enunciate and pronounce clearly? Could everything be understood? The volume and pronunciation weren’t a problem. I could understand what he was saying.
Generic Presentation Evaluation Assignment / Title: A place to visit on a holiday/vacation Evaluator: Yohan Seo Speaker: Joon Bum Kim
1. What was the overall purpose of the speech. Try to restate or summarize the main point. How well was it addressed? : To see the otherworldly beauty, the outstanding scenery and experience exiting things, visit Cappadocia. It was well addressed by showing some pictures to explain.
2. Was there a hook? Was it effective? How could it have been improved? : A question in the opening and the responses of the audience was interesting. It was effective, especially because the question makes the audience think a lot.
3. Was the structure logical? Point supported by evidence or examples? Good transitions between ideas? : It was logical, well-organised. Pictures of each places that we can see closer were great.
4. Was the conclusion concise? Were main points restated or summarized? Was the closing memorable? : Yes, It was so concise that I could easily understand what he want to introduce. The closing was memorable because he concluded by summarizing the main points.
5. Did the speaker use enthusiasm, pauses, humor, visual aids? : He used enthusiasm, pauses, and helpful visual aids.
6. What did you notice about the speaker’s body language? Posture, eye contact, gestures. : He was in a good, polite posture. He contacted his eyes with the audience very well. And he used some gestures properly.
7. Was the volume good? Did the speaker enunciate and pronounce clearly? Could everything be understood? : He spoke loudly and clearly. As I expected, his accent was interesting and audible.
Thank you for your presentation. I really enjoyed it!
Date : June 3, 2017
ReplyDeleteEvaluator: Jeonghaeng Lee
Speaker: Joon Bum Kim
Assignment Title : Unit 4
1. What was the overall purpose of the speech. Try to restate or summarize the main point. How well was it addressed?
He wanted to explain the four stages of volcanic eruption. The stages (main points) are: the creation of magma, pressurizing the magma chamber, explosive eruption, and flowing lava. It would have been better if he used visual aids, because it was a bit hard to understand the scientific process.
2. Was there a hook? Was it effective? How could it have been improved?
Before he started his speech, he showed us a short video clip from the movie 2012. It was highly effective in getting my attention. It’s was fine, but if I should make a suggestion, I would have gotten a clearer video. I thought it was a nuclear explosion, not a volcanic explosion, until he started his speech.
3. Was the structure logical? Point supported by evidence or examples? Good transitions between ideas?
Yes. Because his topic is about the scientific process of a volcanic eruption, the structure was definitely logical. There wasn’t an example (like introducing Mt. St. Helens), but he had a time limit, so maybe he had it in his draft but took it out, because of time reasons. Transitions were superb. I knew when he was moving on to the next step.
4. Was the conclusion concise? Were main points restated or summarized? Was the closing memorable?
His conclusion was also excellent, main points (the four stages) being restated. He also made sure that the audience is aware of the stages when visiting a volcanic eruption site.
5. Did the speaker use enthusiasm, pauses, humor, visual aids,
He was highly enthusiastic about his speech, and made great use of pauses. But humor wasn’t present—acceptable, regarding the theme. Like how I wrote above, visual aids might have helped the audience’s understanding.
6. What did you notice about the speaker’s body language? Posture, eye contact, gestures.
Body languages were OK. He maintained calm during his speech. All were fine.
7. Was the volume good? Did the speaker enunciate and pronounce clearly? Could everything be understood?
The volume and pronunciation weren’t a problem. I could understand what he was saying.
Generic Presentation Evaluation
ReplyDeleteAssignment / Title: A place to visit on a holiday/vacation
Evaluator: Yohan Seo
Speaker: Joon Bum Kim
1. What was the overall purpose of the speech. Try to restate or summarize the main point. How well was it addressed?
: To see the otherworldly beauty, the outstanding scenery and experience exiting things, visit Cappadocia. It was well addressed by showing some pictures to explain.
2. Was there a hook? Was it effective? How could it have been improved?
: A question in the opening and the responses of the audience was interesting. It was effective, especially because the question makes the audience think a lot.
3. Was the structure logical? Point supported by evidence or examples? Good transitions between ideas?
: It was logical, well-organised. Pictures of each places that we can see closer were great.
4. Was the conclusion concise? Were main points restated or summarized? Was the closing memorable?
: Yes, It was so concise that I could easily understand what he want to introduce. The closing was memorable because he concluded by summarizing the main points.
5. Did the speaker use enthusiasm, pauses, humor, visual aids?
: He used enthusiasm, pauses, and helpful visual aids.
6. What did you notice about the speaker’s body language? Posture, eye contact, gestures.
: He was in a good, polite posture. He contacted his eyes with the audience very well. And he used some gestures properly.
7. Was the volume good? Did the speaker enunciate and pronounce clearly? Could everything be understood?
: He spoke loudly and clearly. As I expected, his accent was interesting and audible.
Thank you for your presentation. I really enjoyed it!