Introduction
This paper evaluates student references included in assignments
when a single presentation (“one-shot”) and embedded instruction techniques are
used, and contributes to the ongoing conversation among instruction librarians
regarding which method is most effective. As awareness of the skills needed by
students that are encompassed in information literacy grows, requests for
librarians to participate in classes also grows, and finding ways to most
effectively teach the content so it does not need to be repeated in later years
is critical. Purdue University is working toward a more embedded approach for
information literacy whenever possible. Nearly all incoming freshmen at Purdue
are required to take the Fundamentals of Speech Communication course. Demonstrating and implementing more effective teaching techniques
for this course will impact a large majority of freshmen students across
disciplines. Having some empirical evidence to support the benefits of
this model facilitates the conversation with faculty, (particularly engineering
faculty) who appreciate data-driven decision making.
Literature Review
One-shot library sessions are generally considered to
be less impactful than other instruction presentation styles (Badke, 2009; Hollister & Coe, 2003). Orr, Appleton, and
Wallin (2001) make a clear argument for moving away
from the “one-shot” instruction model:
It has became [sic] clear that the “one-off,” demonstration-style
information skills classes delivered out of curriculum context do not
necessarily coincide with the students’ need for information, are sometimes not
valued by the students, and do not necessarily prepare them for the challenges
of research, problem solving and continuous learning. Where possible,
librarians prefer to use an across-the-curriculum model that incorporates the
process of seeking, evaluating, and using information into the curriculum and
consequently, into all students’ experiences. (p. 457)
One-shot instruction sessions have been tested for
impact upon student work with varying outcomes (Byerly,
Downey, & Ramin, 2006; Fain, 2011; Martin, 2008).
Generally, the increased integration of content into the curriculum leads to
more positive student outcomes (Jacobs & Jacobs, 2009; Stec,
2006).
The integration of information literacy into the
curriculum presents the most opportunity for successful knowledge transfer of
information literacy, as well as the highest barrier to entry for librarians
(Bean & Thomas, 2010; Brendle-Moczuk, 2006; Hall,
2008; Hollister & Coe, 2003; Jacobs & Jacobs, 2009; Weaver & Pier,
2010). Integration into the curriculum
has benefits both for acquired skills for the students as well as for exposure
and comfort with the librarian/instructor (Bean & Thomas, 2010; Gandhi,
2005; Weaver & Pier, 2010). Project Information Literacy research has determined
that a major need for undergraduate researchers is to have context for the
learning objectives. Providing instruction in the context of an assignment
fills a crucial need for undergraduates (Head & Eisenberg, 2009a).
Communication courses, by virtue of the secondary research required to prepare
basic speeches, are particularly good venues for curriculum-embedded information
literacy (Hall, 2008; Weaver & Pier, 2010). Creating speeches on a variety
of topics should allow students to explore a variety of resources. However, as
Head and Eisenberg have found, “Most respondents, whether enrolled in a two- or
four-year institution, almost always turned to a small set of information
resources, no matter which research context they were trying to satisfy” (2009b, p. 32).
The variety of assignments encourages expanding the
freshman students’ information toolkit, thereby increasing available tools for
future assignments. Freshman engineers generally are unskilled in the practice
of information literacy skills, as shown by the predominance of websites in
freshman bibliographies (Yu, Sullivan, & Woodall, 2006). Yu
et al. (2006) emphasized “finding, interpreting, and citing books, journal
articles, and Web sites” (p. 21) as the primary skills that are necessary for
freshman engineers. Hsieh & Knight (2008) concluded that the
traditional lecture is ineffective for teaching freshman and sophomore
engineers. The information literacy skills needed by first-year engineering
students are generally part of an introduction to design. Bursic
and Atman (1997) investigated the differences in information-gathering skills
between seniors working on a design project and those just beginning to learn
design. The designs from the first-year students are less complete and lack the
contextual awareness and understanding of usefulness and applicability of
designs that develop as a result of information gathering.
This study investigates the performance of first-year
engineering students during an introduction to a communications course when
exposed to two different modes of presentation, a just-in-time model and a
one-shot model. The literature indicates
that the just-in-time model of instruction is likely to be more effective at
building information literacy skills among the students (Hall, 2008; Martin,
2008; Weaver & Pier, 2010). Using a citation analysis model developed
specifically to examine bibliographies and outline deliverables of engineering
undergraduate students (Wertz, Ross, Fosmire, Cardella, & Purzer, 2011),
this article seeks to demonstrate that the mode of instruction results in an
increased information literacy of a students in a class and expands on a
work-in-progress conference paper (Van Epps & Sapp Nelson, 2012).
Aims
Research Question
Is there a noticeable difference in the quality, type
of resource, and completeness of the references in student assignments when
“just-in-time” instruction is used as opposed to a “one-shot” session?
The researchers’ hypotheses are that the sections
which received the just-in-time instruction will have more references and
better citations, in quality, type of resource, and completeness, than the
section which received the one-shot session at the start of the semester. All
three of the unique questions embedded in the research question as stated will
be tested and reported.
Methods
Setting/Courses
Researchers studied a group of first-year engineering
students enrolled in three sections of COM 114, Fundamentals of Speech
Communication, a course that focuses on oral
communication skills for students in all disciplines. Several sections of the
class are associated with learning communities
(Student Access Transition & Success, 2011a, 2011b), and as a result have
only engineering students enrolled. In preparation for assignments in COM 114,
two different course instructors contacted engineering librarians to have them
present library resources to assist students with the information gathering
portion of the four speech assignments to be completed during the semester. Two
sections received information in four 12-minute, integrated information
literacy instruction sessions (otherwise known as “just-in-time”), prior to the
assignment that the instruction was intended to support. One section was given
a traditional “one-shot” instruction session of 50 minutes during the second
week of the semester, before any of the assignments had been given. All of the
students received an equivalent duration of library instruction, just divided
differently. Instruction librarians used the same materials and supporting LibGuide for all sessions offered. The LibGuide
(http://guides.lib.purdue.edu/com114engr) uses four tabs, one for each
assignment. During the one-shot session, all four tabs were addressed during
the 50 minutes, while during the mini-lectures, the
librarian presented a single tab in each session. The LibGuide
and accompanying instruction provides guidance for the students in selecting
from a variety of sources appropriate within the context of the assignment. The
library instruction focused on the best resources for the types of speeches the
students would be giving, in support of the course objective of being able to
“use supporting material properly and effectively” when making a presentation
(http://www.cla.purdue.edu/communication/documents/COM114_Syllabus2011.pdf).
All COM 114 classes are taught in traditional lecture-style classrooms with a
computer and projector available in the front of the room. In all cases,
librarians used a demonstration/lecture-style of material presentation.
Description of Assignments
Table 1 presents an overview of each of the four
assignments, including the focus of the speech, expected deliverables, and an
indication of whether the assignment is for individual or group submission.
Table 1
Expected Deliverables for COM 114 Engineering Living
Learning Community Students
|
Assignment 1
|
Informative Speech – Engineering Innovation
|
Outline & Bibliography
|
Individual Submission
|
|
Assignment 2
|
Informative Speech – Process speech
|
Outline & Bibliography
|
Individual Submission
|
|
Assignment 3
|
Persuasive Speech – Charitable Donation
|
Outline & Bibliography
|
Individual
Submission
|
|
Assignment 4
|
Group Presentation – Description of an Engineering
Innovation
|
Outline & Bibliography
|
Group Submission (3-4 individuals)
|
See Appendix A for the complete assignment
descriptions.
Sample
The population consists of all students enrolled in three
engineering learning community sections of COM 114 included in this study
(n=75). The data consists of the student deliverables (outlines and
bibliographies) for all individual and group assignments in these sections. The
full data set for four assignments in the three sections provided a total of
234 outlines and bibliographies. Equal sample sizes were used to represent the
just-in-time and one-shot sections. This was done to avoid skewed data which
may have resulted from having two sections of the class receiving just-in-time
(JIT)/embedded teaching (n=51) and only one receiving one-shot instruction
(n=24). The sample analyzed consisted of five papers for each individual
assignment per teaching team and three of the group papers from each team. Researchers
randomly selected papers from the set of possible papers for each teaching
team, and used two methods to randomly select assignments to review, based on
how the data was delivered to the librarians. The assignments from the
mini-lectures classes were numbered sequentially and a random number generation
website was used to identify which assignments would be analyzed. For the
one-shot section assignments, copies were printed and researchers randomly
selected the correct number of assignments from the pile.
Data Analysis Procedure
After removing any identifying information,
instructors sent the student assignments to the librarians. The librarians then
coded the references in each bibliography for type of information resource
used, quality of the resource based on its scholarly content and lack of bias,
and the completeness of the reference included. The coding framework is a
modification of that used by Wertz et al. (2011) and can be found in Appendix
B. Librarians then compared the quality of resources used, the completeness of
citations, and the types of resources used for the particular assignment across
the sections for each instructional team. A simple Z-test for comparison of
difference between proportions was then used for each rating given to the
references.
While it was impossible to control for the
instructor/librarian teaching style variations and differences inherent from
having different students in each class, librarians coordinated the content
presented and used the same LibGuide to ensure all
students shared a common resource to return to for guidance as the semester
progressed. In this way researchers controlled as many variables as possible to
control easily. Though they did not use a set script for delivery of their
respective presentations, the two librarians involved have similar teaching
styles.
One difference between the sections is due to multiple
librarian visits that provide an opportunity for a quick follow-up conducted as
a guided conversation of not more than three minutes. This provided the
students a chance to reflect upon which tools they used in the previous
assignment, how successful they felt they were with the tools, and why those
tools were appropriate for the previous assignment. However, this discussion
did not impact upon the upcoming assignment, as each assignment required the
use of different resources. The discussion did establish that some features of
databases (i.e., Boolean logic and operators, limiters, and faceted searching)
reappear across tools.
Inter-rater Reliability
Researchers used a simple percent-agreement figure to
calculate the consensus estimate of inter-rater reliability (IRR). This
calculation involved taking the number of items coded identically by different
raters and dividing by the total number of items rated (Stemler,
2004). Both raters analyzed an initial sample of 8 items from the original 234
items, representing one of each assignment for each instructional method, using
the framework developed by Wertz et al. (2011). Each citation is rated for type
of material, quality of resource based on both audience and treatment (bias),
and completeness of the citation, creating four ratings for each citation.
After rating the initial eight items, the two librarians met, checked how their
use of the framework aligned, and discussed differences to develop a common
understanding of the coding framework. The consensus estimate of inter-rater
reliability was calculated as 85.1%; a value above 70% for IRR indicates strong
agreement between raters in application of the framework (Stemler,
2004). The largest source of variation between raters came in determining
complete, incomplete, and improper citations, which accounts for 44% of the
differences in codes applied. These differences were discussed so that raters
could reach consensus prior to coding the full data. Finding a sufficiently
high agreement rate between raters meant the authors could trust that the
individual analysis of the citations would be sufficiently similar and that
each could rate half of the references lists to distribute the load. Raters
then divided the student outlines based on which presentation method was used,
such that each rater had half of the students they taught and half from the
other class. More clarity on improper and incomplete reference and what
constitutes “easily traceable” could bring the IRR up to 91.6%. Defining a
reference as findable meant that basic users could locate the item, rather than
requiring the skills of a librarian, who would use the other bits of information
present and require more time to track it down.
Coding Framework Modifications
During discussion between the two raters to verify
agreement on use of codes, several modifications were proposed to the coding
framework. Some required modifications resulted from applying the framework to
non-engineering-specific assignments and clarifying the application for the
current research. A full description of the modifications made from the
original used in Wertz et al. (2011) can be found in the work-in-progress
conference paper (Van Epps & Sapp Nelson, 2012).
Results
References Analysis
The sample of 36 bibliographies included 233
references for analysis to determine student use of resources and the ability
to document those sources. The bibliographies included an average of 6.5
references per outline (233/36=6.5), which may seem high for first-year
students in a speech class. The high average can partially be explained by the
team assignment that contained an average of 16.8 references per outline
(101/6=16.8) for all teams, thus skewing the average. Without the team
assignment, the average number of references per outline is 4.4 (132/30=4.4).
While this is still slightly higher than expected, based on an average of 3.57
references in first-year student papers found by Knight-Davis and Sung (2008),
it is a reasonable number given the first assignment required two sources and
the remaining three assignments all asked for a minimum of three citations.
When analyzing the number of references, the teaching
team discovered that the one-shot session students averaged 3.87 (58/15=3.8667)
references per individual assignment, and that the mini-lectures session
students averaged 4.93 (74/15=4.9333) references per outline.
Resource Quality
Using the quadrants presented by Wertz et al. (2011),
as illustrated in Figure 1, the 233 references were rated for quality. Of the
full set of 233, 6 were removed from the quality assessment because they were
coded as general web (GWEB) resources or unknown (UNKN), and with a broken link
it was impossible to determine audience or intent of the resource.
Figure
1
Quality
of resources
As shown in Figure 2, the remaining 227 references
were analyzed: 34.8% were high quality (scholarly and informative), 59.5% were
medium quality (popular and informative, or scholarly and biased), and only
5.7% were low quality (popular and biased or entertainment).
Figure
2
Percent
for each quality
Cross-section Analysis
For the cross-section analysis, researchers divided
the assignments into two sets by type of library instruction the students received,
one-shot or four mini-lectures. The one-shot session included 109 references
and the mini-lectures session included 124 references. Both groups had three
citations that were removed due to broken links or unknown materials type.
The one-shot section presented the following
break-down of references by quality: 2.7% unable to be classified due to broken
links, 22.9% high quality, 65.2% medium quality, and 9.2% low quality. The
mini-lectures section presented a different pattern, with 43.6% high quality,
51.6% medium quality, and 2.4% low quality. Figure 3 shows the differences
between sections based on the quality of resources used. High (Z=3.31,
p<.001), medium (Z=-2.06, p<.05), and low (Z=2.24, p<.05) quality
ratings all show statistically significant differences between the sections.
Figure
3
Quality
of resources cited
Analysis of the references based on the type of
resources used (Figure 4) shows a statistically significant difference between
sections for use of periodicals (Z=6.52, p<.001) and Web resources (Z=-6.50,
p<.001). The mini-lectures section exhibits more use of periodical sources,
while the one-shot section used more Web resources.
Figure
4
Type
of resources
Figure 5 shows the variation of types of resources
used for each assignment in both groups. Each assignment shows a pattern very
similar to the overall type of resources analysis. The students who received
the mini-lectures show more variation in the types of resources used, while the
students who received the one-shot lecture do not appear to have changed their
information use patterns, consistently using mostly Web resources.
Figure
5
Types
of resources used by assignment
Figure 6 shows the differences between sections for
the completeness of the references. The only statistically significant
difference can be seen in the incomplete category (Z=2.03, p<.05) and may
reflect differences between raters more than differences in student abilities.
Librarians did not teach proper APA format, and identification of a reference
as complete required only the presence of all elements of the reference, not full
punctuation and formatting. For the majority of the assignments in both teams
(55.7% JIT; 60.6% one-shot), the students included all necessary elements for a
complete citation.
Figure
6
Completeness
of references analysis
Discussion
Results indicate that the presentation of information
just prior to the completion of an assignment led to an increased number of high-quality
resources being cited in student bibliographies. This supports the researchers’
hypothesis. Those students who were exposed to the just-in-time sessions
performed in a way that indicates that four 12-minute sessions throughout the
term improves knowledge transfer of information literacy skills. While the same
content was presented, the librarian offering the mini-lectures noted the
ability for quick follow-up from the preceding assignment and a progression in
the learning about library resources. While this practice generated a small
difference in delivery, it was a natural outgrowth of repeated visits to the
class and a desire from the students to understand why the sources for the
preceding assignment were not adequate for the current assignment.
The fact that the primary learning goals of the course
were not technical (i.e., a speech communications course) influenced the use of
popular and informative resources (medium quality at 59.9%). The researchers
were unsurprised by this result, particularly given the topic of assignment 3,
the persuasive speech about a charitable organization. Researchers coded 93.4%
of the resources as informative, while only a small percentage of the resources
were coded as biased, even for the charity assignment, a likely situation for
integrating biased information. Course instructors provided
the grading and feedback returned to the students. Therefore, the
authors have no indication of the content, quality, or consistency of feedback
that students were given on practice of information literacy skills as
evidenced in the outlines and bibliographies.
The analysis of the number of complete references per
assignment revealed consistent patterns across sections of 50%-65% complete on
all four assignments. Again, librarians did not teach reference formatting, and
completeness simply signals that all the necessary components were present. The
majority of complete references pattern holds even for the third assignment,
where the necessary resources were mostly websites. The authors see this as an
encouraging sign that students understand that more than just a URL is required
to identify websites in citations.
Conclusions
The statistical analysis of student bibliographies
indicates that the introduction of information literacy instruction for several
brief lectures in conjunction with gateways or assignments in the curriculum
improves outcomes. It cannot be determined if the changes in instruction model
are the sole reason for observed variations, or if the section instructors
impacted the outcomes through differences in teaching or grading.
This project presents intriguing possibilities for
future research. A continuation of the study reported here within a different
course, focusing on technical information, could explore if information
literacy skills practiced in speech class are transferred into technical
courses. Repeating a similar experiment, but using two or more sections of the
speech class taught by the same instructor, could indicate the extent that
instructor input impacts the outcomes of this experiment. Building upon the observation that the group
speech had much higher-quality resources and more complete citations, a study
may also investigate if the use of group work helps to improve the information
literacy skills of the group as a whole.
Acknowledgements
This paper is an extension of a conference paper that
presented preliminary findings and was published in the Proceedings of the 2012
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition by the same authors. The authors want to
thank Jennifer Hall and Elizabeth Wilhoit for
requesting the library instruction sessions and assisting the research by
providing anonymized copies of student work. The
research was approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board (IRB),
protocol number 1109011287.
References
Badke, W. (2009). Ramping
up the one-shot. Online, 33(2), 47-49.
Bean, T. M., & Thomas, S. N. (2010). Being like both: Library instruction methods that outshine the
one-shot. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 237-249.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497746
Brendle-Moczuk, D.
(2006). Encouraging students’ lifelong learning through graded information
literacy assignments. Reference Services Review, 34(4), 498-508. doi:10.1108/00907320610716404
Bursic, K. M., & Atman, C. J. (1997).
Information gathering: A critical step for quality in the design process. Quality Management Journal, 4(4), 60-75.
Byerly, G., Downey, A., & Ramin, L. (2006). Footholds and foundations: Setting freshmen on the path to lifelong learning.
Reference Services Review, 34(4), 589-598. doi:10.1108/00907320610716477
Fain, M. (2011). Assessing information literacy skills development in first year
students: A multi-year study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(2), 109-19.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.002
Gandhi, S. (2005). Faculty-librarian collaboration to
assess the effectiveness of a five-session library instruction model. Community
& Junior College Libraries, 12(4), 15-48. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J107v12n04_05
Hall, R. A. (2008). The “embedded” librarian in a freshman speech class:
Information literacy instruction in action. College & Research Libraries
News, 69(1), 28-30. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013 from http://crln.acrl.org/content/69/1/28.full.pdf+html
Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2009a). Finding context: What today’s college students say about conducting research in
the digital age. Seattle, WA. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013 from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_ProgressReport_2_2009.pdf
Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2009b). Lessons learned: How college
students seek information in the digital age. Seattle, WA. Retrieved 3 Mar.
2013 from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2009_finalv_YR1_12_2009v2.pdf
Hollister, C. V., & Coe, J. (2003). Current trends vs. traditional models: Librarians’ views on the methods
of library instruction. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 10(2),
49-63. doi:10.1300/J106v10n02_05#
Hsieh, C., & Knight, L. (2008). Problem-based learning for engineering students: An evidence-based
comparative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1),
25-30. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.007
Jacobs, H. L. M., & Jacobs, D. (2009). Transforming the one-shot library session into
pedagogical collaboration: Information literacy and the English composition
class. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(1),
72-82. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013
from http://rusa.metapress.com/content/q7508652x22vl4t1/fulltext.pdf
Knight-Davis, S., & Sung, J. S. (2008). Analysis of citations in undergraduate papers 1.
College & Research Libraries, 69(5), 447-458. Retrieved 3
Mar. 2013 from http://crl.acrl.org/content/69/5/447.full.pdf+html
Martin, J. (2008). The information seeking behavior of undergraduate
education majors: Does library instruction play a role? Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 3(4), 4-17. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013
from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/1838/3696
Orr, D., Appleton, M., & Wallin,
M. (2001). Information literacy and flexible delivery: Creating
a conceptual framework and model. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 457-463. doi: 10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00263-4
Stec, E. (2006). Using best practices: librarians, graduate students and
instruction. Reference Services Review, 34(1), 97-116. doi:10.1108/00907320610648798
Stemler, S. E.
(2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to
estimating interrater reliability. Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(4). Retrieved 7 Jan.
2013 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4
Student Access Transition & Success. (2011a). College of engineering learning communities.
Retrieved 5 Mar.
2012, from http://www.purdue.edu/sats/learning_communities/profiles/engineering/index.html
Student Access Transition & Success. (2011b). Learning communities. Retrieved 5 Mar. 2012, from http://www.purdue.edu/sats/learning_communities/index.html
Van Epps, A. S., & Sapp Nelson, M. (2012). One or Many? Assessing
different delivery timing for information resources relevant to assignments
during the semester: A work-in-progress. Proceedings
of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. San Antonio, TX:
American Society for Engineering Education.
Weaver, K. D., & Pier, P. M. (2010). Embedded information literacy in the basic oral communication course:
From conception through assessment. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3),
259-270. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497455
Wertz, R. E. H., Ross, M. C., Fosmire, M., Cardella, M. E., & Purzer, S.
(2011). Do students gather information to inform design decisions? Assessment with an authentic design task in first-year engineering.
Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Society
for Engineering Education (pp. AC 2011-2776). ASEE.
Yu, F., Sullivan, J., & Woodall, L. (2006). What can students’ bibliographies tell us? Evidence based information
skills teaching for engineering students. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 1(2), 12-22. Retrieved 3 Mar. 2013 from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/8/123
Appendix A
Description of Speech Assignments
Network Learning Community
COM 114 Speech Assignments
Speech #1: Informative
Length: 3-4 Minutes
Description: In this speech, you will present to the class about
one of the top Engineering innovations of the 20th century. You will
be given a list of topics from your instructor. You will explain to the class
what the innovation was and what impact this innovation has had on the way that
people live, work, or how we understand the world. This assignment will require
a small amount of research, and each presentation must include two sources.
This assignment emphasizes organization and delivery. It is important that you
present the material in an appropriate organizational pattern for an oral
presentation. You must have an introduction, body, and conclusion. This will
help your audience understand and retain the information you provide. You also
will be asked to pay specific attention to your delivery.
Speech #2: Informative
Length: 4-5 Minutes
Description: In this speech we will be focusing on how to report
information to different audiences with differing levels of knowledge. For this
assignment the class will be divided into groups of three. Each small group
will be assigned a machine, process, or technological innovation works. Each
individual in the group will also be assigned a target audience; fellow
engineers, potential consumers, or high school juniors. Although the groups of
three will have the same topic and will present on the same day, you do not
need to collaborate on your presentations. Your task will be to explain how
this machine, process, or technology works in a way that is appropriate for
your target audience. This presentation must be based on at least 3 sources and
use an appropriate organizational pattern and include a clear intro, body, and
conclusion.
Speech #3: Persuasive
Length: 5-6 Minutes
Description: For this presentation you are going to persuade your
classmates to support a charity or nonprofit organization by donation their time,
money, or tangible goods. You are going to persuade your audience to volunteer
or to donate money or other tangible goods. You will use a problem-solution
format. First explain what the problem is and then explain why your audience
should support the organization you chose to help that problem. For example,
you might want to persuade your audience to donate blood. You would first talk
about the problem which is the need for blood and possible blood shortages and
then explain how being a blood donor can help solve that problem. You can also
talk about the personal benefits one might get from supporting the cause you
chose. These can be national or local organizations.
Speech #4: Group Presentation
Length: 30-35 Minutes
Notes: 1 typed sheet OR 1 4x6 notecard per person
Description: In this speech, you must take various
concepts/products (a car, a computer, a home, a classroom, a restaurant, etc.)
and completely RETHINK the object or space to make it more user-friendly and/or
efficient. You must develop visuals of your new product so the audience can
visualize it. Your audience for this speech is a venture capital firm, so be
sure to “pitch” your product as well as you can.
Appendix B
Coding Framework for Speech Outlines
2013 Van Epps and Nelson.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.