Academics  

    -Drama/OAP
      
    -Journalism

    -Speech/Debate
       -New Coach Information

    -A+ Program

• Judging Criteria for Prose
• Judging Criteria for Poetry
• Judging Criteria for Informative Speaking
• Judging Criteria for Persuasive Speaking

NOTE: Judges evaluate each performer individually based on the total presentation. At the end of the round, performers are ranked in order of the quality of the presentations: Best is first, second best is second, and so on. All contestants are ranked. There can be no ties.

Introduction

• Did the performer prepare you to listen to the selection?
• Did the content, form, and delivery style of the introduction add to the over-all effectiveness of the performance?

• Did the performer recreate the narrator - the person talking in the prose - and the characters? (age, gender race,, educational level, social status, psychological and dispositional traits, etc.)
• Did the performance reflect the scene - when and where the prose takes place and appropriately indicate any changes in location or time? (in a living room, supermarket, automobile, classroom, etc; morning, evening, winter, summer, etc.)
• Did the performer reveal the narrator's purpose in the selection - why is the narrator talking? (to convince, to persuade, to understand, to remember, to console, to tease, to explain, etc.)
• Did the performer demonstrate an awareness of the audience - to whom are the narrator and characters talking? (to him/herself? to another person? to a group of people?)
• Did the performer make appropriate use of physical skills in the performance? (movement, gestures, expressions, stance, posture, eye contact, etc. were motivated by the text and purposeful to the performance?)
• Did the performer make appropriate use of vocal skills in the performance? (dialect, dialogue, volume, rate, pitch, etc. were believable?)
• Was the performer in control of the literature? (was the material appropriate for the performer?)
• Was the performer in control of the performance situation? (use of manuscript, internal pacing and pauses, sense of closure were appropriate?)

• What did you like about the performance and why?
• What areas of improvement are needed?

Go to Top

NOTE: Judges evaluate each performer individually based on the total presentation. At the end of the round, performers are ranked in order of the quality of the presentations: Best is first, second best is second, and so on. All contestants are ranked. There can be no ties.

Introduction

• Did the performer prepare you to listen to the selection?
• Did the content, form, and delivery style of the introduction add to the over-all effectiveness of the performance?

• Did the performer recreate the persona - the person talking in the poem? (age, gender, race, educational level, social status, psychological and dispositional traits, etc.)
• Did the performance reflect the scene - when and where the poem takes place and appropriately indicate any changes in location or time? (in a living room, supermarket, automobile, classroom, etc; morning, evening, winter, summer, etc.)
• Did the performer reveal the persona's purpose in saying the poem - why is the persona talking? (to convince, to persuade, to understand, to remember, to console, to tease, to explain, etc.)
• Did the performer demonstrate an awareness of the audience - to whom is the person in the poem talking? (to him/herself? to another person? to a group of people?)
• Did the performer make appropriate use of physical skills in the performance? (movement, gestures, expressions, stance, posture, eye contact, etc. were motivated by the text and purposeful to the performance?)
• Did the performer make appropriate use of vocal skills in the performance? (dialect, dialogue, volume, rate, pitch, etc. were believable?)
• Was the performer in control of the literature? (was the material appropriate for the performer?)
• Was the performer in control of the performance situation? (use of manuscript, internal pacing and pauses, sense of closure were appropriate?)

• What did you like about the performance and why?
• What areas of improvement are needed?

Go to Top

The following criteria are of equal importance in evaluating the speaker:

I. Analysis and Content

• Did the speaker answer the question?
• Was the content informative?
• Was there sufficient use of logic, facts, examples, and/or expert opinion?
• Was the information adequately documented?
• Was the information pertinent to the specific topic?

• Introduction
  • Did the speaker get attention?
  • Was the topic clearly stated?
  • Did the speaker preview and give focus to the key ideas?

• Body
  • Were divisions clear and appropriate to the topic?
  • Did the speaker make effective use of signposting, internal summaries, and transitions?
  • Was adequate time devoted to each division within the 7 minute time limit?
  • Was there a logical progression of ideas?

• Conclusion
  • Did the speaker tie the speech together?
  • Was the answer to the question clear?
  • Was there a note of finality?

• Was the delivery natural, lively, and spontaneous?

• Did it reinforce the ideas of the speech?

• Language Style
  • Did the speaker exhibit command of conversational style?
  • Was the language suitable to informing the audience?
  • Was the language precise, grammatically correct, and vivid?

• Vocal Delivery
  • Was enunciation clear?
  • Was volume appropriate?
  • Was there sufficient variety in rate, pause, and pitch?

• Physical Delivery
  • Did the speaker exhibit poise and confidence?
  • Were gestures varied, movement motivated, and eye contact direct?
  • If note card was used, was it an integrated part of the delivery?

Judges are encouraged to write comments and are given the following instructions: "The best critiques teach and encourage the student. Please offer reasons for your evaluation in the comments you write below."

Go to Top

The following criteria are of equal importance in evaluating the speaker:

1. Analysis and Content
   • Did the speaker answer the question?
   • Was the content persuasive?
   • Was there sufficient use of logic, facts, examples, and/or expert opinion?
   • Was the information adequately documented?
   • Was the information pertinent to the specific topic?
   2. Organization
      • Introduction
        1. Did the speaker get attention?
        2. Was the topic clearly stated?
        3. Did the speaker preview and give focus to the key ideas?
      • Body
        1. Were divisions clear and appropriate to the topic?
        2. Did the speaker make effective use of signposting, internal summaries, and transitions?
        3. Was adequate time devoted to each division within the 7 minute time limit?
        4. Was there a logical progression of ideas?
      • Conclusion
        1. Did the speaker tie the speech together?
        2. Was the answer to the question clear?
        3. Was there a note of finality?
   3. Delivery
      • Was the delivery natural, lively, and spontaneous?

      • Did it reinforce the ideas of the speech?

      • Language Style
        1. Did the speaker exhibit command of conversational style?
        2. Was the language suitable to persuading the audience?
        3. Was the language precise, grammatically correct, and vivid?
      • Vocal Delivery
        1. Was enunciation clear?
        2. Was volume appropriate?
        3. Was there sufficient variety in rate, pause, and pitch?
      • Physical Delivery
        1. Did the speaker exhibit poise and confidence?
        2. Were gestures varied, movement motivated, and eye contact direct?
        3. If note card was used, was it an integrated part of the delivery?

      Judges are encouraged to write comments and are given the following instructions: "The best critiques teach and encourage the student. Please offer reasons for your evaluation in the comments you write below."