Azzeddine Drouan The first speech was interesting regarding to the topic, the speaker had a good posture. Moreover, it was understandable for everyone.
The first speaker was a little bit stressed in the introduction, but afterwards he seemed to be relaxed, in the body paragraph the main points were clear, supported, and logically presented. The transitions between the main points were also clear and effective.
Second speaker was comfortable delivering her speech. During her speech the speaking rate was flexible and effective. The speaker also showed enthusiasm for the topic . there was an absence of fillers like 'ahs' & 'ums' which made the topic more interesting.
The third speaker was good, he captured attention & interest. Besides, the topic was clearly introduced.
I believe that every speech had its qualities. From a personal opinion, I liked the third speech the most. The speaker had an exemplary posture, very interesting and well-structured topic, and a great gesture. The speaker didn't use any cards to review the general ideas while delivering his speech, which helped him establish a perfect eye contact with the audience.
I personally liked the third speech; the speaker was comfortable and confident in his delivery, the structure of the speech was good, he had good posture, and the topic was very interesting
The second speech was great. The speaker was confident , had a good posture and had a good eye contact with the audience. The speech was well structured and delivered.
Personally speaking, I enjoyed watching all of the three speeches. However, I really found the third one pretty interesting. The speaker was really comfortable delivering his speeches. He also had a good posture and a great eye contact.
Rachid Chaimaa : The third speech was good. The speech was well structured and organized. The speaker did not move a lot. Good voice also great eye contact. I think this speech was very interesting.
The subjects were well structured and delivered. I believe the third speech was the most interesting and the speaker did a great job with his body language and eye contact.
The start of the first speaker's speech was a little rough, but as he went on he kept getting better. Although he was occasionally glancing at his notes, he managed to maintain good eye contact with the audience, but he went above the alloted time.
The three speeches were great. I like the third speech for the delivery was flawless and he maintained eye contact and good posture all along. The topics are very interesting and very information-rich. Good job!
El Azouki Kawtar I like the three of them. But I beleive that the second one is the best... The delivery was almost perfect, the tone and gestures as well.
For the second speech, the delivery was good in general. The speaker did some reading but that did not affect the quality of the speech and didn't stop her from maintaining eye contact. The speech was well organized, the tone of voice was good and the pronunciation was great. The gestures were appropriate to the speech.
IBTISSAM SAMIA: The 1st speaker: was stressed at the beginning, he didn't maintain eye contact very well because he was reading in some parts. However he introduced his topic clearly and he used effective supporting details and a good posture. The 2nd speaker: she was confident, she used appropriate posture. Her ideas were clear and well organised.she maintained eye contact, established credibility, and she used clear and vivid language.
The first speaker could have been more confident about his subject at first. He was also looking at his notes frequently. The subject he chose could have been explained in a better way. The third speaker presented his subject very well, maintaining eye contact with the audience. The topic is interesting and well structured, as we can follow each point clearly. (Too bad the coughing was interrupting the flow of the speech).
Nour Serghini: The first speech was very good, the speaker discussed the topic clearly, he efficiently connected to the audience, avoided distracting mannerisms and mostly maintained eye-contact even when reviewing his notes.
Personally, i really enjoyed the third speech. He has a perfect body language, he maintained eye contact and watched the whole audience while remaining totally confident. Besides that, the topic was well covered and interesting. MAMOUN RHARDISSE
The second speaker was able to directly engage her audience and to speak with confidence. Also, her supporting material was clear and relatable at the same time.
the first speech . the topic was introduced very well also his topic was well structured, but his posture was affected negatively because he was reading and that prevented him from maintaining a good eye contact. he was nervous and stressed as well.
The second speech: I loved her calmness, she seemed so confident , but her posture was effected negatively due the table usage , I did not feel the the speaker interaction with the audience. she has a great enunciation too.
The first speech: At the beginning, the speech giver was a bit nervous and he lost words. However, going further into the speech, he started relaxing and his delivery became better. His voice tone and articulation became much clearer than before. He maitained eye contact throughout the speech, and he started showing more confidence through his gesture. For the topic, it was very original and interesting. He seemed familiar with it and provided amazing information. He went past the time limit, but I think that is okay because he gave a lot of information, which needed more than five minutes. Good job!
Second speech: Considering the fact that the speaker was an international student, her pronounciation was flawless and what she was saying was well understood. She was behind the desk which kind of hid her gesture. However, she maintained good eye contact with everyone. She spoke faster at the end, that is probably why she only did four minutes 45. The topic was interesting and motivating. The information provided was logical and well built. I liked it!
Third speech: The topic was interesting. However, he gave more time to the introduction. Over two minutes 30, which kind of ruined the organization of his speech. He gave interesting facts about the human body and its interaction with food; the dangers and benefits. Unfortunately, I think he messed up when he said that sugar was an animal product. He shouldn't have provided wrong information in his speech. For his posture, it was examplary. He maintained eye contact with everyone and he was confident and sure of what he was saying. Well done!
I like the three speeches but I think that the third speaker was the best one because the speech was well structured and organized and the speaker didn’t move a lot. The second speaker was also good she maintained eye contact and a good language and for the first speaker he was a little bit stressed at the beginning but afterwards he seems to be relaxed and his ideas was clear.
MANAR SADKOU I think the first speaker chose a very interesting topic yet he seemed very attached to his notes which made him lose his train of thought a lot. His voice and tone were pretty solid though. As for the second speaker, she seemed to have good knowledge of what she was talking about. Her eye contact was very good, however, the speech felt very monotonous. I think tone is what she needs to work on the most. Finally, the third speaker, his posture was very good. His hand movements were a little distracting I think and he said vegans don't consume salt and sugar because they come from animals which is pretty false though.
Rahma Oussama: I found that the first speaker did a good presentation as an all but if we look at details we could see that he looked at his notes more than he should and that he didn’t really have all the infos in mind, his poster was good but he could have used his hands more and his eye contact was good too. He seemed a little stressed at the beginning but he got relaxed when he got to the body and his points were well structured, he used linking words to help understand the development of his speech too . Concerning the second speaker, we could see that she mastered her topic more than the previous one as she nearly didn’t look at her notes which is a good thing for those who are watching the speech because it doesn’t disturb. Another point that is important is that she used lots of linking words to put her speech in order . For her eye contact, i think that she could improve it a bit and maybe smile more. When it comes to the last speaker i could say that his presentation- all aspects considered- was very good. His topic which is genetically modified food is very interesting and the way he delivered it made one want to know more.His poster, eye contact and hands are exactly as they should be. He had an attention grabber « i’d like to grab your attention on this one , meat...» . I could say that he gave more time to the introduction as he finished at 2min and so.
My favorite speech was the first one about the hot and cold showers, its a very intersting topic for me and has a lot of benefits, the speaker had a good delivery, good content, tone, and voive. On the other hand, the speaker needs to work on the eye contact. The second speaker was okay, she would repeat the word "and" a lot. The content was cliche and its something we hear every day about teamwork and leadership. But it was still a very good speech. Then the last speech was nice but not too good. Salt and sugar dont come from animals. Otherwise, the posture was good but the voice was bad, we couldnt hear a lot.
SOULEIMAN MHAMMEDI (I wrote this again because I didnt write my name the first time) My favorite speech was the first one about the hot and cold showers, its a very intersting topic for me and has a lot of benefits, the speaker had a good delivery, good content, tone, and voive. On the other hand, the speaker needs to work on the eye contact. The second speaker was okay, she would repeat the word "and" a lot. The content was cliche and its something we hear every day about teamwork and leadership. But it was still a very good speech. Then the last speech was nice but not too good. Salt and sugar dont come from animals. Otherwise, the posture was good but the voice was bad, we couldnt hear a lot.
SALMA HANINE The 1st Speech: The content was engaging and interesting. I found that the speech was well structured as the speaker started with attention graber, covered three main points in the body and he used transitions. However, he was reading and that's prevented him from making good eye contact with his audience. Also, he used gap fillers a lot which means either he's stressed or he didn't practise enough. Bad timing (more than 5min).
SALMA HANINE The intoduction meets the requirements: she mentioned a quote as an attention grabber, the CI and a question to engage the audience. The delivery was good: she was not reading and seems confident (well practised speech). Good timing 4:50. She used transitions and good eye contact. finished by a quote. The topic was engaging.
SALMA HANINE The 3rd speech: Good delivery and posture. Good eye contact with his audience. Bad timing 4:35. Engaging speech and well structured with the use of transitions.
The first speaker seemed a bit nervous in the beginning, but became more and more comfortable as time went by, which was seen through his posture and tone. At first, he used some gap-fillers and the nerves could be seen through his delivery, but at the end of the speech, the tone was well paced and easy to follow. The speech was well structured, and the 3 main points were clearly stated. Most importantly, the speaker was able to turn a very basic daily activity (showering) into a very interesting informative speech topic.
While the 2nd speaker's subject was not the most creative, she still managed to capture the listener's attention by her delivery, which was in my opinion the best out of the 3 speakers'. She had great eye-contact, she kept a stable posture throughout the speech, and her tone was good. The speech was well structured, as she presented the 3 main ideas in the central idea of the introduction, presented them accordingly, and recapitulated them in the conclusion.
The 3rd speaker had both a smooth and confident delivery and an interesting subject. The delivery was good: easy to follow tone and pace, even when he moved it wasn't in a distracting manner, and the eye contact was evenly distributed on the class. The structure of the speech was well-organized, and the facts presented were backed-up with research he gave credit to.
——————HICHAM OUAHBI————————- First Speaker’s tone and voice were good throughout the who le speech. His introduction is missing the C.I, attention grabber. He maintained eye contact with the audience in the first 2,5 minutes but then he started to read and looking down more often. The topic was interesting and grabbed the attention of the audience. The Second speaker was clearly a native english speaker so she had no issue with the pronunciation. Her voice was not very loud but it was clear. She did have an attention grabber which was the question she asked the audience, the C.I and thesis statement were clearly stated.She used transitions between different parts of the speech. The desk hid her posture and that is a negative point. She managed how to use her notes while maintaining eye contact with the audience. Her timing was not perfect, but it was only 5seconds short so it is not a big deal. The topic was really appealing and motivating. The third speaker’s introduction was amazing, it doesn’t lack any of the essential parts of an introduction(attention grabber, c.i, thesis statement). His posture was very good, he seemed very calm and confident. He smiled to the audience many times and also he is engaging and interacts with the audience. He managed not to distract the audience with his hands without using notes. The speech is very well structured, we could recognize each part of the speech separately thanks to the transitions. His gestures were good. One the few major flaws of his speech is the timing which was about 25 seconds short. Still, he is my favorite speaker.
I really liked the third speech because the topic was interesting and well organized. The speaker was confident. He did a good job in maintaining his posture with the good eye contact with everybody. the second speaker did a good introduction as she started with a question to get the attention of the audience. She didn't move a lot during the speech. She was holding her notes in her hands but she didn’t look at them which helped her to maintain a good eye contact with the audience. Her topic was a bit cliché but the way she presented it was very good. As for the first speaker, he chose a very interesting topic but he had some problems with the delivery. He was relying a lot on his notes and he couldn’t control his stress. The voice and tone were good for all the three speakers.
Speaker 1: Voice and posture were great, the topic is relevant and very interesting. The different parts of the body should be highlighted and the transitions clearer. He should avoid uming a little bit.
Speaker 2: Voice tone and posture were good. She was not moving much. Even though she used notecards, s the eye contact with the audience was permanent. Maybe she should Cite more clearly her CI in the beginning.
Speaker 3: Voice and tone were also good, he adopted a great conversational style. It is a well structured speech even if the first part was a little too long for me. I mean that the introduction about meat was too long to introduce the notion of veganism. He had no notes and that helped maintaining the eye contact
KAWTAR EL KHAYALI I noticed that the first speaker made a good introduction as a whole, but if we looked at the specifics we could see that he glanced at his documents more than he should and didn't really have all the facts in mind, his posture was fine, but he could have used his hands more and his eye contact was also strong. At the beginning he seemed a little nervous but comfortable as he got to the body and its points As far as the second speaker is concerned, we could see that she understood her topic more than the previous one as she also did not look at her notes, which is a good thing for those who see the speech because it does not interrupt. as for her posture i would've liked if she smiles more and showed that she is more cheerful. I might conclude that his delivery-all things considering-was really good when it comes to the last speaker. The genetically modified food subject is very fascinating and the way he presented it makes you want to learn more. His image, eye contact and hands are as they should be. He had a grabber of curiosity« I would like to draw your attention to this one, meat... ».
Abouelfaioud mustapha I think the first speaker bilal did a good job in presenting his speech, also his tone was good but i think the body language needs some improuvement and he reads so i think this speech is an B+ speech
Abouelfaioud mustapha i think the second speaker has a good topic that concern all the youngsters and she is a native speaker so her tone was very good and her body language also ,eye contact i think its good
I think the third speaker informed us about a critical topic that concern not only young people but also adult to maintain a healthy life, besides his tone eye contact, and body language were very good. But at the first ithink he was nervous. Generally its good
Mustapha Abouelfaoud i think the last speaker talked about an important subject that concerns not only young people but also adults to maintain a healthy life. I noticed that he was nervous at first but after he regained his trust . Tone, eye contact, and body language was good and the speech has all requiremts so generally its a good speech
NADA ARFIK: The first speech started on a bad note, the speaker was nervous and lost his words. He managed to find his way back and be more confident throughout his delivery. He mentioned the main points and explained everything in the body. His posture was overall good, as for the content, it was very interesting. Moving to the second speech, the speaker maintained a good tone and voice throughout the whole delivery. She seemed like she mastered her topic and presented everything smoothly. Finally the third speech. The introduction was given more time than the body and conclusion. The topic was captivating and interesting. The facts were clearly stated. His delivery was decent, he maintained eye contact and a good tone.
The first speech is interesting, and it meets the requirements. The speaker has a good posture and voice, however, using notes affected his eye contact.
The second speech was interesting as well. The speaker was comfortable delivering her speech. Also, her posture, eye contact, and voice were good.
Finally, The third speech was really good. The speaker has a good posture, voice and eye contact. The speech has all the requirments.
First speech: I believe that the speech is more than good concerning the requirements and the global way of presenting. However, there are some issues such as the fact of using notes which make eye contact not perfect and mek us feel that the speaker is not completely involved with the audience
Second speech: I think that the overall speech is really good. In fact the posture and eye contact are nice and makes us as an audience consentrated with the talk. However, I believe that the speaker could make more effort in the voice and tone and try to be able to do her speech without notes.
Third speech: For me the last speaker was excellent. Indeed, the structure of the speech was really good and the delivery too becasue of good eye contact, voice, tone and an excellent body language that involve the audience
AICHA BELGHITI First speech: For the first speech the speaker was reading ,and that affected his eye contact with the audience. His possure was good. The content of the speech was attractive. Howerver, his introduction miss the central idea. He did not also establish credeblity in the introduction. Second speech: Good posture, good eye contact too. Howerver, the speaker have to raise her voice. The speech is well structured. The speaker had also used transitions.
Third speech: Good posture and eye contact. The tons and the voice was good too. He use an enjoyable conversational style. The content was interesting, well structured and well explained. However the speaker did not mark the end of the speech.
YEMMAS SAMY I accept that each speech had its characteristics. From a closely-held conviction, I favored the third one. The speaker had an excellent stance, an intriguing and very much organized subject, and an extraordinary signal. The speaker didn't utilize any cards to audit the general thoughts while conveying his discourse, which helped him set up an impeccable eye to eye connection with the crowd.
MARIEM AALABOU -For the first speaker: The content of the speech was interesting and it was well structured, even though it lacks some essential parts of the informative speech like an attention grabber, and the establishment of credibility. However, there were many gaps in the student's delivery. For instance, he kept reading from time to time, which I found distracting, and his eye contact need to be improved too. As for his voice, it was clear and we could hear his full sentences. -For the second speaker: I really liked her posture, voice, tone and eye contact. Which makes her delivery perfect. Also, the speech was well organized and it fulfilled all the requirements. Another thing that I really liked, is that the student engaged the audience by asking them a question at the beginning of the speech. -For the third speaker: he seemed confident and he maintained a great posture during the whole speech, however, he was coughing from time to another, which disturbed me a little bit. But the overall speech was good.
Speaker (1): The first speaker’s topic was very factual, which is totally the point of the informative speech, meaning that I learned quite a bit from it. Secondly, I want to say that the overall presentation was good. His ideas were clear and well structured. The speech lacked an attention grabber and the establishment of credibility, although he did reveal a personal connection to his topic at the end of the speech. I’d like to point out that his timing was bad (5:27). His posture was good, eye contact was there too, but he kept reading for a long period every now and then. Also, he keeps saying « uhhh » a lot, which is a bit distracting to me, but I understand that there was some ongoing stress in front of the audience.
Speaker (2): The topic was relevant. She also seems like she practiced a lot before delivering which is a good thing. Her tone was great, her voice very much clear. Eye contact was good without any reversal. The timing was nice (4:49). Also, she had a very consistent set of ideas which would eventually keep the audience engaged. Her speech was well structured, she used a handful of sources. So the overall presentation was good.
Speaker (3): I liked that speech. I liked the way he presented his topic, the way he spoke and engaged his audience. His posture and body language were great, tone and voice very much so too. Although the timing was bad (4:32), his speech was fully well structured. He also knew when to pause, which lets his audience reflect on what he just mentioned, and puts some emphasis on the conversational style as well as how it affects your delivery.
In the third speech, the speaker seemed confident, he made eye contact with the audience, he had a good posture. However, he didn't use hand gestures often and he was standinding still with no movement. The speaker presented the speech well, he used an attention grabber at the beginning of the speech ( meat is no longer natural ) . The overall order of ideas about the benefits of veganism were acceptable.
I liked the second speech because I believe that the topic she chose was very interesting and catchy. She was very confortable while delievring her speech, and I liked the fact that she was interacting with the audience.
From my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber. Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
From my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber. Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
From my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber. Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
The second speaker had a good delivery. She maintained eye contact with her audiance all along the speech since she didn't rely on her notes a lot and her voice tone was perfect. Also, her gesture shows how much she is comfortable. When it comes to the content, along with the topic being engaging, we can see that it's well structured as the speaker presented her ideas in a clear manner and acknowledged the sources she used. Overall, it's a very well prepared and presented speech.
Manal Mayssan The third speech was very impressive. The speaker seemed confident and was able to control his stress. He had a good posture and good eye contact did not use any cue cards. The content was good and well structured. However, more information could have been added to further explain the subject and reach the required time.
The second speaker had a flat tone and a rigid posture. In introducing her topic, she presented no attention grabber, and failed to engage her audience in two ways: the first; by asking "how many ... have been into athletics...", she neglects the audience who may not have been athletic but have taken up exercise as a recreational activity. Second, her purpose does not agree with the question, since athletics (which many find extreme) does not particularly relate to the mental benefits of sports (which could be of any type).
Hajar FATTAH, The delivery of the third speech was so good because the speaker used a grear eye contact, and his voice was so clear. I like the way how he present his speech because he conteoled hos stress and he used a good body gesture that let his speech to be well presented and well organized. Not only that, but also to his audiences follow with him and to reflect attentively on what he said, he paused at relevant moment.
feedback of Maria EZZIANI SP21-section07- speech1 The speech is well organized, we can easily keep track of each part of the speech (introduction, points of the body, and conclusion). The transition words made that even easier and made the structure clearer. On the other hand, the hook and the establishing of credibility were missing, also the references were not stated with precision, most of the time they were vague by referring to scientists and research in general. The ending with the student's own experience was very successful though. Regarding the delivery, although reading from the index cards the student most of the time maintained good eye contact with his audience and used gestures spontaneously. However, more rehearsing would have been better and would have lessen the moments of silence where the student needed to check his index cards. The students seemes to be confident and comfortable with his topic which surely remains a great added value.
All speeches were good, but I prefered the third one in terms of delivery. The speaker was more confortable and engaged, and she maintained eye contact with th audience during the whole speech. When it comes to the speech, the first one was better because he had a well structured introduction and all the point were well mentioned in the body.
All speeches were good, but I prefered the third one in terms of delivery. The speaker was more confortable and engaged, and she maintained eye contact with th audience during the whole speech. When it comes to the speech, the first one was better because he had a well structured introduction and all the point were well mentioned in the body.
HIBA DARDARI SPEECH1: First, the topic sounded really interesting; however, I did not notice any hook in the introduction; moreover, the speaker's voice was monotonous which was kind of boring for me as an audience. His voice was shaking, he used a lot of gap fillers as well. Secondly, he kept reading once in a while, and was clearly nervous, which made him not keep eye contact with the audience therefore losing the connection between him and the latter. Finally, I can say that the way this speech was given can be better with practice, knowing that the content was very interesting.
the third speaker's topic was very clear. He seemed confident while he was talking and I got to focus on and understand clearly what he was saying. -Ghita Amrani
Speech(1) : I believe that the speech was well organized, we can easily keep up with the speaker and his ideas without feeling lost, we can differentiate between the different part of his speech including introduction, body and conclusion. The timing was good for an informative speech 5:23s. The missing piece of the speech was at the beginning, the speaker didn't really grab the attention of his audience, and sometimes he seemed like he is reading, also he didn't use wisely the sources, he just mentioned them vaguely. Overall, a very good delivery, he was looking to all of his audience and he was confident with his delivery.
Speech 1: His topic was very interesting and he achidved his goal of informing the audience about a subject they're not familiar with. Although, he didn't include an attention grabber and his delivery was sub-par; he was reading since the beginning but it intensified near the end and he kept using many gap words. Which just shows that he needed to rehearse his speech more before delivering it. He also went below the allotted time. Overall, the speech was interesting but it needed some more rehearsal for it to be great.
The third speaker's delivery was excellent because he had excellent eye contact, a steady voice, great posture, appeared calm and was able to handle his stress without using any cue cards, but he didn't use hand signals much, and he coughed from time to time. At the start of his speech, he used an attention grabber and the topic was fascinating and well-organized. Also, the information was presented in a direct way.
Let's start by the organization of the speech and its content: The introduction of the speech lacks the attention grabber and the establishment of credibility. The speeh is well organized since he flows from one point to another easily by using transitions and linking words. He did not explicitly mention all the sources.
As for the delivery: good delivery; the voice was clear and the speaker was knoweldgeable about the topic. However, he kept reading instead of maintaining eye contact with the audience. I feel that he was so comfortable during the speech; he was delivering as if he was talking to his friends not to an audience. I feel that he did not practise enough before delivering the speech.
El Mehdi El Boustani SP21-Section08 Speech 1: At the level of the introduction I think that the speaker didn't have a good attention grabber he also needs to engage his audience. However, he talked about something relevant to the audience. He was also mainly relying on his notes. Moreover, he needs to refer to the sources in a more explicit way. But overall it was a good speech.
Douae Kabelmz section 08: Informative speech The third speaker has a good posture, good delivery and a great speaking tone. He clearly cited his sources and kept eye contact throughout the entire speech which made me interested in what he was saying. The topic was also really interesting however he might have spent too much time on the introduction(nearly half the speech).
The speaker seemed somewhat stressed in the beginning of the speech, but he started being comfortable after a few time. He talked about a simple topic that many people know about. In my opinion, the presentation was great and the speech was well structured, his ideas were clear and well structured, and the main points were clearly stated. I think he went out of the normal timing of an informative speech. Moreover, The speaker used eye contact; however, he kept reading for a few moments according to his body language and gestures.
The speaker's posture was good throughout the whole speech with no movements that distracted the audience. His tone was also good as it kept me, as a listener, interested in the topic, as well as it helped me not get bored. In the introduction, the speaker established credibility through an example which proved his point. He also clearly stated the points he was going to cover in the body. However, I do think that the introduction was a bit too long. In the body, the speaker used transitions words/sentences which helped the audience keep up with him and have a clear idea of the main purpose of the speech. The speaker used sources which were relevant to his points and clearly cited them. He closed off with a conclusion which left an impression on the audience.
The delivery was great in terms of posture even though his lower body was moving too much; however, his hands gestures and his upper body was moving in a way that shows he is comfortable while delivering the speech. Moreover, the topic was interesting, and the ideas were well structured which allowed him to inform the audience and transfer his ideas. His interaction with audience was also great.
The third speech is really interesting and the subject he has chosen is captivating. I really like how he presented his topic to the audience, even if the introduction was too long. The speaker was knowledgeable about the topic that is why he was not nervous and stated clearly his ideas. Alia Eddiouri
The third speech was very well delivered and structured. The attention grabber was very interesting. The topic was very clear as there wasn't any confusion. As for the speaker, he was very comfortable in delivering his speech. He interacted with his audience in a way where he kept eye contact with them. Also, he didn't have any notes, so he was able to use gestures that helped with the interaction. He had a good posture, and he presented his ideas precisely.
The speech is really good. The topic choosen by the speaker is interesting. The speaker delivered his speech in a good way, he maintained the eye contact with the audience, his body language is also good, he doesn't look stressed at all. The presentation was great and the speech was well structured, his ideas were clearly stated. Moreover, the main points were clear and organized.
The first speech had some noise in the background which was distacting as well as the speaker's face expressions at the beginning. His voice was very clear but he kept using gap fillers which was not good. Also, the eye contact was missing.
For the second speaker,I like the fact that she maintained confidence and shared the structure of the speech.Both her voice and tone were engaging. She also was able to maintain eye contact.
MARWA BAMOUSS FIRST SPEECH The speaker seemed a bit nervous at the begining, he kept repeating some words and I believe that there wasn't really a hook. However, he clearly stated his thesis statement in the introduction, making his topic clear to the audience. Throughout the speach, the speaker kept the same nervous tone but still made eye contact with the audience. He made sure to use transitions in order to jump from a point to another. The ideas stated were clear and followed a line of reasonning, he also mentionned some sources to support them. Overall the speach was good even though the speaker exceeded the time limit and struggled from time to time to maintain eye contact.
MOHAMED AMINE GHAFIL FIRST SPEECH: The speech was well organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion, and the transition words made the speech easy to follow and understand. However, the attention grabber was missing, and although he did mention some sources, it was not enough to fully establish credibility. The student ended the speech by sharing own experience which was a good way to support his speech. The speaker's delivery was good as he kept good eye contact with the audience despite having to occasionally read. However, it seems that the speaker was nervous and hesitant at times, which may imply that there was not enough rehearsing.
Ali Ouedghiri Saidi COM 1301 07 I like the first speech, the topic was clearly stated and the ideas were well organized, also the speaker had a good delevery and a great posture, and as a listener his tone and speed of talking were matching his content
I liked the third speech. The guy didn't use any notes, good posture. He maintained eye contact that shows his confidence. However he did some pauses, he could have used some sentences to fill the gap. Great SPEECH!
Rami Fethi The second speech is really interesting. She had some extremely clear ideas and speech organization and I loved when she talked about hapiness. Her delivery was very clear (even tough there was a lot of echo and background noises in the room.) I didn't like how she was frozen and didn't gesture her hands nor move even tough she felt very confident.
The 3rd speech is very well-structured and organized. The speaker showed a confident body language, a great posture, eye contact as well as a good attention grabber. He also established credibility within the audience and succesfully managed to communicate his ideas to the audience. Mehdi Chafi.
The three speeches were very interesting and rich with information. It showed that the first speaker was a bit nervous, nonetheless, his speech was really good. The second speaker was really good at catching the audience's attention even though, in my opinion, her speech was not very creative compared to the other two speeches. She still managed to control her tone and present her speech confidently. Personally, the third speaker is my favorite. His speech was very appealing, his delivery was very confident and performed well, and his tone was very easy to follow too. At first, he wasn't really moving but when he did, he did not distract his audience.
The choice of the topic was in my opinion original and unsual which made his speech interesting. I liked the fact that he was smiling to his audience, but at points it seemed that he was not so serious. His tone was great, however he used too many gap fillers. The outline was clearly stated, which made his speech organized. I think it would've been better if he didn't use his notes as much. Overall, clear and interesting content with some small flaws in the delivery.
Bouskouk Nada The 2nd speech was captivating and interesting. I loved the speaker's topic and how she managed to organize her ideas and deliver them clearly, she had also a good tone of voice, and she kept good eye contact with the audience throughout her speech. I liked also how she was interacting with the audience by engaging them with her throughout questions.However, she had her hands leaning on the desk, and she was taking her notes.
I thought the second speaker was excellent. she had a well-structured speech, her accent was pristine, her posture was straight and healthy, she had a great flow of words as well as a good articulation. she seemed calm and composed, not a single sign of stress. I loved the fact that she engaged the audience with her, to keep them hooked. It might've been slightly better if she could walk around the "podium" for a little bit but it is still excellent.
Salma Amiri: 2nd speech: The topic of the second speech was really interesting, the speaker interacted very well with the audience which helped getting involved and staying focused. Her posture and her tone were great. The CI was clearly stated and organized in the introduction. I liked the fact that she used many sources to give credibility.
I loved the second and third speech. Both speakers were confident and maintained good eye contact. Their posture was good, even though the second speaker was leaning on the desk. Their speeches were interesting, organized and well-structured. The first speaker was nervous, and maybe not fully ready; he stammered and used a lot of gab fillers. He also read from his notes. Nevertheless, his posture and tone were good.
MERYAM KHATIB. The first speech was very well organized the speaker followed the main point stated in the introduction which made his speech delivery go smoothly. The speaker also had a conversational tone and that helped his delivery.
Adnane Ahroum & Youssef Bouraouine. The 1st speaker had a great structure, he was engaging, and the speech was well delivered.But he was exceeding the time limit and he looked too much down which meant that he was constantly reading. The 2nd speaker was much better than the 1st one in terms of all aspects of delivery and engagement, and she rarely used gap fillers, and I heard 2 interesting sources, she was also great on timing and barely read her notes. I would've loved if the speaker would use her hands and move a bit with more of eye contact. But overall great speaker. The 3rd speaker was as good as the second one, but the timing was a bit low. And I think that this is related to the fact that he didn't develop his main points in the body. but he was moving and using his hands perfectly. Overall I would give the highest grade to the second speaker which explained her points with ease and confidence, and she also used a fairly interesting topic.
I enjoyed the 3rd speech very much, the speech was well structured and greatly presented. Although he lacked good posture and composure at first, he was quick to fix it and followed it by excellent gaze control and great gestures. He did go below the alloted time, but overall, I enjoyed the topic very much and I will give the speech a very good grade.
Salma Abid In the second speech, the speaker did quite a good job delivering the information. She was very clear and her main points were straight forward although her tone wasn’t high enough. She also had very good eye contact and she was very comfortable and relaxed. As for the sources, they weren’t many taking into consideration that it is an informative speech. Also the timing was perfect she managed to deliver her information on time. Overall it was an interesting speech.
I liked the second speech. The posture, the tone and the delivery were on point. Very rare use of her notes, she does eye contact with her audience. No stress on sight. An overall excellent speech.
The first speaker had a well structured and an organized speech, but he didn't use an attention grabber, and didn't establish credibility. When it comes to delivery, the speaker's voice was clear and he had a good conversational tone. The speaker also maintained a good posture throughout the speech. However, he kept looking at his notes, which means he was reading. And he went below the allotted time.
Pooja Damodharan: The third speaker had great posture and his delivery was amazing. He also seemed confident. However, he could have structured his speech better because the introduction was quite long and seemed to have more importance. He was also low on timing. Overall, he did a great job and shared useful points through his speech.
Speech2: The speaker seemed very confident, she maintained good eye contact with the audience. Also, the speech was well organized, the CI was clearly stated as well as the main points of her speech. She used at least 2 sources, and I really liked the last quote in the conclusion after she restated the thesis statement. Although she was holding flash cards, she didn't rely on them a lot which is good. Overall, it is a great and inspiring speech.
The third speaker's speech was well structured, and the content was highly relevant to that of the audience which made the speech much more attractive and interesting. For the delivery on the other hand, he had a great eye contact, as well as the gestures and posture, he was also felt like very interactive with the students. However, I would like to highlight only two issues concerning the delivery, the first one being him walking sideways, especially during the begining which was kind of disruptive. And the second point is the timing; Although the speech was generally beneficial and terrific in terms of content and hand gestures, the speech did not fit the 5 minutes requirements even when he inserted, in many instances, a period of silence(especially while couphing).
1st speech: The first speaker's speech was well structured, however, his delivery was not good as he struggled to keep eye contact consistently, plus, he exceeded the time limit which was of 5 minutes. Overall, although there was a clear introduction, body part and conclusion, the way they were delivered failed to grab the listener's attention.
2nd speech: The second speaker respected the time limit, had a good delivery through eye contact in spite of the lack of hand gestures, and had a well structured speech. Overall, she barely read her notes and engaged the listeners successfully, therefore she had an almost perfect speech.
Maissaa Bihi COM 1301 08 I enjoyed the subject of the first speech since it was well-organized: main points were clearly stated and developed. The speaker met the requirements for the introduction, body, and conclusion. He was stressed, but he gave us some excellent information eventhough he was reading from his notes sometimes and he used so many gap fillers. For the timing, he exceeded 5 min. On the other hand, the third speaker had a very confident posture,his voice was clear. He met the eye contact requirement and he presented some very interesting and clear information. However, he gave too much time to the introduction (over 2min) which i think is unacceptable because generally speaking, if your speech is to be five minutes long, your introduction should be no more than forty-five seconds.
Karim: I found the second speech very interesting and well organized!
She presented the benefits of sports in many aspects of our lives and showed how important it is to practice it for college students. Also, I found that her speech is motivating and encouraging to students to start practicing sports, which is a good thing!
OTMAN ALHAZBARI In my opinion the 2nd speaker, regarfless of the stress, she managed to keep good eye conyact and and a stable tone. However she could've smiled more and used her hands more. Also i think that sje made intrestjng points abt her topic although i think tbat the topic she chose was kinda boring and generic
Fatima Beddi, They all had a great eye contact, a clear language, and a well-instructed speech. However, I found out that the third speaker managed to have a better posture and he was not reading his notes.
The second speech was great, the speaker didn't seem stressed, rather confident. The delivery was great, she kept good eye contact with the audience. She had what seemed to me like notes but I didn't see her look at them which is great. She had a good timing 4:50 almost 5 minutes. Overall, it was a good informative speech
Ziad Elhajjame. 2nd speech: The delivery was great. She kept good posture and eye contact. She respected the timing. And overall the speech contained interesting informations.
Aya In the first informative speech the speaker kept looking a lot to his note he had good posture, but he passed 5 minutes and i think it’s because he keeps say “uhmm”
I enjoyed watching the first speech, the speaker was confident, had good eye contact, nice smooth introduction, good posture and gestures, the thing that is missing is establishing credibility, even though he was looking at his notes a lot he didn't make it that obvious, i think he made the audience comfortable by keeping his smile, in a nutshell, the speech was good and of course there is always room for improvement.
I enjoyed watching the first speech, the speaker was confident, had good eye contact, nice smooth introduction, good posture and gestures, the thing that is missing is establishing credibility, even though he was looking at his notes a lot he didn't make it that obvious, i think he made the audience comfortable by keeping his smile, in a nutshell, the speech was good and of course there is always room for improvement. ALi EL Majdouli
Ragdah Abuljadayel The third speaker's posture was excellent, he made sure to look around the room and try to make eye contact. His voice was very clear and it was easy to understand. He had a good speech and I learnt things from it. The timing was bad however since it was 4:35 minutes and he should try to get it to around 4:50-5:00 minutes. He was very engaging.
The first speaker was a little tense in the introduction, but seemed comfortable afterwards. The timing was over the limit (5 minutes), so he needed to practice his timing during his speeches. He used many gap fillers which extended his speech probably. His eye contact with the audience was good at some times and he looked at his paper many times. Overall the speech is good in terms of content, it needs a little bit of improvement regarding the posture, eye contact, and timing.
On the third speech the speaker had good posture and good eye contact He did not have notes and his voice was clear, but his timing was short he was 4:35 min
The three speeches were fun to watch but I particularly enjoyed the first one because the topic was interesting. The main point was clearly declared. The introduction was missing an attention grabber. If the topic wasn't interesting, I don't think that I would've followed. He also hasn't established credibility. He did consider the audience and directly talked to college students. When it comes to the delivery: He maintained eye contact but often looked at his notes for too long. It would've been good if he used hand gestures and moved a bit instead of using his eyes only to direct the audience. The voice and the tone were on point.
I think the topic of the third speech is very interesting. The speaker was able to grab the audience's attention not only with the topic of his speech but also with his good posture and eye contact. The content was well structured, and he seemed really confident while delivering. However, he could improve his timing a little bit, as well as reduce the coughing which was a little disturbing.
Zoubida Tagmouti The first speech was well structured and the speaker provided us with excellent information that followed the main points stated in the central idea. However, the delivery was not as good as the content of the speech since he kept reading his notes and didn't maintain eye contact. The time of the speech was also not respected.
Abdelaziz Karroum COM 1301 17 the second speech is well-structured. The speaker respected the allotted time and finished her speech in 4:50 mins. She was engaged with the crowd from her tone and how she kept eye contact with the whole room. she used notes which stopped her from using gestures during her speech. She had a few looks at her notes, but it didn’t disrupt the flow of the speech. The main points were clear and well developed. the delivery was good. During the speech, I heard her use 2 sources to back up her speech.
KENZA TOREIS I believe that the first speaker's posture was ruined by the fact that he read a lot from his notes. This fact can also affect his eye contact. However, his tone was engaging and his speech was well structured and well delivered. Unfortunately, he exceeded the time limit.
First speech: The first speaker seemed nervous at the beginning and relied on filler words but grew more confident as the speech went on. He held good eye-contact with the audience and his delivery was good. He did, however, go over the allotted time so timing needs more practice.
Second speech: The second speech was interactive and interesting. Her posture and delivery were excellent. The eye contact was nice and natural. This speech also had the best timing of the three. Overall, a clear and well delivered speech.
Third speech: This speech was overall the most entertaining as the speaker delivered it confidently and had great posture. The topic was clear and the main points were logical. One thing he could work on is timing as he was under the allotted time.
Yassine El Boury: The third speaker was good because of the posture, the eye contact and his voice was clear. However he should improve the timing because it was not around 5 minutes. He should also move less and develop a bit more his ideas.
Yara Kouttane My favorite speech is definitely the second one. The speaker seemed very confident and easy-going when it came to the delivery. Overall, we can clearly deduce that she had carefully prepared and cleverly written her speech.
Speaker 1: Clear structure, strong opening; confidence developed during the speech itself-engaging an audience. A little more vocal variety perhaps .
Speaker 2: Engaging content presented assuredly and an even tone. Well-paced, some excellent vocal dynamics to hold audience attention.
Speaker 3: Strong opening, consistent clarity, confident tone-really great way to engage an audience.
All speakers did a very good job of balancing structure and delivery. My favorite speaker was Speaker 3 because the opening was strong, and he had a consistent confident presence to keep the engagement going until the end.
The first speaker started with a clear structure and an engaging introduction. He seemed a bit nervous at first, using some filler words, but gained confidence as he spoke. By the end, his tone was steady and easy to follow. Adding a bit more variety in his voice could have made the speech even better. He did a great job of turning a simple topic "showering" into something interesting and informative.
The second speaker’s confident delivery and calm tone kept the audience engaged. She made great eye contact, stood steady, and used her voice well to hold listeners' attention. Her speech was well-organized, with three main ideas clearly introduced, discussed, and summarized in the conclusion, and she also referenced reliable resources, which added credibility.
The third speaker began with a compelling introduction, delivering a confident and interesting speech that was easy to follow. His tone and pace stayed clear, his movements weren’t distracting, and he made good eye contact with everyone. His speech was well-structured and included research he properly credited, adding reliability.
All three speakers did a great job balancing structure and delivery.
The first speaker gave a good presentation overall, but there were a few things that could have been better. He relied on his notes more than necessary, which showed that he didn’t fully remember all the information. His poster was well done . He made good eye contact, although he seemed a bit nervous at the start. He became more relaxed as he got into the main part of the speech. His points were well-organized, and he used linking words that made it easier to follow his ideas.
The second speaker delivered an inspiring speech.. She respected the time limit and maintained strong eye contact, which helped engage the audience, even though she didn't use many hand gestures. Her speech was well-structured with a clear central idea and main points. I especially liked the quote she included in the conclusion after restating her thesis. Although she had flash cards, she barely relied on them, showing her confidence and strong preparation.
The third speaker gave a well-organized and structured speech with clear, well-defined main points. He appeared confident, maintaining great posture and consistent eye contact, which helped engage the audience. He used a body language and effective attention grabber . The chosen topic was interesting,and he delivered it smoothly without showing any signs of stress.
jihane Mandaress: All the speakers maintained excellent eye contact, used clear language, and delivered their speeches in a structured and organized way, which made their presentations effective and easy to follow, however, The second speaker demonstrated a deep understanding of her topic, evident by her ability to present without relying on notes, which made the delivery feel more natural. I do think she could have smiled more to show a bit more enthusiasm and warmth in her presentation.
Maëva Speech 1: The content was strong, with a clear structure, but delivery was affected by reliance on notes, lack of eye contact, and exceeding time limits. The speaker gained confidence over time.
Speech 2: Strong delivery with good eye contact and engagement. Well-paced and well-structured, though the speaker used notes occasionally. Timing was respected, and sources were well integrated.
Speech 3: Clear structure, confident delivery, and good posture. Effective eye contact, though the timing needed adjustment.
First speech: The content was very interesting. He succeeded in making me interested in something as trivial as showering. He also made the different main points clear which made it easier to follow. However, the speaker seems a bit nervous and doesn't keep eye contact. Also, we can observe a lot of gap fillers and a reliance on notes.
Second speech: The second speaker respected the structure and made it easy to follow by clearly showing when she switches to a main point. She also seemed very confident and looked like she practiced a lot as there was almost no gap fillers. Also, she kept eye contact. Her tone and voice were also very good.
Third speech: The speaker had a very good introduction that got me hooked instantly. His voice, tone, and posture were perfect. His movements weren't distracting and his speech was very easy to follow.
The first speaker gave a good speech and had a strong posture. However, he depended too much on his notes, which made him lose eye contact with the audience and seem a bit unprepared. But as he went on, he became more comfortable and connected better with everyone.
The second speaker delivered her speech with confidence and didn’t rely too much on her notes, showing that she was well-prepared. She successfully grabbed everyone’s attention and kept it throughout the speech.
The third speaker delivered his speech with a clear voice, which helped him capture the audience’s attention. He successfully presented the information in an easy to understand way and kept steady eye contact throughout.
-First speech: The speech had several strengths, including a well-introduced topic, structured ideas, fluency, clear pronunciation, and good voice, tone, and posture. However, the speaker relied heavily on notes, which slightly affected eye contact, and the timing could have been improved. Overall, it was a solid presentation with room for minor adjustments.
-Second speech:The presentation was impressive, with well-structured ideas and a great topic choice. She established a bond with the audience right from the beginning, which was effective. Her posture was good, and she maintained excellent eye contact, speaking confidently throughout. The timing was perfect. To improve further, she could focus on raising her voice a bit more for better projection. She also mentioned sources which is a good thing in an informative speech.
-Third speech: The speaker delivered a well-structured speech with a confident tone, effective hand gestures, and strong posture. He maintained strong eye contact and spoke with clear pronunciation. The topic choice was interesting and started with an engaging attention grabber. By mentioning sources, he effectively informed the audience. Overall, it was an impressive and well-crafted presentation.
The first speaker presented well overall, though there were areas for improvement. He leaned on his notes more than needed, which suggested he wasn’t completely comfortable with the material. However, his poster was well-made, and he maintained good eye contact, though he appeared a bit nervous initially. As he progressed into the main content, he seemed more at ease. His points were clearly organized, and he used transitions that made his ideas easy to follow.
The second speaker delivered an inspiring speech. She stayed within the time limit and kept strong eye contact, engaging the audience effectively, even with minimal hand gestures. Her speech had a clear structure with a central idea and well-defined points. I especially appreciated the quote she used in her conclusion after reiterating her thesis. She used flash cards but barely glanced at them, demonstrating her confidence and solid preparation.
The third speaker's speech was well-organized, with distinct, clear points. He appeared confident, maintained strong posture and steady eye contact, which helped hold the audience’s attention. He incorporated body language effectively and used an engaging opening statement. His topic was interesting, and he delivered it smoothly, showing no signs of nervousness.
Rim Griou The first speaker had a well-structured, engaging presentation that was delivered effectively. However, he exceeded the time limit and often looked down, indicating that he was frequently reading from his notes.
The second speaker outperformed the first in all aspects of delivery and engagement. She used very few gap fillers and shared two interesting sources. Her timing was spot on, and she rarely referred to her notes. While I would have liked to see more hand gestures, movement, and eye contact from her, overall, she was an excellent speaker.
The third speaker matched the second in quality but spoke for a shorter time. This might have been due to a lack of development in the body of the speech. Nonetheless, he used hand gestures and movement effectively.
Oumaima lachrame: first speaker did an excellent job on his speech with really good points however he was moving a lot and glancing at his notes but overall he did a pretty good job! Second speaker: Liked the topic that she discussed! She kept a really good posture and eye contact which was good, also really good speech and timing Third speech: Well organized and structured speech! Loved the speakers eye contact and engagement while speaking overall really good speech ! And good posture too
Name: Mohamed Amine El Malki First speech: The first speaker appeared a bit nervous initially and used filler words, but gained confidence as the speech progressed. His eye contact with the audience was strong, and his delivery was effective. However, he exceeded the time limit, so he could work on managing timing.
Second speech: The second speaker’s presentation was engaging and interactive. Her posture and delivery were outstanding, and her eye contact felt natural. She also had the best timing of all three speeches. Overall, it was a clear and well-executed speech.
Third speech: The third speech was the most entertaining overall, as the speaker was confident and maintained excellent posture. The topic was well-defined, with a logical flow to the main points. One area for improvement would be timing, as he finished under the time required.
I believe that all the speeches were good and have their own qualities. Still, I prefer the third speech. The speaker that very good posture, his movement and hand gestures were not distracting. In addition, the topic was also very interesting and well structured.
First speaker attract the attention by maintaining the eyes contact, the voice and tone are sufficient and the delivery is good. Second one needs to raise her voice but the content, delivery and posture are well presented. Third speaker, managed well the speech, he had a good posture and good delivery.
Speech 1: The first speaker had a well-organized, compelling presentation that was delivered well. However, he went beyond the time limit and constantly looked down, indicating that he was reading from his notes.
Speech 2: The second speaker gave a strong address. She kept to the time limit and maintained excellent eye contact, engaging the audience well even with few hand movements. Her speech followed a precise framework, with a focal topic and well-defined points. I particularly liked the statement she used in her conclusion after reiterating her topic. She utilized flash cards but only briefly glanced at them, displaying her confidence and thorough preparation.
Speech 3: The third speaker had the same quality as the second but spoke for a shorter period of time. This could have been owing to a lack of growth in the main body of the discourse. Nevertheless, he made hand movements and movement effectively.
The first speaker was initially anxious and used filler words, but developed confidence throughout the speech. His eye contact with the crowd was great, and his delivery was impactful. He did, however, exceed the time limit, allowing him to practice time management.
Speech two: The second speaker delivered an intriguing and interactive presentation. Her posture and delivery were excellent, and her eye contact seemed natural. She also had the best timing among the three talks. Overall, the speech was clear and well-executed.
Speech three: The third speech was the most engaging due to the speaker's confident delivery and good posture. The issue was clearly outlined, with a logical progression to the important themes. Timing is one area that might be improved, as he completed the task before the deadline.
First speaker delivered a well structured, interesting and engaging speech with different parts easily identifiable; spoke with clarity , an appropriate tone of voice and posture .Although he seemed a bit nervous at first.One of the thing he could work on is timing because he exceed the time and also he relied on notes too heavily, which affected his eye contact thats why a less reliance on notes and reducing gap fillers could further strengthen his connection with the audience.
The Second speaker also gave a well-structured and inspiring speech, and had good rapport with audience from start. She maintained eye contact, used hand gestures appropriately and brought sources to lend evidence.The timing was perfect too. To further improve, she could work on projecting her voice a little more.
The third speaker made a strong impression with an engaging introduction that captured attention immediately, his confident voice, tone, and posture made him look calm and confident. His use of hand movements were powerful and the continued eye contact made it easy to follow his speech. The delivery was great, perhaps one thing he could improve is timing, as he finished ahead of the allotted time.
Lina Zaroual: First speech: The content of the speech was interesting and the structure was good, but I did feel like it lacked some essential parts of the informative speech like an attention grabber, and the speaker didn't establish credibility. Also, I think the speaker used many gap fillers. Moreover , he read a bit too much, which was distracting. So, his eye contact need to be improved too. Nevertheless, his voice was clear and he had a good tone and posture.
Second speech: Her posture, voice, tone and eye contact were all very good for me. I found her delivery perfect. Furthermore, the speech was also very well organized and and the content was interesting and relevant. She established credibility using sources, which was also very good.
Third speech: The third speaker also a good delivery, he looked very confident. His posture, voice and tone were all very good. His speech was also good structure, with every part leading to another. He used good transition phrases. However, for his speech to be perfect, he needs to have better timing. So he probably, should have added more information in his speech and developed more expansively his ideas.
The first speaker sounded a little tense in the introductory stage but, during the course of the speech, he could manage to just relax and then deliver the body with confidence. His main points were defined, logically structured, and supported well. Transitions between each main point flow and were done well.
The second speaker was comfortable and relaxed throughout her entire presentation. She maintained a flexible and efficient speaking rate that helped her to engage the audience. One could feel her passion in the topic she was presenting, and her speech was remarkably devoid of fillers, making her content more engaging.
The third speaker was strong from the very outset because his opener was attention-grabbing and evoked interest; he was concise in stating what he would be talking about and set the stage for what would be an interesting talk.
-The first speech was well prepared with an engaging introduction that effectively captured attention. The speaker presented structured ideas that were logically organized, with smooth transitions between each main point. His voice was clear, and he maintained a good tone and posture, adding to his presence on stage. However, he attached to his notes , which affected eye contact at times. Although there was some initial nervousness, the speaker relaxed as he moved into the main content, delivering it with increased confidence. With more practice to improve timing and reduce note dependency, the speech could be even more engaging. Overall, I can say that is was a strong presentation with minor areas for improvement.
-The second speaker did an amazing job with her presentation. She seemed really comfortable and confident, which made her message even more engaging. Her delivery was smooth and well-timed, keeping the audience engaged from start to finish. The speech was well-structured, and the topic she chose was both interesting and relevant. From the beginning, she built a great connection with the audience through strong eye contact and a relaxed yet confident posture. You could really feel her passion for the topic. She was well-prepared, using her flashcards only briefly, which showed how much she knew the material. I also appreciated how she backed up her points with credible sources, adding depth to her message. If there is one thing to work on, it would be projecting her voice a little more, just to make sure everyone hears her clearly.
-The third speaker did a great job. He spoke confidently, with good posture and clear pronunciation, making it easy to understand. His speech was well-structured, and the points flowed smoothly. The hand gestures and eye contact helped keep the audience engaged. One thing to improve would be timing, as he finished a bit too early. Adding more detail to the main points could make the speech even better.
First speech: • Topic well developed throughout the speech although it lacked the use of connectors and transitions words • Absence of an attention grabber • Mention of credibility by research and personal experience • Reading from notes which lead to not having eye contact with audience Second speech: • Well-structured speech and confident delivery • Interaction with the audience by asking a question • Maintained eye contact with the audience • Research for credibility • Use of quotes Third speech: • Use of a hook • Good posture and maintained eye contact • No use or relying on notes • Well organized speech
first speech: Structure: This video is possibly perfectly structured so key points can flow in a chronological order. This way, the audience would be interested in following up through introduction to main topics and finally to the conclusion. Speech Content: Those articles almost always delve into a single particular topic in great depth, with examples or explanations to clarify whatever needs to be clarified. These elements help to make the message memorable because if it uses stories, examples, questions to the audience they have an impact. Clarity: It’s probably easy to comprehend, and that is important because viewers pay attention. If the technical terms are used, they can be explained so clearly for a general audience. Feedback on Delivery: Voice and Tone: Probably a confident speaker with a good mix of wonderfully enthusiastic and very clear. Probably effective in changing of tone, pitch and volume to give emphasis to some points which will hold the attention of the listener. Body Language: That means if the speaker is visible, they have to be saying what they think because their body language would be there to match up with. Pica boo does not embed video on your web page or upload a video to YouTube, but it creates a very natural presentation that matches what they are saying which makes it more dynamic. Pacing: The reader might feel that the speaker is pacing along nicely at a balanced speed neither too fast, and will lose them, nor too slow, and will find them bored. Well used pauses between points might allow the viewer time to absorb the information. Eye Contact and Connection: When the speaker looks into the camera, it brings a personalized direct engagement to that of the viewer. Overall Feedback: Together, it is a compelling video between the delivery and the content. With the speaker’s energy and clarity, the message should be clear and engaging, so viewers will be caught by what the speaker says right from the beginning. second speech: 1.Content Structure: The content was well organized by the speaker, working down and up. The audience will see the points connected smoothly. Speech: It’s clear written language that can make complex subjects sound simple. Though, it would be nice to tell a bit more about specific key ideas that the audience needs to understand. Examples: Examples from real life or something similar would improve on engagement because they are understandable for abstract concepts. It does not hurt to include more specific examples. 2. Delivery Tone and Voice: Engaging because the tone of the speaker’s is warm and friendly. The speed is also steady, neither so fast or slow. Body Language: The gesticulation comes naturally, and helps bring important points to the fore. Such is the clarity of the message, their body language helps. Eye Contact: They keep good eye contact with the audience, making them feel close while the speaker speaks. Areas for Improvement: While the speaker would occasionally pause more following key points, giving time to their audience to think. Simply changing the pitch or pace of the delivery a bit more could make the delivery much more dynamic. Overall, there is good content with clear, well structured content, and a warm, engaging delivery. A couple of few more pauses and examples could improve the presentation even more. third speech:
The speaker’s content was good but the introduction was more than two and a half minutes engaging and spoiled the remaining speech. He spilled interesting tidbits about how the human body engages to food, the positive and the negative. The problem in his argument was when he said sugar was an animal product when it’s not and that drew attention away from his credentials. On a high positive, his posture was first class, he looked in the eyes of the audience, and spoke with authority and power. Meryem Akessabe
khadija Egraima 151277 The first speaker delivered a good presentation, though he relied on his notes more than necessary, which showed lack of comfort with the material. His posture was good, and he had good eye contact, after progressing in the speech he was more confident.
The second speaker gave an inspiring talk, staying within the time limit and engaging the audience effectively with strong eye contact. Her speech was organized around a clear main idea, with a memorable conclusion that included a relevant quote. She used flashcards sparingly, showing confidence and strong preparation.
The third speaker’s speech was well-organized and confidently delivered. He maintained steady eye contact and good posture, using effective body language and a compelling opening. His topic was interesting, and he presented it smoothly, showing confidence throughout.
Speaker 1: I think the speaker’s voice and posture were excellent, and the topic felt both relevant and engaging. I believe it would help if he emphasized different parts of the body more distinctly and worked on making transitions a bit smoother. I also see that reducing filler words like "um" would strengthen his delivery.
Speaker 2: I feel the speaker had a good tone and posture, though she didn’t move around much. Even though she used notecards, I noticed she maintained steady eye contact with the audience, which was effective. I think it would help if she more clearly cited her central idea at the start.
Speaker 3: I believe the speaker’s voice and tone were strong, and his conversational style really drew me in. The speech felt well-structured, though the introductory part on meat seemed a bit lengthy before he introduced veganism. I think his lack of notes helped keep his eye contact consistent, making the talk more engaging.
First Speaker: The first speaker started off a bit nervous but soon became more comfortable. His main points were well-organized and clear, with smooth transitions between them, helping the audience follow along easily. However, he relied a bit too much on his notes, which affected his eye contact with the audience. Although he could improve his confidence and eye contact, his speech was strong overall, with a well-prepared structure and clear voice. Some suggested he could work on his timing and reducing his dependency on notes to be even more engaging.
Second Speaker: The second speaker was relaxed and confident throughout, speaking at a steady pace that held the audience’s attention. Her passion for the topic was clear, and she interacted well with the audience, even asking questions to engage them more. She maintained strong eye contact, used quotes, and included credible sources to support her points. While her voice projection could be slightly louder, her presentation was effective and well-prepared, showing she knew the material well. Her delivery was smooth, and her confidence helped make her message impactful.
Third Speaker: The third speaker started with an attention-grabbing opening, immediately engaging the audience. His speech was organized, his points flowed well, and he used hand gestures and eye contact to keep people interested. His posture and clear pronunciation made him easy to understand, though his speech ended a bit early. Adding more details to his main points could have enhanced his presentation. Despite a small mistake regarding sugar’s origin, his authority and confidence made his message clear and engaging.
First speaker: Orchids: 1. He chose an interesting topis. 2. He adressed the audience in an effective way as a hook. 3. He had a good posture and did not move a lot. Onions: 1. He used a lot of gap fillers 2. He couldn't maintain good eye contact because he was nervous so he would look up and down. Second speaker: Orchids: 1. Interesting quote as a hook and topic. 2. She looked confident and she mastered the topic that she did not rely on her notes too much. 3. Good conversational style. 4. Good posture and eye contact. Onions: 1. Not much sources other than the quotes. Third speaker: Orchids: 1. Good attention grabber. 2. Good posture and eye contact. 3. Good use of sources. 4. Great conversational style . Onions: I couldn'tfind any.
.The speaker didn’t maintain eye contact throughout the speech and looked down at times. .He had a Big smile on his face. .Established credibility at the end. .He had a Good voice and tone. .He used conversational style. . The speaker presented his topic in the introduction. .He didn’t mention the points he will discuss in the body. .Used a source: According to scientists… .He used gap fillers. .He was reading from his notes. . He developed his points and explained them. . He established credibility at the end. .Timing was exceeded
Second speaker
The speaker maintained eye contact throughout the whole speech. .She used a conversational style that gave her speech dynamism. .She also interacted with the audience by asking them a question. .No gap fillers .Didn’t use sources .Didn’t establish credibility .She Had notes but only read two quotes from them. .In the introduction, she mentioned the three points she will discuss in the body. .She had a Good tone and voice. .She used transitions: first, second…. .She explained each point in the body. .She Used a quote to strenghten her statements. .She also Used a quote in the conclusion .She restated the thesis. .Perfect timing: 4:49
Third speaker
.Interesting hook .Maintained eye contact throughout the entire speech .Good body language and posture .Mentioned sources: According to WHO… .Good voice and tone .Used conversational style .The speaker mentioned the points he will discuss in the body. .Used transition words .Explained each point discussed in the body .Timing: 4:35(a little bit more would have been perfect)
Alae Elmoussatni Speech 1: First, the speaker did a great job presenting a well-structured and persuasive speech; it was effectively delivered. He ran over time and looked down quite often, meaning he was reading from the note.
Speech 2: The topic that the second speaker addressed was compelling. She was well within the time frame, but her eye contact was effective even though she did not use as many hand gestures. This speech was organized; it covered a specific topic and had defined points. I particularly liked her closing remark when she returned to her topic. The use of flashcards in her speech was brief as she did not refer to them but once during her speech, proving her confidence level and preparation.
Speech 3: This speaker was as good as the second one though speaking for a shorter length, probably because the body of his speech was less developed. However, he did make use of hand gestures and movement to advantage.
The first speaker started stressed but relaxed later. They had good content and transitions but relied too much on notes, which hurt their eye contact and posture. They went over time but shared valuable information.
The second speaker was confident and clear. They used good language and had good eye contact. Gestures were limited, and the tone was sometimes monotonous, but pronunciation was great, and the speech was well-organized.
The third speaker had great posture, eye contact, and confidence. The topic was interesting, and the speech was well-delivered. However, they made a few incorrect claims and used distracting hand gestures at times.
Lina Fares Speech 1: The first speaker delivered a well-organized and convincing speech, which was presented with clarity and confidence. However, they exceeded the allotted time and frequently glanced down, indicating reliance on their notes.
Speech 2: The second speaker tackled a fascinating topic and stayed comfortably within the time limit. Despite using fewer hand gestures, their strong eye contact added impact to their delivery. The speech was well-structured, with a clear focus and thoughtfully developed points. I particularly appreciated the way they tied their conclusion back to the central theme. They only referred to their flashcards once, demonstrating thorough preparation and confidence.
Speech 3: The third speaker's performance was comparable to the second, although their speech was shorter due to less detailed content. They made effective use of hand gestures and movement, which enhanced their overall delivery.
Maroua Moujahid section 11 I found the third speech the most interesting. The speaker had an excellent posture, a well-structured and engaging topic, and great gestures. What I appreciated the most was that they didn’t rely on notes, which helped them maintain perfect eye contact with the audience. The speaker was comfortable and confident, which made their delivery stand out. The topic about the human body’s interaction with food and the associated dangers and benefits was really fascinating. However, I felt the introduction was a bit too long—over two minutes and thirty seconds—which affected the overall organization of the speech. Their posture was exemplary. They kept strong eye contact with everyone in the room and delivered their points with confidence. Overall, it was an impressive speech. Good job!
Amal Jebbouri COM 1301 10 The first speaker had a very well-structured and persuasive speech, full of valuable information, effectively developing his points. However, he relied too much on notes, which impacted eye contact and posture, and exceeded the time limit. His voice and tone were good; he used a conversational style, though occasional gap fillers detracted slightly from the delivery. They introduced the topic in the beginning but failed to outline points that will be discussed; also established credibility at the end of the speech, whereas that should be introduced at the beginning. Although with some shortcomings, he had a big smile and explained his points rather well. His credible sources- "according to scientists", strengthened his argument.
The second speaker then gave a very confident speech, with clear eyes during the whole presentation and conversational style that made it dynamic. Their interaction with the audience-for example, by asking a question-added to their engagement; then their use of quotes served to really strengthen the points they were making. They outlined the main arguments in the introduction and transitions like "first, second." for clarity. The speech flowed well, was within the time frame, and finally ended powerfully with restating the thesis and having a concluding quote. Although there were minimal gestures and no explicit establishment of credibility, their great tone and brief use of the notes showed how confident and prepared they were.
The third speaker had a very captivating speech, starting with a very good hook, standing tall, and making very good eye contact. Interesting topic, and such a conversational style, coupled with such sources as the WHO added to the credibility of their presentation. They made it very clear what was to be discussed and transitioned very well. Less than a second short from the allocated timing, they elaborated very well on each point, using hand gestures and motion in delivery; although, their gesture at times was a distraction. All in all, their speech was compelling, well-delivered, and benefited from a mix of personal confidence and good body language.
Idriss Cherki I enjoyed watching the three speeches. For me, the third speaker was better because he was comfortable and confident, he had good eye contact with the audience, and he was well-organized. His speech started with a good attention grabber, and he used sources. Also, the fact that he had good posture and body language. However, he needs to work more on the timing.
For the first speaker, in general, the speech was good. He had a good topic, but the speaker was stressed during the delivery, and he exceeded the limit time.
The second speaker was confident and had good interaction with the audience by using the conversational style. She used quotes and sources, and she briefly used her notes (no reading), but she did not use body language.
For me, the three speeches were good, but I liked the third one because he had a good delivery, eye contact, and posture. Also, he was confident, and he used a good attention grabber with a good number of sources. On the other hand, the first and second speakers need to work more on their body language and work on controlling their stress.
First Speaker: Although the speaker appeared slightly nervous during the introduction, he quickly found his rhythm and became more relaxed as the speech progressed. His main points were well-defined, well-supported, and logically organized. The transitions between ideas were smooth and helped maintain a clear flow throughout the body of the speech.
Second Speaker: The speaker delivered her speech with ease and confidence. Her speaking pace was well-controlled and adaptable, making it easy to follow along. She demonstrated genuine enthusiasm for the topic, and the absence of verbal fillers like "uh" and "um" contributed to the speech’s clarity and engagement.
Third Speaker: The third speaker did a commendable job, successfully capturing the audience’s attention from the start. His introduction was strong, and the topic was clearly and effectively introduced, setting the stage for a focused and engaging speech.
In the beginning, the first speaker sounded a little tense, but as the speech progressed, he was able to simply relax and then confidently deliver the body. His major ideas were clearly stated, coherently organized, and solidly backed up. Each major point's transitions were smooth and executed well.
The first speaker seems to be very stressed as his speech is filled with gap fillers and lost words and repetition. He also breaks the eye contact so many times. However he has a good pronunciation.
The second speaker has a great delivery with a good posture she seems to be relaxed and confident, her topic is very interesting.
The third speaker has also great delivery with good posture and a very interesting topic. However there are some gap fillers that he try to hide by coughing.
The first speaker was a bit stressed at first, but after the introduction, he gained more confidence, using more eye contact.
The second speaker has a good posture and a well-organized speech; her topic is really interesting. She's confident.
The third speaker has a good delivery and a good posture; he really worked on his body movements. However, he needs to fix gap fillers and stop coughing while speaking.
I did learn something knew in the first and third speech, the second was something I already knew about.
In the first speech, I thought the topic was interesting and the speakers smile eased the atmosphere, but he kept reading every now and then from the notes which cut the flow.
The second speech, like in her introduction speech, had perfect English, intonation, and eye contact. Although the topic was not mind-blowing, it was very nice listening to it.
The third speech had an interesting take that I did not know about, and the fact that the speaker was standing right in the middle of the class makes it more assertive. He didn't read from any notes and kept good eye contact with the audience.
The third speaker had a good posture, he did not move a lot and when he did, his gestures were not distracting.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker's speech had a good content. In the introduction he clearly introduced his topic.
RépondreSupprimerAzzeddine Drouan
SupprimerThe first speech was interesting regarding to the topic, the speaker had a good posture. Moreover, it was understandable for everyone.
I liked the third speech, the delivery was good and I found that the speech was well structured and organized.
RépondreSupprimerThe third Speaker delivery was exemplary , Good voice and posture . He maintained a good eye contact .
RépondreSupprimerThe third speech was great. He had a good posture and he didn't move a lot. The speech was well delivered and the topic was interesting.
RépondreSupprimerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker was a little bit stressed in the introduction, but afterwards he seemed to be relaxed, in the body paragraph the main points were clear, supported, and logically presented. The transitions between the main points were also clear and effective.
RépondreSupprimerSecond speaker was comfortable delivering her speech. During her speech the speaking rate was flexible and effective. The speaker also showed enthusiasm for the topic . there was an absence of fillers like 'ahs' & 'ums' which made the topic more interesting.
The third speaker was good, he captured attention & interest. Besides, the topic was clearly introduced.
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerI believe that every speech had its qualities. From a personal opinion, I liked the third speech the most. The speaker had an exemplary posture, very interesting and well-structured topic, and a great gesture. The speaker didn't use any cards to review the general ideas while delivering his speech, which helped him establish a perfect eye contact with the audience.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech topic was specific , main points were clearly stated but i was above the allotted time
RépondreSupprimerI personally liked the third speech; the speaker was comfortable and confident in his delivery, the structure of the speech was good, he had good posture, and the topic was very interesting
RépondreSupprimerThe second speech was great. The speaker was confident , had a good posture and had a good eye contact with the audience. The speech was well structured and delivered.
RépondreSupprimerI found that the second speaker did a really amazing job. Even if she looked a bit stressed, but her voice and her eye contact was very good.
RépondreSupprimerPersonally speaking, I enjoyed watching all of the three speeches. However, I really found the third one pretty interesting. The speaker was really comfortable delivering his speeches. He also had a good posture and a great eye contact.
RépondreSupprimerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimer.
RépondreSupprimerRachid Chaimaa :
RépondreSupprimerThe third speech was good. The speech was well structured and organized. The speaker did not move a lot. Good voice also great eye contact. I think this speech was very interesting.
The subjects were well structured and delivered. I believe the third speech was the most interesting and the speaker did a great job with his body language and eye contact.
RépondreSupprimerThe start of the first speaker's speech was a little rough, but as he went on he kept getting better. Although he was occasionally glancing at his notes, he managed to maintain good eye contact with the audience, but he went above the alloted time.
RépondreSupprimerThe three speeches were great. I like the third speech for the delivery was flawless and he maintained eye contact and good posture all along. The topics are very interesting and very information-rich. Good job!
RépondreSupprimerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerEl Azouki Kawtar
RépondreSupprimerI like the three of them. But I beleive that the second one is the best... The delivery was almost perfect, the tone and gestures as well.
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimer
RépondreSupprimerFor the second speech, the delivery was good in general. The speaker did some reading but that did not affect the quality of the speech and didn't stop her from maintaining eye contact. The speech was well organized, the tone of voice was good and the pronunciation was great. The gestures were appropriate to the speech.
IBTISSAM SAMIA: The 1st speaker:
RépondreSupprimerwas stressed at the beginning, he didn't maintain eye contact very well because he was reading in some
parts. However he introduced his topic clearly and he used effective supporting details and a good posture.
The 2nd speaker:
she was confident, she used appropriate posture. Her ideas were clear and well organised.she maintained eye contact, established credibility, and she used clear and vivid language.
The first speaker could have been more confident about his subject at first. He was also looking at his notes frequently. The subject he chose could have been explained in a better way. The third speaker presented his subject very well, maintaining eye contact with the audience. The topic is interesting and well structured, as we can follow each point clearly. (Too bad the coughing was interrupting the flow of the speech).
RépondreSupprimerEssabik Hala: The third speech maintained eye contact, he had a good posture and his speech was well organized and structured.
RépondreSupprimerNour Serghini:
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech was very good, the speaker discussed the topic clearly, he efficiently connected to the audience, avoided distracting mannerisms and mostly maintained eye-contact even when reviewing his notes.
Personally, i really enjoyed the third speech. He has a perfect body language, he maintained eye contact and watched the whole audience while remaining totally confident. Besides that, the topic was well covered and interesting.
RépondreSupprimerMAMOUN RHARDISSE
The second speaker was confident, she maintained eye contact with her audience, her speech was well structured and the delivery was good.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker was able to directly engage her audience and to speak with confidence. Also, her supporting material was clear and relatable at the same time.
RépondreSupprimerMaryam Adwan
RépondreSupprimerthe first speech . the topic was introduced very well also his topic was well structured, but his posture was affected negatively because he was reading and that prevented him from maintaining a good eye contact. he was nervous and stressed as well.
The second speech: I loved her calmness, she seemed so confident , but her posture was effected negatively due the table usage , I did not feel the the speaker interaction with the audience. she has a great enunciation too.
The first speech:
RépondreSupprimerAt the beginning, the speech giver was a bit nervous and he lost words. However, going further into the speech, he started relaxing and his delivery became better. His voice tone and articulation became much clearer than before. He maitained eye contact throughout the speech, and he started showing more confidence through his gesture. For the topic, it was very original and interesting. He seemed familiar with it and provided amazing information. He went past the time limit, but I think that is okay because he gave a lot of information, which needed more than five minutes. Good job!
Second speech:
Considering the fact that the speaker was an international student, her pronounciation was flawless and what she was saying was well understood. She was behind the desk which kind of hid her gesture. However, she maintained good eye contact with everyone. She spoke faster at the end, that is probably why she only did four minutes 45. The topic was interesting and motivating. The information provided was logical and well built. I liked it!
Third speech:
The topic was interesting. However, he gave more time to the introduction. Over two minutes 30, which kind of ruined the organization of his speech. He gave interesting facts about the human body and its interaction with food; the dangers and benefits. Unfortunately, I think he messed up when he said that sugar was an animal product. He shouldn't have provided wrong information in his speech.
For his posture, it was examplary. He maintained eye contact with everyone and he was confident and sure of what he was saying. Well done!
Pronunciation*
Supprimer
RépondreSupprimerI like the three speeches but I think that the third speaker was the best one because the speech was well structured and organized and the speaker didn’t move a lot. The second speaker was also good she maintained eye contact and a good language and for the first speaker he was a little bit stressed at the beginning but afterwards he seems to be relaxed and his ideas was clear.
The third speech was good.
RépondreSupprimerMANAR SADKOU
RépondreSupprimerI think the first speaker chose a very interesting topic yet he seemed very attached to his notes which made him lose his train of thought a lot. His voice and tone were pretty solid though. As for the second speaker, she seemed to have good knowledge of what she was talking about. Her eye contact was very good, however, the speech felt very monotonous. I think tone is what she needs to work on the most. Finally, the third speaker, his posture was very good. His hand movements were a little distracting I think and he said vegans don't consume salt and sugar because they come from animals which is pretty false though.
Rahma Oussama:
RépondreSupprimerI found that the first speaker did a good presentation as an all but if we look at details we could see that he looked at his notes more than he should and that he didn’t really have all the infos in mind, his poster was good but he could have used his hands more and his eye contact was good too. He seemed a little stressed at the beginning but he got relaxed when he got to the body and his points were well structured, he used linking words to help understand the development of his speech too .
Concerning the second speaker, we could see that she mastered her topic more than the previous one as she nearly didn’t look at her notes which is a good thing for those who are watching the speech because it doesn’t disturb. Another point that is important is that she used lots of linking words to put her speech in order . For her eye contact, i think that she could improve it a bit and maybe smile more.
When it comes to the last speaker i could say that his presentation- all aspects considered- was very good. His topic which is genetically modified food is very interesting and the way he delivered it made one want to know more.His poster, eye contact and hands are exactly as they should be. He had an attention grabber « i’d like to grab your attention on this one , meat...» . I could say that he gave more time to the introduction as he finished at 2min and so.
My favorite speech was the first one about the hot and cold showers, its a very intersting topic for me and has a lot of benefits, the speaker had a good delivery, good content, tone, and voive. On the other hand, the speaker needs to work on the eye contact. The second speaker was okay, she would repeat the word "and" a lot. The content was cliche and its something we hear every day about teamwork and leadership. But it was still a very good speech. Then the last speech was nice but not too good. Salt and sugar dont come from animals. Otherwise, the posture was good but the voice was bad, we couldnt hear a lot.
RépondreSupprimerSOULEIMAN MHAMMEDI (I wrote this again because I didnt write my name the first time)
RépondreSupprimerMy favorite speech was the first one about the hot and cold showers, its a very intersting topic for me and has a lot of benefits, the speaker had a good delivery, good content, tone, and voive. On the other hand, the speaker needs to work on the eye contact. The second speaker was okay, she would repeat the word "and" a lot. The content was cliche and its something we hear every day about teamwork and leadership. But it was still a very good speech. Then the last speech was nice but not too good. Salt and sugar dont come from animals. Otherwise, the posture was good but the voice was bad, we couldnt hear a lot.
SALMA HANINE
RépondreSupprimerThe 1st Speech:
The content was engaging and interesting. I found that the speech was well structured as the speaker started with attention graber, covered three main points in the body and he used transitions. However, he was reading and that's prevented him from making good eye contact with his audience. Also, he used gap fillers a lot which means either he's stressed or he didn't practise enough. Bad timing (more than 5min).
SALMA HANINE
RépondreSupprimerThe intoduction meets the requirements: she mentioned a quote as an attention grabber, the CI and a question to engage the audience. The delivery was good: she was not reading and seems confident (well practised speech). Good timing 4:50. She used transitions and good eye contact. finished by a quote. The topic was engaging.
SALMA HANINE
RépondreSupprimerThe 3rd speech:
Good delivery and posture. Good eye contact with his audience. Bad timing 4:35. Engaging speech and well structured with the use of transitions.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker seemed a bit nervous in the beginning, but became more and more comfortable as time went by, which was seen through his posture and tone. At first, he used some gap-fillers and the nerves could be seen through his delivery, but at the end of the speech, the tone was well paced and easy to follow. The speech was well structured, and the 3 main points were clearly stated. Most importantly, the speaker was able to turn a very basic daily activity (showering) into a very interesting informative speech topic.
While the 2nd speaker's subject was not the most creative, she still managed to capture the listener's attention by her delivery, which was in my opinion the best out of the 3 speakers'. She had great eye-contact, she kept a stable posture throughout the speech, and her tone was good. The speech was well structured, as she presented the 3 main ideas in the central idea of the introduction, presented them accordingly, and recapitulated them in the conclusion.
The 3rd speaker had both a smooth and confident delivery and an interesting subject. The delivery was good: easy to follow tone and pace, even when he moved it wasn't in a distracting manner, and the eye contact was evenly distributed on the class. The structure of the speech was well-organized, and the facts presented were backed-up with research he gave credit to.
——————HICHAM OUAHBI————————-
RépondreSupprimerFirst Speaker’s tone and voice were good throughout the who
le speech. His introduction is missing the C.I, attention grabber. He maintained eye contact with the audience in the first 2,5 minutes but then he started to read and looking down more often. The topic was interesting and grabbed the attention of the audience.
The Second speaker was clearly a native english speaker so she had no issue with the pronunciation. Her voice was not very loud but it was clear. She did have an attention grabber which was the question she asked the audience, the C.I and thesis statement were clearly stated.She used transitions between different parts of the speech. The desk hid her posture and that is a negative point. She managed how to use her notes while maintaining eye contact with the audience. Her timing was not perfect, but it was only 5seconds short so it is not a big deal. The topic was really appealing and motivating.
The third speaker’s introduction was amazing, it doesn’t lack any of the essential parts of an introduction(attention grabber, c.i, thesis statement). His posture was very good, he seemed very calm and confident. He smiled to the audience many times and also he is engaging and interacts with the audience. He managed not to distract the audience with his hands without using notes.
The speech is very well structured, we could recognize each part of the speech separately thanks to the transitions. His gestures were good. One the few major flaws of his speech is the timing which was about 25 seconds short. Still, he is my favorite speaker.
Hamza El Qaissoumi
RépondreSupprimerI liked the third speech because the delivery was good. Also, it was well structured.
ANISS EL WISSI
RépondreSupprimerI really liked the third speech because the topic was interesting and well organized. The speaker was confident. He did a good job in maintaining his posture with the good eye contact with everybody. the second speaker did a good introduction as she started with a question to get the attention of the audience. She didn't move a lot during the speech. She was holding her notes in her hands but she didn’t look at them which helped her to maintain a good eye contact with the audience. Her topic was a bit cliché but the way she presented it was very good. As for the first speaker, he chose a very interesting topic but he had some problems with the delivery. He was relying a lot on his notes and he couldn’t control his stress. The voice and tone were good for all the three speakers.
SERGHINI KENZA
RépondreSupprimerSpeaker 1:
Voice and posture were great, the topic is relevant and very interesting.
The different parts of the body should be highlighted and the transitions clearer. He should avoid uming a little bit.
Speaker 2:
Voice tone and posture were good. She was not moving much. Even though she used notecards, s the eye contact with the audience was permanent.
Maybe she should Cite more clearly her CI in the beginning.
Speaker 3:
Voice and tone were also good, he adopted a great conversational style. It is a well structured speech even if the first part was a little too long for me. I mean that the introduction about meat was too long to introduce the notion of veganism. He had no notes and that helped maintaining the eye contact
KAWTAR EL KHAYALI
RépondreSupprimerI noticed that the first speaker made a good introduction as a whole, but if we looked at the specifics we could see that he glanced at his documents more than he should and didn't really have all the facts in mind, his posture was fine, but he could have used his hands more and his eye contact was also strong. At the beginning he seemed a little nervous but comfortable as he got to the body and its points
As far as the second speaker is concerned, we could see that she understood her topic more than the previous one as she also did not look at her notes, which is a good thing for those who see the speech because it does not interrupt. as for her posture i would've liked if she smiles more and showed that she is more cheerful.
I might conclude that his delivery-all things considering-was really good when it comes to the last speaker. The genetically modified food subject is very fascinating and the way he presented it makes you want to learn more. His image, eye contact and hands are as they should be. He had a grabber of curiosity« I would like to draw your attention to this one, meat... ».
Abouelfaioud mustapha
RépondreSupprimerI think the first speaker bilal did a good job in presenting his speech, also his tone was good but i think the body language needs some improuvement and he reads so i think this speech is an B+ speech
Abouelfaioud mustapha i think the second speaker has a good topic that concern all the youngsters and she is a native speaker so her tone was very good and her body language also ,eye contact i think its good
RépondreSupprimerI think the third speaker informed us about a critical topic that concern not only young people but also adult to maintain a healthy life, besides his tone eye contact, and body language were very good. But at the first ithink he was nervous. Generally its good
RépondreSupprimerMustapha Abouelfaoud i think the last speaker talked about an important subject that concerns not only young people but also adults to maintain a healthy life. I noticed that he was nervous at first but after he regained his trust . Tone, eye contact, and body language was good and the speech has all requiremts so generally its a good speech
RépondreSupprimerNADA ARFIK:
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech started on a bad note, the speaker was nervous and lost his words. He managed to find his way back and be more confident throughout his delivery. He mentioned the main points and explained everything in the body. His posture was overall good, as for the content, it was very interesting.
Moving to the second speech, the speaker maintained a good tone and voice throughout the whole delivery. She seemed like she mastered her topic and presented everything smoothly.
Finally the third speech. The introduction was given more time than the body and conclusion. The topic was captivating and interesting. The facts were clearly stated. His delivery was decent, he maintained eye contact and a good tone.
Oumayma El Ghamrasni
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech is interesting, and it meets the requirements. The speaker has a good posture and voice, however, using notes affected his eye contact.
The second speech was interesting as well. The speaker was comfortable delivering her speech. Also, her posture, eye contact, and voice were good.
Finally, The third speech was really good. The speaker has a good posture, voice and eye contact. The speech has all the requirments.
BENABBOU JAD
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech: I believe that the speech is more than good concerning the requirements and the global way of presenting. However, there are some issues such as the fact of using notes which make eye contact not perfect and mek us feel that the speaker is not completely involved with the audience
Second speech: I think that the overall speech is really good. In fact the posture and eye contact are nice and makes us as an audience consentrated with the talk. However, I believe that the speaker could make more effort in the voice and tone and try to be able to do her speech without notes.
Third speech: For me the last speaker was excellent. Indeed, the structure of the speech was really good and the delivery too becasue of good eye contact, voice, tone and an excellent body language that involve the audience
AICHA BELGHITI
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech: For the first speech the speaker was reading ,and that affected his eye contact with the audience. His possure was good. The content of the speech was attractive. Howerver, his introduction miss the central idea. He did not also establish credeblity in the introduction.
Second speech: Good posture, good eye contact too. Howerver, the speaker have to raise her voice. The speech is well structured. The speaker had also used transitions.
Third speech: Good posture and eye contact. The tons and the voice was good too. He use an enjoyable conversational style. The content was interesting, well structured and well explained. However the speaker did not mark the end of the speech.
YEMMAS SAMY
RépondreSupprimerI accept that each speech had its characteristics. From a closely-held conviction, I favored the third one. The speaker had an excellent stance, an intriguing and very much organized subject, and an extraordinary signal. The speaker didn't utilize any cards to audit the general thoughts while conveying his discourse, which helped him set up an impeccable eye to eye connection with the crowd.
MARIEM AALABOU
RépondreSupprimer-For the first speaker: The content of the speech was interesting and it was well structured, even though it lacks some essential parts of the informative speech like an attention grabber, and the establishment of credibility. However, there were many gaps in the student's delivery. For instance, he kept reading from time to time, which I found distracting, and his eye contact need to be improved too. As for his voice, it was clear and we could hear his full sentences.
-For the second speaker: I really liked her posture, voice, tone and eye contact. Which makes her delivery perfect. Also, the speech was well organized and it fulfilled all the requirements. Another thing that I really liked, is that the student engaged the audience by asking them a question at the beginning of the speech.
-For the third speaker: he seemed confident and he maintained a great posture during the whole speech, however, he was coughing from time to another, which disturbed me a little bit. But the overall speech was good.
LEYLA MAHMOUDI
RépondreSupprimerSpeaker (1): The first speaker’s topic was very factual, which is totally the point of the informative speech, meaning that I learned quite a bit from it. Secondly, I want to say that the overall presentation was good. His ideas were clear and well structured. The speech lacked an attention grabber and the establishment of credibility, although he did reveal a personal connection to his topic at the end of the speech. I’d like to point out that his timing was bad (5:27). His posture was good, eye contact was there too, but he kept reading for a long period every now and then. Also, he keeps saying « uhhh » a lot, which is a bit distracting to me, but I understand that there was some ongoing stress in front of the audience.
Speaker (2): The topic was relevant. She also seems like she practiced a lot before delivering which is a good thing. Her tone was great, her voice very much clear. Eye contact was good without any reversal. The timing was nice (4:49). Also, she had a very consistent set of ideas which would eventually keep the audience engaged. Her speech was well structured, she used a handful of sources. So the overall presentation was good.
Speaker (3): I liked that speech. I liked the way he presented his topic, the way he spoke and engaged his audience. His posture and body language were great, tone and voice very much so too. Although the timing was bad (4:32), his speech was fully well structured. He also knew when to pause, which lets his audience reflect on what he just mentioned, and puts some emphasis on the conversational style as well as how it affects your delivery.
Mohamed Taha Daoudi
RépondreSupprimerIn the third speech, the speaker seemed confident, he made eye contact with the audience, he had a good posture. However, he didn't use hand gestures often and he was standinding still with no movement.
The speaker presented the speech well, he used an attention grabber at the beginning of the speech ( meat is no longer natural ) . The overall order of ideas about the benefits of veganism were acceptable.
I liked the second speech because I believe that the topic she chose was very interesting and catchy. She was very confortable while delievring her speech, and I liked the fact that she was interacting with the audience.
RépondreSupprimerJoumana laala
RépondreSupprimerFrom my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber.
Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
Joumana laala
RépondreSupprimerFrom my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber.
Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
Joumana laala
RépondreSupprimerFrom my personal opinion, the first speech was very interesting since the topic was specific and well-stuctured. However, the speech lacked some essential components to grab the audience attention, as the speaker did not maintain a direct eye contact, and sometimes kept reading. Moreover, The speaker did not include some other aspects such the attention graber.
Yet, that does not change the fact that the speaker was able to fill the the missing gaps of the speech. The speech was well-stuctured, and the voice of the speaker seemed clear and gave a great impression about the topic.
HASNAE BAGHDADI
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker had a good delivery. She maintained eye contact with her audiance all along the speech since she didn't rely on her notes a lot and her voice tone was perfect. Also, her gesture shows how much she is comfortable. When it comes to the content, along with the topic being engaging, we can see that it's well structured as the speaker presented her ideas in a clear manner and acknowledged the sources she used. Overall, it's a very well prepared and presented speech.
Omar Eddarz
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech was very well done, but if I was him I would add more information, and learn how to grab the audience attention.
Manal Mayssan
RépondreSupprimerThe third speech was very impressive. The speaker seemed confident and was able to control his stress. He had a good posture and good eye contact did not use any cue cards. The content was good and well structured. However, more information could have been added to further explain the subject and reach the required time.
The second speaker had a flat tone and a rigid posture. In introducing her topic, she presented no attention grabber, and failed to engage her audience in two ways: the first; by asking "how many ... have been into athletics...", she neglects the audience who may not have been athletic but have taken up exercise as a recreational activity. Second, her purpose does not agree with the question, since athletics (which many find extreme) does not particularly relate to the mental benefits of sports (which could be of any type).
RépondreSupprimerHajar FATTAH,
RépondreSupprimerThe delivery of the third speech was so good because the speaker used a grear eye contact, and his voice was so clear. I like the way how he present his speech because he conteoled hos stress and he used a good body gesture that let his speech to be well presented and well organized. Not only that, but also to his audiences follow with him and to reflect attentively on what he said, he paused at relevant moment.
feedback of Maria EZZIANI SP21-section07- speech1
RépondreSupprimerThe speech is well organized, we can easily keep track of each part of the speech (introduction, points of the body, and conclusion). The transition words made that even easier and made the structure clearer. On the other hand, the hook and the establishing of credibility were missing, also the references were not stated with precision, most of the time they were vague by referring to scientists and research in general. The ending with the student's own experience was very successful though.
Regarding the delivery, although reading from the index cards the student most of the time maintained good eye contact with his audience and used gestures spontaneously. However, more rehearsing would have been better and would have lessen the moments of silence where the student needed to check his index cards. The students seemes to be confident and comfortable with his topic which surely remains a great added value.
All speeches were good, but I prefered the third one in terms of delivery. The speaker was more confortable and engaged, and she maintained eye contact with th audience during the whole speech. When it comes to the speech, the first one was better because he had a well structured introduction and all the point were well mentioned in the body.
RépondreSupprimerChaima Nasroallah:
RépondreSupprimerAll speeches were good, but I prefered the third one in terms of delivery. The speaker was more confortable and engaged, and she maintained eye contact with th audience during the whole speech. When it comes to the speech, the first one was better because he had a well structured introduction and all the point were well mentioned in the body.
HIBA DARDARI
RépondreSupprimerSPEECH1:
First, the topic sounded really interesting; however, I did not notice any hook in the introduction; moreover, the speaker's voice was monotonous which was kind of boring for me as an audience. His voice was shaking, he used a lot of gap fillers as well. Secondly, he kept reading once in a while, and was clearly nervous, which made him not keep eye contact with the audience therefore losing the connection between him and the latter.
Finally, I can say that the way this speech was given can be better with practice, knowing that the content was very interesting.
the third speaker's topic was very clear. He seemed confident while he was talking and I got to focus on and understand clearly what he was saying. -Ghita Amrani
RépondreSupprimerHIBA FARIHI SP21-Section08
RépondreSupprimerSpeech(1) : I believe that the speech was well organized, we can easily keep up with the speaker and his ideas without feeling lost, we can differentiate between the different part of his speech including introduction, body and conclusion. The timing was good for an informative speech 5:23s. The missing piece of the speech was at the beginning, the speaker didn't really grab the attention of his audience, and sometimes he seemed like he is reading, also he didn't use wisely the sources, he just mentioned them vaguely. Overall, a very good delivery, he was looking to all of his audience and he was confident with his delivery.
M'hamed Alghali JOUDARY
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1: His topic was very interesting and he achidved his goal of informing the audience about a subject they're not familiar with. Although, he didn't include an attention grabber and his delivery was sub-par; he was reading since the beginning but it intensified near the end and he kept using many gap words. Which just shows that he needed to rehearse his speech more before delivering it. He also went below the allotted time. Overall, the speech was interesting but it needed some more rehearsal for it to be great.
He went over the allotted time**
SupprimerAbdelghafour ABDOU
RépondreSupprimerThe third speaker's delivery was excellent because he had excellent eye contact, a steady voice, great posture, appeared calm and was able to handle his stress without using any cue cards, but he didn't use hand signals much, and he coughed from time to time. At the start of his speech, he used an attention grabber and the topic was fascinating and well-organized. Also, the information was presented in a direct way.
feedback of DOUAE ESSALHI SP21-section08-speech1
RépondreSupprimerLet's start by the organization of the speech and its content: The introduction of the speech lacks the attention grabber and the establishment of credibility. The speeh is well organized since he flows from one point to another easily by using transitions and linking words. He did not explicitly mention all the sources.
As for the delivery: good delivery; the voice was clear and the speaker was knoweldgeable about the topic. However, he kept reading instead of maintaining eye contact with the audience. I feel that he was so comfortable during the speech; he was delivering as if he was talking to his friends not to an audience. I feel that he did not practise enough before delivering the speech.
He did not respect the time limit (5:27)
The speech is good; I learnt a lot!
El Mehdi El Boustani SP21-Section08
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1: At the level of the introduction I think that the speaker didn't have a good attention grabber he also needs to engage his audience. However, he talked about something relevant to the audience. He was also mainly relying on his notes. Moreover, he needs to refer to the sources in a more explicit way. But overall it was a good speech.
Douae Kabelmz section 08:
RépondreSupprimerInformative speech
The third speaker has a good posture, good delivery and a great speaking tone. He clearly cited his sources and kept eye contact throughout the entire speech which made me interested in what he was saying. The topic was also really interesting however he might have spent too much time on the introduction(nearly half the speech).
RIDOUANI MAJDOULINE
RépondreSupprimerThe speaker seemed somewhat stressed in the beginning of the speech, but he started being comfortable after a few time. He talked about a simple topic that many people know about. In my opinion, the presentation was great and the speech was well structured, his ideas were clear and well structured, and the main points were clearly stated. I think he went out of the normal timing of an informative speech. Moreover, The speaker used eye contact; however, he kept reading for a few moments according to his body language and gestures.
YASMINE ELBACHIRI
RépondreSupprimerThe speaker's posture was good throughout the whole speech with no movements that distracted the audience. His tone was also good as it kept me, as a listener, interested in the topic, as well as it helped me not get bored. In the introduction, the speaker established credibility through an example which proved his point. He also clearly stated the points he was going to cover in the body. However, I do think that the introduction was a bit too long.
In the body, the speaker used transitions words/sentences which helped the audience keep up with him and have a clear idea of the main purpose of the speech. The speaker used sources which were relevant to his points and clearly cited them.
He closed off with a conclusion which left an impression on the audience.
(3rd speech)
SupprimerThe delivery was great in terms of posture even though his lower body was moving too much; however, his hands gestures and his upper body was moving in a way that shows he is comfortable while delivering the speech. Moreover, the topic was interesting, and the ideas were well structured which allowed him to inform the audience and transfer his ideas. His interaction with audience was also great.
RépondreSupprimerThe third speech is really interesting and the subject he has chosen is captivating. I really like how he presented his topic to the audience, even if the introduction was too long. The speaker was knowledgeable about the topic that is why he was not nervous and stated clearly his ideas.
RépondreSupprimerAlia Eddiouri
AYA FARKACHA
RépondreSupprimerThe third speech was very well delivered and structured. The attention grabber was very interesting. The topic was very clear as there wasn't any confusion. As for the speaker, he was very comfortable in delivering his speech. He interacted with his audience in a way where he kept eye contact with them. Also, he didn't have any notes, so he was able to use gestures that helped with the interaction. He had a good posture, and he presented his ideas precisely.
RIDOUANI MAJDOULINE
RépondreSupprimerThird speech:
The speech is really good. The topic choosen by the speaker is interesting. The speaker delivered his speech in a good way, he maintained the eye contact with the audience, his body language is also good, he doesn't look stressed at all. The presentation was great and the speech was well structured, his ideas were clearly stated. Moreover, the main points were clear and organized.
The first speech had some noise in the background which was distacting as well as the speaker's face expressions at the beginning. His voice was very clear but he kept using gap fillers which was not good. Also, the eye contact was missing.
RépondreSupprimerFor the second speaker,I like the fact that she maintained confidence and shared the structure of the speech.Both her voice and tone were engaging. She also was able to maintain eye contact.
MARWA BAMOUSS
RépondreSupprimerFIRST SPEECH
The speaker seemed a bit nervous at the begining, he kept repeating some words and I believe that there wasn't really a hook. However, he clearly stated his thesis statement in the introduction, making his topic clear to the audience. Throughout the speach, the speaker kept the same nervous tone but still made eye contact with the audience. He made sure to use transitions in order to jump from a point to another. The ideas stated were clear and followed a line of reasonning, he also mentionned some sources to support them. Overall the speach was good even though the speaker exceeded the time limit and struggled from time to time to maintain eye contact.
MOHAMED AMINE GHAFIL
RépondreSupprimerFIRST SPEECH:
The speech was well organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion, and the transition words made the speech easy to follow and understand. However, the attention grabber was missing, and although he did mention some sources, it was not enough to fully establish credibility. The student ended the speech by sharing own experience which was a good way to support his speech. The speaker's delivery was good as he kept good eye contact with the audience despite having to occasionally read. However, it seems that the speaker was nervous and hesitant at times, which may imply that there was not enough rehearsing.
Ali Ouedghiri Saidi
RépondreSupprimerCOM 1301 07
I like the first speech, the topic was clearly stated and the ideas were well organized, also the speaker had a good delevery and a great posture, and as a listener his tone and speed of talking were matching his content
I liked the third speech. The guy didn't use any notes, good posture. He maintained eye contact that shows his confidence. However he did some pauses, he could have used some sentences to fill the gap. Great SPEECH!
RépondreSupprimerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerRami Fethi
RépondreSupprimerThe second speech is really interesting. She had some extremely clear ideas and speech organization and I loved when she talked about hapiness. Her delivery was very clear (even tough there was a lot of echo and background noises in the room.) I didn't like how she was frozen and didn't gesture her hands nor move even tough she felt very confident.
The 3rd speech is very well-structured and organized. The speaker showed a confident body language, a great posture, eye contact as well as a good attention grabber. He also established credibility within the audience and succesfully managed to communicate his ideas to the audience.
RépondreSupprimerMehdi Chafi.
Noura Elfadili
RépondreSupprimerThe three speeches were very interesting and rich with information.
It showed that the first speaker was a bit nervous, nonetheless, his speech was really good.
The second speaker was really good at catching the audience's attention even though, in my opinion, her speech was not very creative compared to the other two speeches. She still managed to control her tone and present her speech confidently.
Personally, the third speaker is my favorite. His speech was very appealing, his delivery was very confident and performed well, and his tone was very easy to follow too. At first, he wasn't really moving but when he did, he did not distract his audience.
AYAT MOHYI: 1st speech
RépondreSupprimerThe choice of the topic was in my opinion original and unsual which made his speech interesting. I liked the fact that he was smiling to his audience, but at points it seemed that he was not so serious. His tone was great, however he used too many gap fillers. The outline was clearly stated, which made his speech organized. I think it would've been better if he didn't use his notes as much. Overall, clear and interesting content with some small flaws in the delivery.
Bouskouk Nada
RépondreSupprimerThe 2nd speech was captivating and interesting. I loved the speaker's topic and how she managed to organize her ideas and deliver them clearly, she had also a good tone of voice, and she kept good eye contact with the audience throughout her speech. I liked also how she was interacting with the audience by engaging them with her throughout questions.However, she had her hands leaning on the desk, and she was taking her notes.
I thought the second speaker was excellent. she had a well-structured speech, her accent was pristine, her posture was straight and healthy, she had a great flow of words as well as a good articulation. she seemed calm and composed, not a single sign of stress. I loved the fact that she engaged the audience with her, to keep them hooked. It might've been slightly better if she could walk around the "podium" for a little bit but it is still excellent.
RépondreSupprimerSalma Amiri: 2nd speech: The topic of the second speech was really interesting, the speaker interacted very well with the audience which helped getting involved and staying focused. Her posture and her tone were great. The CI was clearly stated and organized in the introduction. I liked the fact that she used many sources to give credibility.
RépondreSupprimerFatima Ezzahrae Massdar:
RépondreSupprimerI loved the second and third speech. Both speakers were confident and maintained good eye contact. Their posture was good, even though the second speaker was leaning on the desk. Their speeches were interesting, organized and well-structured.
The first speaker was nervous, and maybe not fully ready; he stammered and used a lot of gab fillers. He also read from his notes. Nevertheless, his posture and tone were good.
MERYAM KHATIB.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech was very well organized the speaker followed the main point stated in the introduction which made his speech delivery go smoothly. The speaker also had a conversational tone and that helped his delivery.
Adnane Ahroum & Youssef Bouraouine.
RépondreSupprimerThe 1st speaker had a great structure, he was engaging, and the speech was well delivered.But he was exceeding the time limit and he looked too much down which meant that he was constantly reading.
The 2nd speaker was much better than the 1st one in terms of all aspects of delivery and engagement, and she rarely used gap fillers, and I heard 2 interesting sources, she was also great on timing and barely read her notes. I would've loved if the speaker would use her hands and move a bit with more of eye contact. But overall great speaker.
The 3rd speaker was as good as the second one, but the timing was a bit low. And I think that this is related to the fact that he didn't develop his main points in the body. but he was moving and using his hands perfectly.
Overall I would give the highest grade to the second speaker which explained her points with ease and confidence, and she also used a fairly interesting topic.
I enjoyed the 3rd speech very much, the speech was well structured and greatly presented. Although he lacked good posture and composure at first, he was quick to fix it and followed it by excellent gaze control and great gestures. He did go below the alloted time, but overall, I enjoyed the topic very much and I will give the speech a very good grade.
RépondreSupprimerSalma Abid
RépondreSupprimerIn the second speech, the speaker did quite a good job delivering the information. She was very clear and her main points were straight forward although her tone wasn’t high enough. She also had very good eye contact and she was very comfortable and relaxed. As for the sources, they weren’t many taking into consideration that it is an informative speech. Also the timing was perfect she managed to deliver her information on time. Overall it was an interesting speech.
I liked the second speech. The posture, the tone and the delivery were on point. Very rare use of her notes, she does eye contact with her audience. No stress on sight. An overall excellent speech.
RépondreSupprimerDalal Ait-Essiba.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker had a well structured and an organized speech, but he didn't use an attention grabber, and didn't establish credibility.
When it comes to delivery, the speaker's voice was clear and he had a good conversational tone. The speaker also maintained a good posture throughout the speech. However, he kept looking at his notes, which means he was reading. And he went below the allotted time.
Pooja Damodharan:
RépondreSupprimerThe third speaker had great posture and his delivery was amazing. He also seemed confident. However, he could have structured his speech better because the introduction was quite long and seemed to have more importance. He was also low on timing. Overall, he did a great job and shared useful points through his speech.
Speech2: The speaker seemed very confident, she maintained good eye contact with the audience. Also, the speech was well organized, the CI was clearly stated as well as the main points of her speech. She used at least 2 sources, and I really liked the last quote in the conclusion after she restated the thesis statement. Although she was holding flash cards, she didn't rely on them a lot which is good. Overall, it is a great and inspiring speech.
RépondreSupprimerAmine Lahnin,
RépondreSupprimerThe third speaker's speech was well structured, and the content was highly relevant to that of the audience which made the speech much more attractive and interesting. For the delivery on the other hand, he had a great eye contact, as well as the gestures and posture, he was also felt like very interactive with the students. However, I would like to highlight only two issues concerning the delivery, the first one being him walking sideways, especially during the begining which was kind of disruptive. And the second point is the timing; Although the speech was generally beneficial and terrific in terms of content and hand gestures, the speech did not fit the 5 minutes requirements even when he inserted, in many instances, a period of silence(especially while couphing).
Salaheddine Charad:
RépondreSupprimer1st speech: The first speaker's speech was well structured, however, his delivery was not good as he struggled to keep eye contact consistently, plus, he exceeded the time limit which was of 5 minutes. Overall, although there was a clear introduction, body part and conclusion, the way they were delivered failed to grab the listener's attention.
2nd speech: The second speaker respected the time limit, had a good delivery through eye contact in spite of the lack of hand gestures, and had a well structured speech. Overall, she barely read her notes and engaged the listeners successfully, therefore she had an almost perfect speech.
Maissaa Bihi COM 1301 08
RépondreSupprimerI enjoyed the subject of the first speech since it was well-organized: main points were clearly stated and developed. The speaker met the requirements for the introduction, body, and conclusion. He was stressed, but he gave us some excellent information eventhough he was reading from his notes sometimes and he used so many gap fillers. For the timing, he exceeded 5 min.
On the other hand, the third speaker had a very confident posture,his voice was clear. He met the eye contact requirement and he presented some very interesting and clear information. However, he gave too much time to the introduction (over 2min) which i think is unacceptable because generally speaking, if your speech is to be five minutes long, your introduction should be no more than forty-five seconds.
Karim:
RépondreSupprimerI found the second speech very interesting and well organized!
She presented the benefits of sports in many aspects of our lives and showed how important it is to practice it for college students.
Also, I found that her speech is motivating and encouraging to students to start practicing sports, which is a good thing!
OTMAN ALHAZBARI
RépondreSupprimerIn my opinion the 2nd speaker, regarfless of the stress, she managed to keep good eye conyact and and a stable tone. However she could've smiled more and used her hands more. Also i think that sje made intrestjng points abt her topic although i think tbat the topic she chose was kinda boring and generic
Fatima Beddi,
RépondreSupprimerThey all had a great eye contact, a clear language, and a well-instructed speech. However, I found out that the third speaker managed to have a better posture and he was not reading his notes.
MEHDI EL ALAOUI EL ABDALLAOUI,
RépondreSupprimerThe second speech was great, the speaker didn't seem stressed, rather confident. The delivery was great, she kept good eye contact with the audience. She had what seemed to me like notes but I didn't see her look at them which is great. She had a good timing 4:50 almost 5 minutes. Overall, it was a good informative speech
Ziad Elhajjame.
RépondreSupprimer2nd speech: The delivery was great. She kept good posture and eye contact. She respected the timing. And overall the speech contained interesting informations.
Aya
RépondreSupprimerIn the first informative speech the speaker kept looking a lot to his note he had good posture, but he passed 5 minutes and i think it’s because he keeps say “uhmm”
I enjoyed watching the first speech, the speaker was confident, had good eye contact, nice smooth introduction, good posture and gestures, the thing that is missing is establishing credibility, even though he was looking at his notes a lot he didn't make it that obvious, i think he made the audience comfortable by keeping his smile, in a nutshell, the speech was good and of course there is always room for improvement.
RépondreSupprimerI enjoyed watching the first speech, the speaker was confident, had good eye contact, nice smooth introduction, good posture and gestures, the thing that is missing is establishing credibility, even though he was looking at his notes a lot he didn't make it that obvious, i think he made the audience comfortable by keeping his smile, in a nutshell, the speech was good and of course there is always room for improvement.
RépondreSupprimerALi EL Majdouli
Ragdah Abuljadayel
RépondreSupprimerThe third speaker's posture was excellent, he made sure to look around the room and try to make eye contact. His voice was very clear and it was easy to understand. He had a good speech and I learnt things from it. The timing was bad however since it was 4:35 minutes and he should try to get it to around 4:50-5:00 minutes. He was very engaging.
WALID HOUMAIDI
RépondreSupprimerthe 2nd speaker was very confident and had a good eye contact with the audience
MOHAMED AMINE LABRAHMI
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker was a little tense in the introduction, but seemed comfortable afterwards. The timing was over the limit (5 minutes), so he needed to practice his timing during his speeches. He used many gap fillers which extended his speech probably. His eye contact with the audience was good at some times and he looked at his paper many times. Overall the speech is good in terms of content, it needs a little bit of improvement regarding the posture, eye contact, and timing.
On the third speech the speaker had good posture and good eye contact
RépondreSupprimerHe did not have notes and his voice was clear, but his timing was short he was 4:35 min
KHAOULA LAKHDIM
RépondreSupprimerThe three speeches were fun to watch but I particularly enjoyed the first one because the topic was interesting. The main point was clearly declared. The introduction was missing an attention grabber. If the topic wasn't interesting, I don't think that I would've followed. He also hasn't established credibility. He did consider the audience and directly talked to college students.
When it comes to the delivery: He maintained eye contact but often looked at his notes for too long. It would've been good if he used hand gestures and moved a bit instead of using his eyes only to direct the audience. The voice and the tone were on point.
Selma Habhouba:
RépondreSupprimer(COM 1301 17)
I think the topic of the third speech is very interesting. The speaker was able to grab the audience's attention not only with the topic of his speech but also with his good posture and eye contact. The content was well structured, and he seemed really confident while delivering.
However, he could improve his timing a little bit, as well as reduce the coughing which was a little disturbing.
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerZoubida Tagmouti
RépondreSupprimerThe first speech was well structured and the speaker provided us with excellent information that followed the main points stated in the central idea. However, the delivery was not as good as the content of the speech since he kept reading his notes and didn't maintain eye contact. The time of the speech was also not respected.
Abdelaziz Karroum
RépondreSupprimerCOM 1301 17
the second speech is well-structured. The speaker respected the allotted time and finished her speech in 4:50 mins. She was engaged with the crowd from her tone and how she kept eye contact with the whole room. she used notes which stopped her from using gestures during her speech. She had a few looks at her notes, but it didn’t disrupt the flow of the speech. The main points were clear and well developed. the delivery was good. During the speech, I heard her use 2 sources to back up her speech.
KENZA TOREIS
RépondreSupprimerI believe that the first speaker's posture was ruined by the fact that he read a lot from his notes. This fact can also affect his eye contact.
However, his tone was engaging and his speech was well structured and well delivered. Unfortunately, he exceeded the time limit.
Salma Taouil
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech:
The first speaker seemed nervous at the beginning and relied on filler words but grew more confident as the speech went on. He held good eye-contact with the audience and his delivery was good. He did, however, go over the allotted time so timing needs more practice.
Second speech:
The second speech was interactive and interesting. Her posture and delivery were excellent. The eye contact was nice and natural. This speech also had the best timing of the three. Overall, a clear and well delivered speech.
Third speech:
This speech was overall the most entertaining as the speaker delivered it confidently and had great posture. The topic was clear and the main points were logical. One thing he could work on is timing as he was under the allotted time.
Yassine El Boury:
RépondreSupprimerThe third speaker was good because of the posture, the eye contact and his voice was clear. However he should improve the timing because it was not around 5 minutes. He should also move less and develop a bit more his ideas.
Yara Kouttane
RépondreSupprimerMy favorite speech is definitely the second one. The speaker seemed very confident and easy-going when it came to the delivery. Overall, we can clearly deduce that she had carefully prepared and cleverly written her speech.
Mohamed Reda Sabile
RépondreSupprimerSpeaker 1: Clear structure, strong opening; confidence developed during the speech itself-engaging an audience. A little more vocal variety perhaps .
Speaker 2: Engaging content presented assuredly and an even tone. Well-paced, some excellent vocal dynamics to hold audience attention.
Speaker 3: Strong opening, consistent clarity, confident tone-really great way to engage an audience.
All speakers did a very good job of balancing structure and delivery. My favorite speaker was Speaker 3 because the opening was strong, and he had a consistent confident presence to keep the engagement going until the end.
Aya Atif
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker started with a clear structure and an engaging introduction. He seemed a bit nervous at first, using some filler words, but gained confidence as he spoke. By the end, his tone was steady and easy to follow. Adding a bit more variety in his voice could have made the speech even better. He did a great job of turning a simple topic "showering" into something interesting and informative.
The second speaker’s confident delivery and calm tone kept the audience engaged. She made great eye contact, stood steady, and used her voice well to hold listeners' attention. Her speech was well-organized, with three main ideas clearly introduced, discussed, and summarized in the conclusion, and she also referenced reliable resources, which added credibility.
The third speaker began with a compelling introduction, delivering a confident and interesting speech that was easy to follow. His tone and pace stayed clear, his movements weren’t distracting, and he made good eye contact with everyone. His speech was well-structured and included research he properly credited, adding reliability.
All three speakers did a great job balancing structure and delivery.
The third speaker had a strong posture, moved minimally, and used gestures that were unobtrusive.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker gave a good presentation overall, but there were a few things that could have been better. He relied on his notes more than necessary, which showed that he didn’t fully remember all the information. His poster was well done . He made good eye contact, although he seemed a bit nervous at the start. He became more relaxed as he got into the main part of the speech. His points were well-organized, and he used linking words that made it easier to follow his ideas.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker delivered an inspiring speech.. She respected the time limit and maintained strong eye contact, which helped engage the audience, even though she didn't use many hand gestures. Her speech was well-structured with a clear central idea and main points. I especially liked the quote she included in the conclusion after restating her thesis. Although she had flash cards, she barely relied on them, showing her confidence and strong preparation.
The third speaker gave a well-organized and structured speech with clear, well-defined main points. He appeared confident, maintaining great posture and consistent eye contact, which helped engage the audience. He used a body language and effective attention grabber . The chosen topic was interesting,and he delivered it smoothly without showing any signs of stress.
jihane Mandaress: All the speakers maintained excellent eye contact, used clear language, and delivered their speeches in a structured and organized way, which made their presentations effective and easy to follow, however, The second speaker demonstrated a deep understanding of her topic, evident by her ability to present without relying on notes, which made the delivery feel more natural. I do think she could have smiled more to show a bit more enthusiasm and warmth in her presentation.
RépondreSupprimerMaëva
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1: The content was strong, with a clear structure, but delivery was affected by reliance on notes, lack of eye contact, and exceeding time limits. The speaker gained confidence over time.
Speech 2: Strong delivery with good eye contact and engagement. Well-paced and well-structured, though the speaker used notes occasionally. Timing was respected, and sources were well integrated.
Speech 3: Clear structure, confident delivery, and good posture. Effective eye contact, though the timing needed adjustment.
Bahaeddine Jifer
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech: The content was very interesting. He succeeded in making me interested in something as trivial as showering. He also made the different main points clear which made it easier to follow. However, the speaker seems a bit nervous and doesn't keep eye contact. Also, we can observe a lot of gap fillers and a reliance on notes.
Second speech: The second speaker respected the structure and made it easy to follow by clearly showing when she switches to a main point. She also seemed very confident and looked like she practiced a lot as there was almost no gap fillers. Also, she kept eye contact. Her tone and voice were also very good.
Third speech: The speaker had a very good introduction that got me hooked instantly. His voice, tone, and posture were perfect. His movements weren't distracting and his speech was very easy to follow.
The first speaker gave a good speech and had a strong posture. However, he depended too much on his notes, which made him lose eye contact with the audience and seem a bit unprepared. But as he went on, he became more comfortable and connected better with everyone.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker delivered her speech with confidence and didn’t rely too much on her notes, showing that she was well-prepared. She successfully grabbed everyone’s attention and kept it throughout the speech.
The third speaker delivered his speech with a clear voice, which helped him capture the audience’s attention. He successfully presented the information in an easy to understand way and kept steady eye contact throughout.
-First speech: The speech had several strengths, including a well-introduced topic, structured ideas, fluency, clear pronunciation, and good voice, tone, and posture. However, the speaker relied heavily on notes, which slightly affected eye contact, and the timing could have been improved. Overall, it was a solid presentation with room for minor adjustments.
RépondreSupprimer-Second speech:The presentation was impressive, with well-structured ideas and a great topic choice. She established a bond with the audience right from the beginning, which was effective. Her posture was good, and she maintained excellent eye contact, speaking confidently throughout. The timing was perfect. To improve further, she could focus on raising her voice a bit more for better projection. She also mentioned sources which is a good thing in an informative speech.
-Third speech: The speaker delivered a well-structured speech with a confident tone, effective hand gestures, and strong posture. He maintained strong eye contact and spoke with clear pronunciation. The topic choice was interesting and started with an engaging attention grabber. By mentioning sources, he effectively informed the audience. Overall, it was an impressive and well-crafted presentation.
The first speaker presented well overall, though there were areas for improvement. He leaned on his notes more than needed, which suggested he wasn’t completely comfortable with the material. However, his poster was well-made, and he maintained good eye contact, though he appeared a bit nervous initially. As he progressed into the main content, he seemed more at ease. His points were clearly organized, and he used transitions that made his ideas easy to follow.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker delivered an inspiring speech. She stayed within the time limit and kept strong eye contact, engaging the audience effectively, even with minimal hand gestures. Her speech had a clear structure with a central idea and well-defined points. I especially appreciated the quote she used in her conclusion after reiterating her thesis. She used flash cards but barely glanced at them, demonstrating her confidence and solid preparation.
The third speaker's speech was well-organized, with distinct, clear points. He appeared confident, maintained strong posture and steady eye contact, which helped hold the audience’s attention. He incorporated body language effectively and used an engaging opening statement. His topic was interesting, and he delivered it smoothly, showing no signs of nervousness.
Rim Griou
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker had a well-structured, engaging presentation that was delivered effectively. However, he exceeded the time limit and often looked down, indicating that he was frequently reading from his notes.
The second speaker outperformed the first in all aspects of delivery and engagement. She used very few gap fillers and shared two interesting sources. Her timing was spot on, and she rarely referred to her notes. While I would have liked to see more hand gestures, movement, and eye contact from her, overall, she was an excellent speaker.
The third speaker matched the second in quality but spoke for a shorter time. This might have been due to a lack of development in the body of the speech. Nonetheless, he used hand gestures and movement effectively.
Oumaima lachrame: first speaker did an excellent job on his speech with really good points however he was moving a lot and glancing at his notes but overall he did a pretty good job!
SupprimerSecond speaker:
Liked the topic that she discussed! She kept a really good posture and eye contact which was good, also really good speech and timing
Third speech:
Well organized and structured speech! Loved the speakers eye contact and engagement while speaking overall really good speech ! And good posture too
Name: Mohamed Amine El Malki
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech:
The first speaker appeared a bit nervous initially and used filler words, but gained confidence as the speech progressed. His eye contact with the audience was strong, and his delivery was effective. However, he exceeded the time limit, so he could work on managing timing.
Second speech:
The second speaker’s presentation was engaging and interactive. Her posture and delivery were outstanding, and her eye contact felt natural. She also had the best timing of all three speeches. Overall, it was a clear and well-executed speech.
Third speech:
The third speech was the most entertaining overall, as the speaker was confident and maintained excellent posture. The topic was well-defined, with a logical flow to the main points. One area for improvement would be timing, as he finished under the time required.
I believe that all the speeches were good and have their own qualities. Still, I prefer the third speech. The speaker that very good posture, his movement and hand gestures were not distracting. In addition, the topic was also very interesting and well structured.
RépondreSupprimerFirst speaker attract the attention by maintaining the eyes contact, the voice and tone are sufficient and the delivery is good.
RépondreSupprimerSecond one needs to raise her voice but the content, delivery and posture are well presented.
Third speaker, managed well the speech, he had a good posture and good delivery.
Bahini Ahl Ahmed Ibrahim
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1: The first speaker had a well-organized, compelling presentation that was delivered well. However, he went beyond the time limit and constantly looked down, indicating that he was reading from his notes.
Speech 2: The second speaker gave a strong address. She kept to the time limit and maintained excellent eye contact, engaging the audience well even with few hand movements. Her speech followed a precise framework, with a focal topic and well-defined points. I particularly liked the statement she used in her conclusion after reiterating her topic. She utilized flash cards but only briefly glanced at them, displaying her confidence and thorough preparation.
Speech 3: The third speaker had the same quality as the second but spoke for a shorter period of time. This could have been owing to a lack of growth in the main body of the discourse. Nevertheless, he made hand movements and movement effectively.
Speech one:
SupprimerThe first speaker was initially anxious and used filler words, but developed confidence throughout the speech. His eye contact with the crowd was great, and his delivery was impactful. He did, however, exceed the time limit, allowing him to practice time management.
Speech two:
The second speaker delivered an intriguing and interactive presentation. Her posture and delivery were excellent, and her eye contact seemed natural. She also had the best timing among the three talks. Overall, the speech was clear and well-executed.
Speech three:
The third speech was the most engaging due to the speaker's confident delivery and good posture. The issue was clearly outlined, with a logical progression to the important themes. Timing is one area that might be improved, as he completed the task before the deadline.
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerFirst speaker delivered a well structured, interesting and engaging speech with different parts easily identifiable; spoke with clarity , an appropriate tone of voice and posture .Although he seemed a bit nervous at first.One of the thing he could work on is timing because he exceed the time and also he relied on notes too heavily, which affected his eye contact thats why a less reliance on notes and reducing gap fillers could further strengthen his connection with the audience.
RépondreSupprimerThe Second speaker also gave a well-structured and inspiring speech, and had good rapport with audience from start. She maintained eye contact, used hand gestures appropriately and brought sources to lend evidence.The timing was perfect too. To further improve, she could work on projecting her voice a little more.
The third speaker made a strong impression with an engaging introduction that captured attention immediately, his confident voice, tone, and posture made him look calm and confident. His use of hand movements were powerful and the continued eye contact made it easy to follow his speech. The delivery was great, perhaps one thing he could improve is timing, as he finished ahead of the allotted time.
Lina Zaroual:
RépondreSupprimerFirst speech:
The content of the speech was interesting and the structure was good, but I did feel like it lacked some essential parts of the informative speech like an attention grabber, and the speaker didn't establish credibility. Also, I think the speaker used many gap fillers. Moreover , he read a bit too much, which was distracting. So, his eye contact need to be improved too. Nevertheless, his voice was clear and he had a good tone and posture.
Second speech:
Her posture, voice, tone and eye contact were all very good for me. I found her delivery perfect. Furthermore, the speech was also very well organized and and the content was interesting and relevant. She established credibility using sources, which was also very good.
Third speech:
The third speaker also a good delivery, he looked very confident. His posture, voice and tone were all very good. His speech was also good structure, with every part leading to another. He used good transition phrases. However, for his speech to be perfect, he needs to have better timing. So he probably, should have added more information in his speech and developed more expansively his ideas.
The first speaker sounded a little tense in the introductory stage but, during the course of the speech, he could manage to just relax and then deliver the body with confidence. His main points were defined, logically structured, and supported well. Transitions between each main point flow and were done well.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker was comfortable and relaxed throughout her entire presentation. She maintained a flexible and efficient speaking rate that helped her to engage the audience. One could feel her passion in the topic she was presenting, and her speech was remarkably devoid of fillers, making her content more engaging.
The third speaker was strong from the very outset because his opener was attention-grabbing and evoked interest; he was concise in stating what he would be talking about and set the stage for what would be an interesting talk.
-The first speech was well prepared with an engaging introduction that effectively captured attention. The speaker presented structured ideas that were logically organized, with smooth transitions between each main point. His voice was clear, and he maintained a good tone and posture, adding to his presence on stage. However, he attached to his notes , which affected eye contact at times. Although there was some initial nervousness, the speaker relaxed as he moved into the main content, delivering it with increased confidence. With more practice to improve timing and reduce note dependency, the speech could be even more engaging. Overall, I can say that is was a strong presentation with minor areas for improvement.
RépondreSupprimer-The second speaker did an amazing job with her presentation. She seemed really comfortable and confident, which made her message even more engaging. Her delivery was smooth and well-timed, keeping the audience engaged from start to finish. The speech was well-structured, and the topic she chose was both interesting and relevant. From the beginning, she built a great connection with the audience through strong eye contact and a relaxed yet confident posture. You could really feel her passion for the topic. She was well-prepared, using her flashcards only briefly, which showed how much she knew the material. I also appreciated how she backed up her points with credible sources, adding depth to her message. If there is one thing to work on, it would be projecting her voice a little more, just to make sure everyone hears her clearly.
-The third speaker did a great job. He spoke confidently, with good posture and clear pronunciation, making it easy to understand. His speech was well-structured, and the points flowed smoothly. The hand gestures and eye contact helped keep the audience engaged. One thing to improve would be timing, as he finished a bit too early. Adding more detail to the main points could make the speech even better.
First speech:
RépondreSupprimer• Topic well developed throughout the speech although it lacked the use of connectors
and transitions words
• Absence of an attention grabber
• Mention of credibility by research and personal experience
• Reading from notes which lead to not having eye contact with audience
Second speech:
• Well-structured speech and confident delivery
• Interaction with the audience by asking a question
• Maintained eye contact with the audience
• Research for credibility
• Use of quotes
Third speech:
• Use of a hook
• Good posture and maintained eye contact
• No use or relying on notes
• Well organized speech
first speech:
SupprimerStructure: This video is possibly perfectly structured so key points can flow in a chronological order. This way, the audience would be interested in following up through introduction to main topics and finally to the conclusion.
Speech Content: Those articles almost always delve into a single particular topic in great depth, with examples or explanations to clarify whatever needs to be clarified. These elements help to make the message memorable because if it uses stories, examples, questions to the audience they have an impact.
Clarity: It’s probably easy to comprehend, and that is important because viewers pay attention. If the technical terms are used, they can be explained so clearly for a general audience.
Feedback on Delivery: Voice and Tone: Probably a confident speaker with a good mix of wonderfully enthusiastic and very clear. Probably effective in changing of tone, pitch and volume to give emphasis to some points which will hold the attention of the listener.
Body Language: That means if the speaker is visible, they have to be saying what they think because their body language would be there to match up with. Pica boo does not embed video on your web page or upload a video to YouTube, but it creates a very natural presentation that matches what they are saying which makes it more dynamic.
Pacing: The reader might feel that the speaker is pacing along nicely at a balanced speed neither too fast, and will lose them, nor too slow, and will find them bored. Well used pauses between points might allow the viewer time to absorb the information.
Eye Contact and Connection: When the speaker looks into the camera, it brings a personalized direct engagement to that of the viewer.
Overall Feedback: Together, it is a compelling video between the delivery and the content. With the speaker’s energy and clarity, the message should be clear and engaging, so viewers will be caught by what the speaker says right from the beginning.
second speech:
1.Content Structure: The content was well organized by the speaker, working down and up. The audience will see the points connected smoothly.
Speech: It’s clear written language that can make complex subjects sound simple. Though, it would be nice to tell a bit more about specific key ideas that the audience needs to understand. Examples: Examples from real life or something similar would improve on engagement because they are understandable for abstract concepts. It does not hurt to include more specific examples.
2. Delivery Tone and Voice: Engaging because the tone of the speaker’s is warm and friendly. The speed is also steady, neither so fast or slow. Body Language: The gesticulation comes naturally, and helps bring important points to the fore. Such is the clarity of the message, their body language helps.
Eye Contact: They keep good eye contact with the audience, making them feel close while the speaker speaks.
Areas for Improvement: While the speaker would occasionally pause more following key points, giving time to their audience to think. Simply changing the pitch or pace of the delivery a bit more could make the delivery much more dynamic. Overall, there is good content with clear, well structured content, and a warm, engaging delivery. A couple of few more pauses and examples could improve the presentation even more.
third speech:
The speaker’s content was good but the introduction was more than two and a half minutes engaging and spoiled the remaining speech. He spilled interesting tidbits about how the human body engages to food, the positive and the negative. The problem in his argument was when he said sugar was an animal product when it’s not and that drew attention away from his credentials. On a high positive, his posture was first class, he looked in the eyes of the audience, and spoke with authority and power.
Meryem Akessabe
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreSupprimerkhadija Egraima 151277
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker delivered a good presentation, though he relied on his notes more than necessary, which showed lack of comfort with the material. His posture was good, and he had good eye contact, after progressing in the speech he was more confident.
The second speaker gave an inspiring talk, staying within the time limit and engaging the audience effectively with strong eye contact. Her speech was organized around a clear main idea, with a memorable conclusion that included a relevant quote. She used flashcards sparingly, showing confidence and strong preparation.
The third speaker’s speech was well-organized and confidently delivered. He maintained steady eye contact and good posture, using effective body language and a compelling opening. His topic was interesting, and he presented it smoothly, showing confidence throughout.
Speaker 1:
SupprimerI think the speaker’s voice and posture were excellent, and the topic felt both relevant and engaging. I believe it would help if he emphasized different parts of the body more distinctly and worked on making transitions a bit smoother. I also see that reducing filler words like "um" would strengthen his delivery.
Speaker 2:
I feel the speaker had a good tone and posture, though she didn’t move around much. Even though she used notecards, I noticed she maintained steady eye contact with the audience, which was effective. I think it would help if she more clearly cited her central idea at the start.
Speaker 3:
I believe the speaker’s voice and tone were strong, and his conversational style really drew me in. The speech felt well-structured, though the introductory part on meat seemed a bit lengthy before he introduced veganism. I think his lack of notes helped keep his eye contact consistent, making the talk more engaging.
First Speaker:
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker started off a bit nervous but soon became more comfortable. His main points were well-organized and clear, with smooth transitions between them, helping the audience follow along easily. However, he relied a bit too much on his notes, which affected his eye contact with the audience. Although he could improve his confidence and eye contact, his speech was strong overall, with a well-prepared structure and clear voice. Some suggested he could work on his timing and reducing his dependency on notes to be even more engaging.
Second Speaker:
The second speaker was relaxed and confident throughout, speaking at a steady pace that held the audience’s attention. Her passion for the topic was clear, and she interacted well with the audience, even asking questions to engage them more. She maintained strong eye contact, used quotes, and included credible sources to support her points. While her voice projection could be slightly louder, her presentation was effective and well-prepared, showing she knew the material well. Her delivery was smooth, and her confidence helped make her message impactful.
Third Speaker:
The third speaker started with an attention-grabbing opening, immediately engaging the audience. His speech was organized, his points flowed well, and he used hand gestures and eye contact to keep people interested. His posture and clear pronunciation made him easy to understand, though his speech ended a bit early. Adding more details to his main points could have enhanced his presentation. Despite a small mistake regarding sugar’s origin, his authority and confidence made his message clear and engaging.
First speaker:
RépondreSupprimerOrchids:
1. He chose an interesting topis.
2. He adressed the audience in an effective way as a hook.
3. He had a good posture and did not move a lot.
Onions:
1. He used a lot of gap fillers
2. He couldn't maintain good eye contact because he was nervous so he would look up and down.
Second speaker:
Orchids:
1. Interesting quote as a hook and topic.
2. She looked confident and she mastered the topic that she did not rely on her notes too much.
3. Good conversational style.
4. Good posture and eye contact.
Onions:
1. Not much sources other than the quotes.
Third speaker:
Orchids:
1. Good attention grabber.
2. Good posture and eye contact.
3. Good use of sources.
4. Great conversational style .
Onions:
I couldn'tfind any.
Sarah Chermat 146487
RépondreSupprimerFirst speaker
.The speaker didn’t maintain eye contact throughout the speech and looked down at times.
.He had a Big smile on his face.
.Established credibility at the end.
.He had a Good voice and tone.
.He used conversational style.
. The speaker presented his topic in the introduction.
.He didn’t mention the points he will discuss in the body.
.Used a source: According to scientists…
.He used gap fillers.
.He was reading from his notes.
. He developed his points and explained them.
. He established credibility at the end.
.Timing was exceeded
Second speaker
The speaker maintained eye contact throughout the whole speech.
.She used a conversational style that gave her speech dynamism.
.She also interacted with the audience by asking them a question.
.No gap fillers
.Didn’t use sources
.Didn’t establish credibility
.She Had notes but only read two quotes from them.
.In the introduction, she mentioned the three points she will discuss in the body.
.She had a Good tone and voice.
.She used transitions: first, second….
.She explained each point in the body.
.She Used a quote to strenghten her statements.
.She also Used a quote in the conclusion
.She restated the thesis.
.Perfect timing: 4:49
Third speaker
.Interesting hook
.Maintained eye contact throughout the entire speech
.Good body language and posture
.Mentioned sources: According to WHO…
.Good voice and tone
.Used conversational style
.The speaker mentioned the points he will discuss in the body.
.Used transition words
.Explained each point discussed in the body
.Timing: 4:35(a little bit more would have been perfect)
Alae Elmoussatni
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1: First, the speaker did a great job presenting a well-structured and persuasive speech; it was effectively delivered. He ran over time and looked down quite often, meaning he was reading from the note.
Speech 2: The topic that the second speaker addressed was compelling. She was well within the time frame, but her eye contact was effective even though she did not use as many hand gestures. This speech was organized; it covered a specific topic and had defined points. I particularly liked her closing remark when she returned to her topic. The use of flashcards in her speech was brief as she did not refer to them but once during her speech, proving her confidence level and preparation.
Speech 3: This speaker was as good as the second one though speaking for a shorter length, probably because the body of his speech was less developed. However, he did make use of hand gestures and movement to advantage.
The first speaker started stressed but relaxed later. They had good content and transitions but relied too much on notes, which hurt their eye contact and posture. They went over time but shared valuable information.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker was confident and clear. They used good language and had good eye contact. Gestures were limited, and the tone was sometimes monotonous, but pronunciation was great, and the speech was well-organized.
The third speaker had great posture, eye contact, and confidence. The topic was interesting, and the speech was well-delivered. However, they made a few incorrect claims and used distracting hand gestures at times.
Lina Fares
RépondreSupprimerSpeech 1:
The first speaker delivered a well-organized and convincing speech, which was presented with clarity and confidence. However, they exceeded the allotted time and frequently glanced down, indicating reliance on their notes.
Speech 2:
The second speaker tackled a fascinating topic and stayed comfortably within the time limit. Despite using fewer hand gestures, their strong eye contact added impact to their delivery. The speech was well-structured, with a clear focus and thoughtfully developed points. I particularly appreciated the way they tied their conclusion back to the central theme. They only referred to their flashcards once, demonstrating thorough preparation and confidence.
Speech 3:
The third speaker's performance was comparable to the second, although their speech was shorter due to less detailed content. They made effective use of hand gestures and movement, which enhanced their overall delivery.
Maroua Moujahid
RépondreSupprimersection 11
I found the third speech the most interesting. The speaker had an excellent posture, a well-structured and engaging topic, and great gestures. What I appreciated the most was that they didn’t rely on notes, which helped them maintain perfect eye contact with the audience.
The speaker was comfortable and confident, which made their delivery stand out. The topic about the human body’s interaction with food and the associated dangers and benefits was really fascinating. However, I felt the introduction was a bit too long—over two minutes and thirty seconds—which affected the overall organization of the speech.
Their posture was exemplary. They kept strong eye contact with everyone in the room and delivered their points with confidence. Overall, it was an impressive speech. Good job!
Amal Jebbouri COM 1301 10
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker had a very well-structured and persuasive speech, full of valuable information, effectively developing his points. However, he relied too much on notes, which impacted eye contact and posture, and exceeded the time limit. His voice and tone were good; he used a conversational style, though occasional gap fillers detracted slightly from the delivery. They introduced the topic in the beginning but failed to outline points that will be discussed; also established credibility at the end of the speech, whereas that should be introduced at the beginning. Although with some shortcomings, he had a big smile and explained his points rather well. His credible sources- "according to scientists", strengthened his argument.
The second speaker then gave a very confident speech, with clear eyes during the whole presentation and conversational style that made it dynamic. Their interaction with the audience-for example, by asking a question-added to their engagement; then their use of quotes served to really strengthen the points they were making. They outlined the main arguments in the introduction and transitions like "first, second." for clarity. The speech flowed well, was within the time frame, and finally ended powerfully with restating the thesis and having a concluding quote. Although there were minimal gestures and no explicit establishment of credibility, their great tone and brief use of the notes showed how confident and prepared they were.
The third speaker had a very captivating speech, starting with a very good hook, standing tall, and making very good eye contact. Interesting topic, and such a conversational style, coupled with such sources as the WHO added to the credibility of their presentation. They made it very clear what was to be discussed and transitioned very well. Less than a second short from the allocated timing, they elaborated very well on each point, using hand gestures and motion in delivery; although, their gesture at times was a distraction. All in all, their speech was compelling, well-delivered, and benefited from a mix of personal confidence and good body language.
Idriss Cherki
RépondreSupprimerI enjoyed watching the three speeches. For me, the third speaker was better because he was comfortable and confident, he had good eye contact with the audience, and he was well-organized. His speech started with a good attention grabber, and he used sources. Also, the fact that he had good posture and body language. However, he needs to work more on the timing.
For the first speaker, in general, the speech was good. He had a good topic, but the speaker was stressed during the delivery, and he exceeded the limit time.
The second speaker was confident and had good interaction with the audience by using the conversational style. She used quotes and sources, and she briefly used her notes (no reading), but she did not use body language.
For me, the three speeches were good, but I liked the third one because he had a good delivery, eye contact, and posture. Also, he was confident, and he used a good attention grabber with a good number of sources. On the other hand, the first and second speakers need to work more on their body language and work on controlling their stress.
RépondreSupprimerFirst Speaker:
RépondreSupprimerAlthough the speaker appeared slightly nervous during the introduction, he quickly found his rhythm and became more relaxed as the speech progressed. His main points were well-defined, well-supported, and logically organized. The transitions between ideas were smooth and helped maintain a clear flow throughout the body of the speech.
Second Speaker:
The speaker delivered her speech with ease and confidence. Her speaking pace was well-controlled and adaptable, making it easy to follow along. She demonstrated genuine enthusiasm for the topic, and the absence of verbal fillers like "uh" and "um" contributed to the speech’s clarity and engagement.
Third Speaker:
The third speaker did a commendable job, successfully capturing the audience’s attention from the start. His introduction was strong, and the topic was clearly and effectively introduced, setting the stage for a focused and engaging speech.
In the beginning, the first speaker sounded a little tense, but as the speech progressed, he was able to simply relax and then confidently deliver the body. His major ideas were clearly stated, coherently organized, and solidly backed up. Each major point's transitions were smooth and executed well.
RépondreSupprimerThe first speaker seems to be very stressed as his speech is filled with gap fillers and lost words and repetition. He also breaks the eye contact so many times. However he has a good pronunciation.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker has a great delivery with a good posture she seems to be relaxed and confident, her topic is very interesting.
The third speaker has also great delivery with good posture and a very interesting topic. However there are some gap fillers that he try to hide by coughing.
The first speaker was a bit stressed at first, but after the introduction, he gained more confidence, using more eye contact.
RépondreSupprimerThe second speaker has a good posture and a well-organized speech; her topic is really interesting. She's confident.
The third speaker has a good delivery and a good posture; he really worked on his body movements. However, he needs to fix gap fillers and stop coughing while speaking.
I did learn something knew in the first and third speech, the second was something I already knew about.
RépondreSupprimerIn the first speech, I thought the topic was interesting and the speakers smile eased the atmosphere, but he kept reading every now and then from the notes which cut the flow.
The second speech, like in her introduction speech, had perfect English, intonation, and eye contact. Although the topic was not mind-blowing, it was very nice listening to it.
The third speech had an interesting take that I did not know about, and the fact that the speaker was standing right in the middle of the class makes it more assertive. He didn't read from any notes and kept good eye contact with the audience.