Josh’s: I thought that they seemed quite unsure and tended to say um frequently. Also seemed a little indecisive about their own project and seemed conflicted on much of the information they were presented. The location of the filming was noisy as well as distracting, and each member fidgeted. Also much of the voice tone sounded derisive and somewhat offensive for some reason. That said, this would be developing to target.
Unprofessional language was used and it seemed like they were uneducated. They used fake words and it sounded weak. Answered questions correctly and well but also circled around a bit. There was no focus when others were talking. There was a lot of unrelated movement. No body paid attention to the other speakers. Didn’t sound very confident and all the movement gave off an anxious feeling. Not much enthusiasm.
I thought some of your answered were good I think you cold have expanded more on what Aquaponics is. Josh said um way too much and it was very distracting and I think he needs to work on that. I would have also liked if they were closer to the camera it was a little difficult to hear them. I thought they had good questions. They all had good posture there was no gum chewing and I thought they did a good job with that. The last thing I would fix is that they were too formal, they didn’t really have a conversation with each other and they didn’t engage in the conversation they looked into the camera most of the time.
Josh’s group had good information. They all seemed to know their facts well and could explain. I think that their content hit mastery because they did not pause to think which really showed that they knew what they were saying. I think that one thing that could be improved on is how they presented themselves. They could have used more hand motions in order to explain what was being. I think that rather than just having one person answer, it would be okay if another person jumped in if they had something to add to the answer. Their flow was good because they added to the answer to the question. I think that they did a good job with answering directly to the question. They did not go off topic and also answered right away after the question was being asked. One last thing that they could have improved on was their emotions. I think that some of them cold have shown how passionate they were with their system.
Team Josh: I think that Josh’s group also did a good job with this. They answered all the questions and went straight to the point. I also think that the information they gave was good because they didn’t go off topic and they told us facts in a way that people could understand. I think the people surrounding the speaker kind of seemed just… I don’t know, kind of bored. Because they stood completely still like statues while the other person was talking. i think that Josh projected his voice well and Sean and Marshall kind of spoke with less confidence than Josh. They were kind of far from the camera which was really weird so I couldn’t really hear any of them except Josh.
Team Coltrane: I think Coltrane’s team did a really good job with this. They had everyone speak and everyone spoke. When someone was talking, everyone else gave good body language and they didn’t looked tired or bored or appalled by what the speaker was talking about. I think everyone did a really good job but I think the “model” speaker (I guess you could call him that) of this group was Bryson, he spoke with confidence and he spoke clearly and he used hand motions that related to his speech. Maybe it’s just me but they kind of seemed to go off topic a little just to speak about their product in a better way but it kind of got confusing.
Coltrane’s group: I thought their introduction was very good. It was very smart how they introduced everybody and their job. After I heard the jobs to me it would give me a better understanding of what the group is doing. Another thing they did very well at was groups expression. While every person talked each group member was focused. Such as when Bradley talked the entire group looked at him. But it was a bit distracting cause they went at the same time. That’s the needs improvement. They hit target on the information they could’ve talked a little more. And hit mastery on their intro.
Coltrane’s Group: Their group was overall good but had some improvements. They looked somewhat confident in what they were saying. Sometimes they stuttered and paused when they spoke. They look a little more enthusiastic compared to the other speeches. They used lots of hand gestures which were excellent and some helped to understand what they were saying. The content seems true and somewhat specific. On one question about if being 9th graders is an advantage or disadvantage they went off topic a little bit and over answered the question. Most of the time they didn’t fidget or do anything distracting.
Team Coltrane did a good job with answering questions. They had a good presence but in the beginning, I feel like they did not know where to look. They would either look at the audience or at the person. When the first person started to talk, they were all looking at him and then when the next person talked, they would almost all look forward. I think that could be improved. I like how they did not interrupt each other very much. They all had a lot to say and could explain every answer very well. They were well prepared to answer the questions so that would be mastery. I really liked how they used their hand motions because it went well with what they were saying. Some of them were saying many “ummms” or “uhhh”. I think that they did a good job with trying to turn a negative statement into a more positive statement. They also made their answers flow by leading into another positive aspect about their system. Their information was overall accurate and truthful.
Team Coltrane: I thought his group answered the questions with lots of detail and clarity. I think the only thing I would criticize this group was they didn’t really look at there person presenting they just stared into the camera. I think they all kept good posture and they weren’t doing any thing distracting or fiddling with anything. They were kind of too formal I would have liked it better if they talked in a kind of casual way and were having a conversation with each other
Coltrane - This group answered there questions very well. At the start of the video one person was talking and everybody else’s head was turned staring straight at the guy. This looked like a bunch of robots. They didn’t do it so much the rest of the video but they still all stared at one guy sometimes. They answered there question with confidence and composer. The talking was fluent. None of the group member did distracting motions while they were speaking no swaying or playing with their shirt. They used there hands to show things motions it benefited them.
Each speaker took was rushing a little to answer each question, but it wasn’t bad, it just seemed eager which is good. The team members took turns which is good and each other member stayed focused and listened most of the time. I saw some unrelated and distracting hand motions and movement but nothing drastic. Each voice was quite calm and confident but stumbled a little hear and there. Posture was also good.
Team Krislyn: I liked Krislyn, Trevor and Blaine’s speeches. They spoke well and they introduced themselves before talking so we knew who they were and what they were called. Blaine kept fidgeting with his legs but I like how he talked and answered the questions, I wouldn’t really expect it form Blaine. I think the information they gave was good and they all spoke with confidence.
Each speaker took turns and waited which is good, but they didn’t keep focused. They didn’t pay attention to the other speaker, and was moving around. Blaine was distracting and was doing unrelated and unprofessional motions. Each speaker finished each question with like a drop off or just like had a weak ending, which gave the feeling of a bad answer. Couldn’t understand the end because a car drove by or something. Posture was good and they answer each question well except that they went around in circles a bit with the answers.
Trevor’s group was also very good. They answered the question with depth to it they didn’t just stop after a boring little sentence. All of the members answered with confidence, and knew what they were talking about. They look right at the camera the pretty much the whole they could vary were they looked. During the video blaine would put his hands on his knees and move them back and forth which was kind of distracting.
Kris’ Group: This group was good especially the content part. They answer the question well because they didn’t pause or stutter when they spoke. The only improvement is that they should speak a lot louder because I had to max out the volume to hear them. Also that they should be more enthusiastic and look happier or smile sometimes when they spoke. They had good content in their answers which had lots of detail and evidence. Most of the time one group mate was fidgeting with his legs and was looking at the ground sometimes.
Krislyn’s: Sounded quite scripted at first, but in time the began a more natural conversational flow. I think that they provided accurate answers, but delivered it in an unsure, not quite engaging way. Blain looked nervous while clenching his legs and trevor was flashing the camera, I thought this was high target and their speech was alright.
Kris’ Group: I thought that kris’ group did a good job of answering these questions. One comment that I noticed was that when Bradley was answering the first question that was being asked to him all the other three people who weren’t talking directly turned their heads and stared at him. As well when they introduced themselves and all the different roles that each person had they looked dead. Like they had no enthusiasm what so ever in their product that they were trying to present or in the things they were saying.
Blaine and Trevor’s group: I think they could’ve done had the presentation in an in closed room so it’s quiet. There was a lot of background noise. They hit target on the information the seemed like they just gave the minimum. They could’ve said more about sustainability. I think they need development on the group distractions. Trevor and Blaine kept looking around and not paying attention. Also they all should speak equally. Kristlyn seemed like the one that talked the whole time.
Blaines Group: I think that Krislyn maintained good posture throughout the whole thing and Blaine and Trevor could work on staying still rather still. This is because they were moving around a lot when they weren’t talking and also when they were talking. As well they were kind of slouching when they were talking and their group member was talking. I thought that the way that they answered the questions was good as well because they didn’t use a lot of ums or likes but were strait to the point and were very clear with what they were saying.
“Well seeing the exhibit under construction was an eye opener today. When he said that it took almost 2 years to plan and execute that one exhibit I was baffled. I thought that it might have taken a couple of months to plan it, I thought that the longest and hardest part was going to be the construction. But when he was talking about the placement of everything, the lighting of the artifacts, the casing, and adding interactive exhibits I realized how important all these things were. Now I am rethink everything that I have to do for the fish tanks, I have to rethink the colors used, where we placed things, how we present it, where we stand, and so many more things that I had not thought about before.”
“The thing i can take away from today are put the vital information big so people know its important. We need an attention grabber. We also need to shorten what we need to say because if the information is to long then people will get bored and not be interested and walk away”
“What I think really made the exhibits at the museum seem professional was how each one had a particular single or group of artifacts, or props that were the main theme, and then brief descriptions and other props to support it to tell the story as they were trying to do, but in our case it would be to sell our product. I saw examples of this in the hook exhibit where they had the hooks as the artifacts and the main focus of it all, with descriptions and pictures to be a little more descriptive....In the science area what I found really caught my eye was the terrariums. I have always been interested in these, since they’re great for keeping small pets and plants to create a life like habitat. It’s interesting just watching it, but what would be really cool is if we could incorporate some what of an Aquaponics like theme into a terrarium. It could be pretty simple in a small tank and could educate people on examples of Aquaponics in nature and how things use the nitrogen cycle to survive. This could provide the convenience and productivity of an Aquaponics system with an intriguing design.”
“looking a bunch of pictures and words. If we were able to make an interactive exhibit for our aquaponics system then that would probably give us an advantage from the rest of the groups. The exhibits had different lighting on different components of the exhibit. There was brighter lighting on 3D objects which made it more eye catching. We could put lights on our 3D aquponics system to make it look more professional or eye catching to the viewers. We could give the people samples of the vegetables that we are growing in our aquaponics system. It would is kind of be like Costco and how people want to buy some type of food after they tried the sample.”
I feel that overall I need work in my speaking. I need to enunciate more and talk clearly. If I don’t do these things then I will not be successful in sounding confident and people will think that I don’t know what I am talking about. What I need to work on is staying and getting positive. I need to look not so depressed and I need to work on keeping my face and head still. I kind of twitch and move around. My content was very factual and could have been more detailed about what was the problem. I should have done more research and elaborated more on that. I felt that when I explained the system it was not too bad. I pointed out what its main purpose is, although I could have added more information on the pump and how it was built. I could not follow my story line. I was not clear on what the problem was and my thesis because I put the problem in with the thesis. Next time, I should make it separate and elaborate more on the problem. For example I could mention the result of the problem.
Self: I thought I did a good job on how I spoke i spoke very clearly and looked at the camera the whole time. I think i could’ve had a little more body language. But i do think i seemed confident. Also I stopped a little i can work on that next time. I had good content i said whats the problem. That aquaponics is the solution and how it works. For the “Why You” i could’ve talked a little more. And how our system is different from everybody else’s. I think my structure was good i had an introduction. Then i had my three questions and detailes. I think i could’ve added a little more on my conclusion restating some stuff.
I think that my video was the best to me out of all of my other ones. I thought that it was good because I felt like i knew the material and had an idea of what to do already. I think that in the beginning I kind drew in viewers because I said that we waste so much energy due to non sustainable resources. I think that my content was good too, because I gave some helpful information in the beginning, then explained a little bit about my aquaponic groups system.
I think that I did worse in this video. Having a laid out idea of what I was doing in the beginning made me feel more confident and ready to film. But then when I began attempting to film my pitch this time I felt like I was to structured and I kept forgetting the order or something that I was gonna say next. So then I had to look at my iPad and then got a little thrown off because I would lose my spot sometimes. I think that my information was all good though and I helped to have a good elevator pitch that could get someone into Aquaponics and our system in particular.
Speech- I am not that confident. I stumble a lot and forget what I’m talking about. I forget what I’m gonna say a lot. I have good eye contact. I move my Adam’s apple sometimes. I speak loudly through out the whole speech. I enunciate all my words.
Content- all my information is true. Everything I say is correct. I don’t have any information about aquaponics specifically, but I talk about how the world isn’t sustainable. I talk about our aquaponics kit.
Structure- I don’t have a good intro. I don’t interest people in what I’m gonna talk about. My body is okay it has good information and people care about what I’m talking about. I end it okay but it doesn’t really wrap up what I’m talking about. I could do a lot better.
I think that my speech part was okay. I think that I am slowly improving on confidence because I am better at a planned script. I thought that I did pretty good with using my hand motions but I might have used it a little too much. I was comfortable but I still need to work on the ups and downs in my voice so I don’t seem to be talking at one volume the entire time. My posture was okay. I think that I am going to try to stand up to get used to fish tank pitch, if we do another recording. I think that my content was filled with enough facts but not too much. I tried to relate as much as possible to people by giving examples. I think that I could have also talked more about other things that male our groups system unique and why it is better than other groups. I think that I talked a good amount about aquaponics in general. My structure went as I planned. I followed the points that I was going to talk about. I still need to work on my intro and ending but I think that I improved. I started with an interesting fact and tried to speak off of that I think that my conclusion could be a little more exciting.
I think I did horrible on this to be honest. It wasn’t my fault though I think. Matt and Isaiah were taking forever to record because they kept getting mixed up on their words. But for me I wasn’t breathing because I only had about 3 minutes left to speak which isn’t a lot of time. In my speech I needed air. I didn’t know when to stop in it so I couldn’t get air. And my voice sounded funny too me and sounded like I was confident. I kept messing up too this was just horrible, even my pitch was horrible, on my second evidence part I just said a sentence and stopped. I think that’s enough bottom line was it was horrible.
Posture was pretty good. Voice was good but stopped and stumbled a couple times. Looked quite confident, but stance and hands in pockets was sometimes awkward. Facial expressions where boring and weird, didn’t really change. Good energy. Fidgets a little and eye contact rarely fades off. Not much info on kit. Had good explaining information on aquaponics but nothing on the kit. Audience can learn but only little.Had good opening and closing statements but middle was only one point. Speech flows logically but not enough points.
Aly: I would say that this is a target aquaponics pitch. I think it is target because she did well at explaining what the worlds problem is and even gave a statistic. When I first heard this statistic, it really hit me. The statistic she said is (in 30 years, hawaii's water supply with completely run out.) This was really hard for me to take in because I always think that the bad things are going to happen after I die. It really stuck to me because when the water runs out, I am still going to be in the middle of my life. Anyway, I think aly did good at also saying what we are going to do about the worlds problem. She explained how our kit works and why you should pick us, which is very important because we are competing against are peers and we need to stand out. She talked with confidence. The only advice I would give to her in this section is to next time I you are going to hold your ipad, don't make a script, make an outline and just use it to elaborate off of. I could tell she was using a script because she kept looking at her ipad and it sounded very scripted which isn't bad or anything. I felt her structure was very good because she started off with the question,(how could humans survive without water?) This was good because it makes you think, and want to find out the answer. She also had a pretty good closing.
Trevor: I also felt that trevor was in the target range. I felt he spent to much time talking about other things and not his aquaponics system. And while he was actually talking about aquaponics, he was talking about aquaponics in general, not his system in particular. I thought his beginning was good where he picks up dirt and says, (hawaii nei is beatiful and I would like to keep it that way.) I thought this was good and catchy but if I lived on the mainland, I would feel left out. I think he should say something that the whole world can relate to, not only hawaii. At the end of his speech, he started to talk about how his kit is educational because you can see the process happening. I think he should have left that part out. His structure was not good but not bad. It was good because he had a beginning and an end, but his story was kind of hard to follow and all over the place. He talked loud and with confidence and had good posture throughout. He also talked with enthusiasm which was good. Emma: Of course Emma did good, it’s the usual. You don’t even need to watch the video to know its going to be good. You just need to see her name and its good. She spoked loud, clear, and projected her voice. Small kind cheat with her script. She did mess up at times though, she’s sort of choked so it wasn’t fluent though those parts. She has a problem saying hawaii, she’s says it like HAWAIIII. Overall em is a good speaker and she knows what she has to say which is good.
Nikki: Of course Nikki did good too, the usual. Just need to see her name too. She talks fluent thoughtful the whole speech. She talks loud, clear, and her annunciation is perfect. She a great speaker and her supporting evidence was great. Although she kept bending her finger backward which was okay I guess. But other than that everything was perfect.
Bryson did a good job with speaking. He spoke clearly and seemed comfortable. He was able to use his hands while he was talking. He seemed positive also but could have maybe used more energy and expression to show how passionate he was about his system. He had excellent eye contact and seemed to know exactly what he was saying. He paused a little when he was thinking but did a good job with picking up where he left. A lot of information that he used was very useful. I like how he gave examples and facts to show people what he meant. I think that maybe he could have talked. Little more about aquaponics or his system. I know the unique thing about their system is that it can adjust to any tank, and maybe they could have said that. He had a good beginning by starting off with a fact. I think that he went through his points and did a good job doing so. He had a an example for most of his points which helped him. I think that his ending was good but maybe instead of saying another fact, he could have repeated his main idea.
Isaiah did an excellent job with speaking. He seemed very serious but also passionate. I would honestly believe what he says because he seemed very confident. I like the way that he used his hands while he was taking. His posture was pod and his speaking was also excellent. He did not seem to mess up at all and pronunciation was accurate. His content was strong and useful. I like how he kept saying that his group had a better system but also why he thinks that. I don’t think that he needed to say what everyone does in his group and maybe could have added more facts instead. I also think that he did a good job with saying how passionate they are because that is very important to persuade people into investing and buying the product. His structure of his speech flowed very well. First he would talk about one point and then move into the other point slowly but at a good pace. He seemed to know exactly what he was saying so the points the he planned worked well for him. His conclusion and intro is confident and well planned.
I thought that Tyler really had something good to say about his product. The content of his speech was very well planned because I thought it was supported by good example about how hawaii is going to run out of fresh water supply in 30 years. I think that he was supported by good facts and really knowing what he was talking about. Even though I thought that what he said was good it might be able to improve by enthusiasm. I thought that your voice and fluency had a lot of confidence making the viewer interested. I understood clearly what the structure was. It was that your product can help change a future problem and that you want to help reduce its possibility.
Nikki is very good at speaking. I felt that she was very enthusiastic and positive by the tone of her voice. Listening to her made me feel that whatever she was doing, she had confidence. I liked that Nikki used to her hand gestures properly rather than moving around randomly that had no purpose. The only thing I would say to improve on is keeping good eye contact. Her content really supported to what she was saying. I thought that talking about how her system was unique was a good thing to mention. It was different because she mentioned the advantages in her groups system. I followed Nikki’s story all the way through because I saw her point and overall had a good presentation. Her point was that we will soon run out of fresh water and aquaponics can help fix that problem.
Isaiah Browning: I thought Isaiah was a very good at speaking. He was very clear on what he was saying, he was using his body language properly. He seemed very relax and calm. But also was interested in the conversation. He had very good topics. He had had answered all the questions whats’s the problem, solution why me? He explained how his group was the best. But saying his teammates it seemed more of an opinion. His structure was very good he had a good intro topics and a thesis. As well as a conclusion
Fenton: He spoke very clearly and entertaining. The way he spoke made me interested in to what he was saying. He also had great body language with his hands. But he could not sway back and forth so much. He had decent amount of topics he talked about the problem a little bit how its effecting the planet and the kids. Next time he could say a little more how it helps the planet and what are the future problems. He did talk about why we should buy it how our kids will want it. He had a great intro. But really no conclusion. And some of his stuff such as explaining the system should’ve been in the beginning not at the end. Overall it was pretty good.
Nikki’s talk was excellent the way she talk was veery smooth and the information flowed out nicely. She knew what she wanted to say she started with the problem and directed it at the viewer. He information was short but it was very well said so it was short and straight to the point that you should take the first step to being sustainable by buying her groups table top aquaponic system. Volume and clearness was good
Sean didn’t do so great he continuously stumbled through the whole speech. He didn’t have much of an idea of what he was going to say was a big problem. His content was alright he told the viewer why you should by and the big problem why you should buy it, and why our product is unique. In the end he just ended the video didn’t end with a solid conclusion. Volume and clearness was good
sean was good at his information, but he did stumble some of the words around. Sean speaks in a clear voice through and it is quite loud and easy to understand. He had a good intro and his conclusion really finshed his ideas.
malia did a very good job, she is actually a very good speaker. The only feedback I have is sometimes she steps on her toes and falls back. But she knows what she is saying, and I think she will be fine and not scared in front of talking to the shark tank people.
Nikki is a very good speaker, she took the time to process the information and knew what she was going to say for every line, perfectly . She was very straight to her points through, and I think they have the best aquaponic system.
Sean: His speech was overall okay but his speech needed some improvement. He didn’t seemed totally focused on his speech because it seems that he forgot what he wanted to say in some of the parts. I couldn’t understand some of the words he said because he stutters at some points. His eye contact was pretty good and his volume was good enough for me to hear it. The information was correct and mainly clear when he spoke. He understood most of the concepts of topics he discussed about aquaponics. He did seems a little confuse on one part when he addressed what the problem is that this product would solve. The opening could have been better because he went straight into the information without introducing what the product is. His structure was good because he addressed the problem, solution, and why our product is better than the rest.
Krislyn M: Her speech was very good and she was very confident. She spoke very clear and loud which made it very easy to understand. Eye contact was great and she looks very focused on her speech. The information was all correct and she used lots of details to make the points clear. The content addressed the questions that were required which is great. Her speech was very easy to follow because it was organized and prepared well. Opening was good because she stated what the product is and what this product will solve.
His speech was overall okay but his speech needed some improvement. He didn’t seemed totally focused on his speech because it seems that he forgot what he wanted to say in some of the parts. I couldn’t understand some of the words he said because he stutters at some points. His eye contact was pretty good and his volume was good enough for me to hear it. The information was correct and mainly clear when he spoke. He understood most of the concepts of topics he discussed about aquaponics. He did seems a little confuse on one part when he addressed what the problem is that this product would solve. The opening could have been better because he went straight into the information without introducing what the product is. His structure was good because he addressed the problem, solution, and why our product is better than the rest.
Her speech was very good and she was very confident. She spoke very clear and loud which made it very easy to understand. Eye contact was great and she looks very focused on her speech. The information was all correct and she used lots of details to make the points clear. The content addressed the questions that were required which is great. Her speech was very easy to follow because it was organized and prepared well. Opening was good because she stated what the product is and what this product will solve.
Alyssa: I really liked the beginning of her elevator pitch because she began it stating a question that everyone can relate to. She then stated hr facts and sold her product very well in exactly one minute. The only comments that I would make about her video would be that she tended to kind of flip her hair every once in awhile if it kind of got in her face our something which could seen kind of distracting. As well there were moments where she looked at her iPad for help for a moment that was pretty long and she could maybe kind of take a shorter glimpse next time.
Fenton: Fentons video was very attention getting. In the beginning he stated a topic and you could tell that he had his main points that he had wanted to talk about in his video laid out and prepared. I think things that he could do next time that would help to improve his video would be that he fidgets around or kind of moves his legs around and walks around somewhat while he is talking. As well he has these moments where he kind of pauses and doesn’t say anything where it’s kind of like an “Awwwwww” moment. If he fixed these things I think his videos would be great.
Trevor: Speech- he was very confident while giving his speech. He didn’t stumble at all until a little at the end. He has hand gestures but they’re not bad. They’re well used so its not a confidence problem. He’s loud and enunciates he’s words well. He has good eye contact, he’s looking at the camera the whole time other than the beginning.
Content- his information was correct. Everything he talked about was correct. It was all about his kit. He didn’t say anything factual about aquaponics, only information on his kit. I learned about his table top aquaponics kit.
Structure- he had a great intro, a good body and a bad ending. His intro got me interested in what he was gonna talk about. His body was interesting and kept me interested. I didnt get bored. I wanted to learn more. His ending didnt end anything. It ended abruptly and left me hanging.
Marshall: Speech- he is overall confident. He sways a lot during his speech. He occasionally twitches, and I think it has something to do with his confidence. He speaks loudly and clearly. He makes good eye contact, he’s always looking at the camera.
Content- all of his information is correct. Everything he said was true. Everything he talked about I knew because I’m in his group but if people listened to his speech, they would learn about his kit.
Structure- his intro didnt get me interested in what he was gonna talk about. He need to make it more interesting so people will want to listen. His body was good. He had good information that people cared about and that made me interested to buy his product. He’s ending was like Trevor’s, he just left it hanging. He was gonna say something but he forgot what it was.
His structure wasn’t clear or planned. The story is nonexistent and it is hard to follow where it all leads. There is an ok opening but finish quite abruptly. His examples are ok but not too memorable or helpful. I didn’t learn anything. Wasn’t very informative. His voice, tone, and words were knowledgeable and sounded smart but his confidence looked lacking and his posture was poor, and so was his professionalism. He kept looking down, laughed at end and although he sounded confident his presence made it seem weak.
Target, to mastery.
His content, and structure was good his speech wasn’t as good. His information was clear and organized. It was grouped nicely and had a great flow. I understood it all and felt like i was learning some stuff. Everything was related and logically placed.Information was given about aquaponics and he was pretty knowledgeable. His speech was not as good. His posture, expression and face was boring and looked bored. He look bored and uncomfortable. His voice sounded ok most of the time but his movement and body was off.
This activity allowed students to talk about something on which they had expertise, but to do so in a logically structured way - to deliver, essentially, a spoken 5 paragraph essay. Teacher explanation and student samples follow.
Meanwhile, the structured student activity for the majority of the block was to talk in an sustained and confident way about aquaponics for a minimum of one minute. I had noticed that the students were having trouble articulating what they knew about aquaponics systems - the way they worked, or the purpose. Perhaps it was a function of the time lag over the course of the year, but I thought it would be valuable to get them talking about the subject prior to their pitches being constructed.
Then, after the videos were posted, they had to critique each other (and themselves) by looking at both persuasive speech AND content.
My speech about aquaponics seemed to be worse than my last two. It looks like I stutter a lot more and I paused for no reason in the middle of sentences. I stutter because I didn’t know what to say sometimes. My confidence was not good because I wasn’t really focused on the camera which is why I didn’t have eye contact with the camera sometimes. I should of spoke clearer and louder during my speech because it was sometimes hard to understand what I was saying. The information that I spoke about wasn’t really in depth because I would just state one sentence on something and then the next sentence about something else. Some facts that I said seemed confusing because I would speak about one thing and in the middle of it I would talk about something else. The content that I spoke about was mainly factual about aquaponics but I could of organized my thoughts better.
My Speech needs development;
I think this because my body movement was poor and my content was dry. I didn't use effective motions and gestures. My stature and posture was awkward and uncomfortable. My facial features were weird and usually boring. My eye contact was ok but I didn't connect with audience and didn't have energy. My content was lacking in the way that I didn't explain anything about aquaponics. I had obvious errors in speech and video. My voice and words didn't sound professional, prepared, or calm. Audience wouldn't have learnt much.
I think that I seemed a lot more confident in this video than other videos. I felt more confident and comfortable because I have talked about aquaponics many times. I think that my eye contact was okay but my focus could have been improved. I kept getting distracted and would laugh at certain things or look to the side. I think that my volume was okay but because I was far from the camera, it was a little softer than I had hoped for. I think my hand motions were appropriate with what I was saying. I think that laughing a little and smiling helped me to seem very positive with what I was saying. My content was mainly correct. I think that sometimes I should have explained a little more about one topic. I seemed to move on fairly fast after I said one thing. Sometimes I would also pause a little because I was confused wi what I was saying. I think that I did a pretty good job with talking about how our system works and what aquaponics is. If I could do this again, I would try to talk more about creating the system also.
I felt pretty confident when I spoke. I didn’t feel that nervous when I spoke which helped also with my content. I think one thing that I could have improved upon was speaking clearer and not moving so much. I thought my content was really good. I thought I did good job conveying what my job was. I wish I went into more detail about how we use social media.
I think that my speech hit close to mastery because even though I was regurgitating the first aquaponic related things that came to mind, i did so in quite a composed and even engaging way.I think that my body language and on foot movement was appropriate for the situation so i think that i am adept in this field. I think my content only hit target because I tended to just state the obvious with the information I brought up and it s content was on the same level as almost all the videos making it average or target.
Me- I was a kinda of quite and I tended to look of into the distance every so often and stuttered quite a bit. I added why aquaponics is so important and should be used.
Self-I think I did an okay job. I think I need a lot of development. In the beginning I seemed pretty confident but, towards the end I paused. I did not look at the camera the whole time. I thought I could’ve talked a little more on why Aquaponics will help the planet. Explaining water loss and oil pollution. I also think I could’ve talked about sustanibility. I do think I spoke clearly though and did not laugh.
I think that in my speech I lacked motivation and I made it seem really boring I do this a lot with out realizing it. I also took to much time thinking of what I am going to say. When you do this I makes it seem like you are not an expert. This was a problem because I did this a lot because I was distracted. I get distracted and I think that I just wanted to get it over with. I need to slow down and relax. I also need to make it seem like I am very interested.
I talked about being a contractor I think that my information was good i gave a broad over view of my job description. I had one sort of stubble in the middle but i just kept going.MAking these videos and coming up with things to talk about is getting way easier.
Speech: mostly in target area. Talked clearly, however stumbled occasionally as well as eyes wouldn’t settle. Fidgets every once in a while (mostly shifting weight). Hands are covered by sleeves. Content: information is correct and fairly organized. Something could probably be learned if person was uneducated on the topic.
From the last videos that were recorded, I feel that I made much improvement. I am speaking more comfortably and more confident. My enthusiasm seems to be rising because I don’t sound depressed like I used to. I need to improve on forgetting about the mistakes. I tend to smile or make motion when I mess up or don’t know what to say next. This video was kind of like a continuation of my last because I talked about aquaponics. I liked how in the last video I said what aquaponics is and I like what I also mentioned in this video. I explained what was most commonly asked. Next time, I could still up my enthusiasm to convince people into buying our product.
I think that my video could have used some work. At times I kind of stumbled with my words or didn’t pronounce something correct. As well I had a few awkward breaks where I was trying to process everything and gather something to say. Everything I said was factual and useful knowledge to the audience as well. But as I was watching the video back over I again, I noticed that I tend to kind of play with my hands when they are in my lap. So I could work on that, maybe that could be a possible way that I tend to release my stress.
I thought I did pretty good most of the time. But at times I would get stuck and studded because I didn’t know how to continue. Or sometimes I would stutter because I knew what word I was going to say but I couldn’t get the word out of my mouth.
received as of 8:15 am
I always saw Trevor as a great speaker. He always seemed confident in what he was talking about and it made me believe that what he was saying was true. Trevor had always spoken with a lot of enthusiasm and excitement meaning that he is really into what he is talking about. I thought that it was good that he used his resources by using his water bottle as the tank and his phone as the grow bed. Even though he is an extremely good speaker I feel that the content needs a few edits. He did not seem to know the real meaning of what aquaponics is. He got half of it right saying that aquaponics is a mix of hydroponics. Then, he said using the mix of hydroponics and growing fish and plants was a great blend. I think that the information being presented needs to be more factual.
Reyn was a really good presenter. I like how he started off by saying what aquaponics is and explaining how it works. Mentioning how nitrites are turned into nitrates really helps the content area. He was very good with persuasion. The tone and enthusiasm in his voice really catches peoples attention. The way he seems confident will get people into believing what he is saying is real and can be convinced into purchasing their product. He used hand gestures to help explain his model and what he was talking about. The information was correct and similar to some of the things I said in my 2 videos. Reyn reached the target of speaking and content.
Coltrane: I thought that coltranes video reached target. The reason for this was because he had great detail and explained everything well, but there were some awkward pauses where he looked completely stuck and had no idea what he would be saying next. His speech was very good other then a few stumbles. He enunciated well and spoke at a good volume. I liked his first explanation of what Aquaponics is and how he went into detail about what specifically the two components are the make up Aquaponics. Everything he stated were true facts that could become useful for the audience. He has good eye contact and doesn’t fidget around a lot but has good posture.
Alyssa: I think that Alyssa’s video could use a little improvement. To where it’s at the point where it is in-between target and needs development. Although at some points she stumbled along with her words she always kept continuing not stoping or making awkward motions. This made her seem more confident, or as if the pauses were maybe even planed out for her. Her eye contact and volume at which she talked we’re both very good. Everything she said was factual as well. The one major improvement that she would need would to fill in her long breaks where she looks a bit lost.
Tyler's speech was a target speech;
This is because he was quiet confident and had good movement but
ranted on and content wasn't too strong. He stood confidently, and
spoke in a calm voice but was a little monotone. Gestures and posture
was good. Guessing the sizes of everything looked unprofessional. I
did learn a bit about a design team and what steps are taking to
create a product. He didn't say something interesting or thought
provoking about aquaponics but he did interest me about his topic of
the steps and progress.
Coltrane's speech was target;
I believe this because it was mastery except his messing around and
off the cuff feeling. His speech was very direct and professional
except the beginning and end. His posture and voice was good, calm,
and persuasive. His hand gestures were too violent and sometimes gave
off a feeling of anxiety. His rare but fatal stumbles gave his speech
a very impromptu feeling and didn't seem prepared. His eye contact
swayed. Not much energy and enunciation sometimes faded softly.
Content was target to mastery. I was interested in what he was saying
the whole time. His information seemed thought through and with high
intelligence on the subject. Had factual info about aquaponics and I
learned from his speech.
Noah. I think he had a good process but sometimes he mumbled. He talked loud and clear but at times when he didn’t know what to say, he got soft and he started to mumble. His thought process was there most of the time and he sounded confident, but when he got stuck, his confidence went down and he started to mumble.
Blaine. Blaine talked loud and clear 90% of the time and he knew what he was gonna say before he said it and you could tell he was an expert on aquaponics because he sounded calm and relaxed like this was a topic he was comfortable with.
speech- I thought Isaiah spoke loud and clear but he didn't have the energy when he was talking. It sounded like he was his normal self. I feel like he should of put more energy and voice but I could understand him. He did stutter a couple times but it wasn't to bad. I think it's better if you stand up than sit down. I feel like that affects the tone of your voice.
Content- I didn't really learn a lot from him. He gave me the basic information about Aquaponics but he didn't give the important ones like how it works. He just said what it is and why it's good for the environment.
Speech: hit mastery and target areas. Spoke in a level tone, and maintained posture. He seemed confident, and spoke at a good volume
Content: definitely hit mastery. Gave clear examples and had a broad knowledge and understanding of his topic. Gave the factual information and steps in his subject. Would’ve learned something if I didn’t know about the project.
Speech: spoke clearly and loudly. However, he fidgeted around a lot, making him seem nervous or uncomfortable. He is positive, however I feel like it got cut short.
Content: spoke about aquaponics facts, and had a good understanding of it. Speaking to an audience who knows nothing about aquaponics, it would work very well
His speech was overall okay but could be better. He spoke clearly most of the time and enunciated all of his words correctly. He could of spoke a lot louder since it was hard to hear what he was saying because of the wind. I wasn’t able to see if he maintain eye contact because he filmed it in a dark area where I couldn’t see his face. He didn’t fidget during his speech which was good. He used hand gestures sometimes during his speech for different points he made about aquaponics. Some of the information that he spoke about was clear and understandable. Sometimes he would start a sentence and then in the middle of the sentence he would go off into another sentence. He understood the basic of aquaponics by the content he talked about. He didn’t really go in detail with some topics that he talk about. The information that he said was factual and convincing by his confidence.
Reyn’s speech was mainly okay but had some minor improvements. He stuttered some times during the speech and would pause in a middle of a sentence. He stuttered probably because he didn’t know what to say next. He swayed around sometimes with his body when he spoke and had some unnecessary hand gestures. The hand gestures didn’t really help when he spoke. I couldn’t really see if he had eye contact with the camera because of the lighting in the area he was in was dark. He mumbled a couple of times in which I couldn’t understand what words he was saying.The content about aquaponics that he spoke about was true and factual. He understands most of the topic of aquaponics but seems a little unsure about different points that he said. Information he said seems understandable for the audience to learn something about aquaponics.
Marshall did a generally good job with his speech. He pronounced words correctly and talked with a fairly projected voice. He gave okay eye contact most of the time and looked at the camera. He seemed to fidget a little and look away from the camera sometimes. Doing that made him not seem as confident. He also could have been maybe a bit more positive rather than staying at one tone the entire time. I could see that he was putting his hands on something and I think that also helped him little more certain. Marshall’s content was accurate. He did a good job with saying how aquaponics works. I also like how he said that their group created the system. He said how first they started with a scale drawing and then moved to a prototype and so on. He said what he will be doing with the system like marketing it. Maybe he could have also added how his system works compared to other groups.
Tyler was very positive and seemed very comfortable while speaking. He gave good eye contact and used many hand motions but not too many. He had a good intro and ending with saying his name and also saying thank you. I like how he changed the volumes of certain words that were more important. He also pronounced words very well and had good facial expressions. The only thing is that sometimes he would repeat many words when he mentioned them such as like. Or he would use the word finally many times in a couple of sentences. The information about creating the aquaponic system was accurate. The only thing was that our growbed is actually not in the top but it is on the side. I liked how he talked about how difficult it was to put together and glue. He could have also stated what aquaponics is or how it works. He also focused mainly on putting it together but could have also talked more about other steps. Overall I think that he did a good job.
Matt- I think your speech was good. It felt like you had a real nice confidence. I think you did a good job of making yourself sound smarter than you would if you were not as confident. I also think you did a good job with your content. I would next time add a little more detail about what you do but good job otherwise.
Emma- I think you did a good job. You seemed really confident. I think one thing you could do is speak more loud. You spoke a little soft which made you seem a little less confident than you actually were. I thought your content was great and the best part. You gave good explanations of what you were talking about and it seemed very thought out. I like how you made it easy for someone that didn’t know what aquaponics was.
He hit mastery on his speech because he spoke positively, more or less clearly and left you engaged. A very good pitch with good examples, this was one of the best ive seen.
His information had a good demonstration and was in depth so mastery.
I think that his speaking ability was diminished because of his choice of location. He also seemed unsure and really unhappy to be there meaning, he made me want to fall asleep. To improve, he needs to sit up, be confident and speak clearly. so Developing
He didn’t sound sure of his information and the content was lacking in many aspects. his delivery may have also attributed to this but this field is also in development.
Kai- He was a little stiff but still spoke clearly and confidently. He wasn’t swaying back and forth. His facts were relevant and useful.
Reyn- He was swaying back and forth but kind of hid it behind hand motions and slight turns of his body. But spoke clearly and confidently. He explained everything very well.
Fenton-I thought he was very confident in the way he spoke. As I was listening to him he seemed very happy to work with the listen, and made the listener comfortable. He also said a brief strong overview of what Aquaponics are. Also he gave his thought of what he thinks of it and what he thought when he first heard of it. I think next time he should make sure he looks at the camera, he never looked at in the video. Also he should not walk side to side.
Trevor-I thought he had a very visible way to show his content. I thought he did a very good job on the content. He talked about hydroponics. Also he showed the Aquaponic system layout with props. He also talked about the fish plants and water in the system. I also think he seemed very interested and happy. It made me want to listen. He talked like I was a friend. I think he could’ve talked about a little more about sustanibility.
Marshal- I think that marshal did a good job speaking his content was good. It was solid information and it was said in the right order the only thing that I had a problem with was the way you presented the information. You sounded very bored and uninterested. I think that also you kept look left and right. Everything else was good.
Kris-I think that you did an ok job it was weird when you scratched you nose that was not a good idea and you kept looking into space if you wanted to catch the persons attention that was a good idea but I don’t think that was positive attention. I also think that you have too many pauses in you speech. The content was used well and you went into good detail in each of the sentences.
IP- His information was good but the way he presented it was good it felt like the information was fake because he had no confidence in what he was saying he was also soft. When he is talking he looks around sometimes this is kind of distracting.
Kris k- During his speech he was thinking and looking all around he also had some break downs where he just lost it,but his information was good and people would have learned something from his speech.