Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Sign up
Share
help_outline
help
Pricing
Request Info
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: Campiagn Speech rubric
find rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
edit
print
share
Copy to my rubrics
Bookmark
test run
assess...
delete
Do more...
Campiagn Speech
COMM 110: Persuasion Speech
Candidates will give a five-minute campaign speech that may incorporate portions of their PowerPoints or videos.
Rubric Code:
A6BX32
By
aakennedy
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject:
Communication
Type:
Presentation
Grade Levels:
9-12
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
Campaign Speech Grading
Needs Improvement
(N/A)
Fair
(N/A)
Good
(N/A)
Excellent
(N/A)
Content/Organization
Introduction
Needs Improvement
The candidate failed to introduce the speech OR the introduction was not useful in indicating what the speech was about.
Fair
The candidate introduced the speech, but some details were unclear. The introduction lacked an attention getter and/or a preview of main points.
Good
The candidate introduced the speech adequately, including an attention getter and a preview of the main points of the speech. Claim wasn't clearly expressed. Relevance of topic to audience needs and interests was somewhat apparent.
Excellent
ATTENTION STEP:
Excellent attention-getter. Candidate related to audience, credibility established, gavee very brief introduction, and stated claim, (i.e. main idea)previewed the main points. Clearly stated the relevance of topic to audience needs and interests.
Body
Needs Improvement
The speech was difficult to follow due to a lack of organization. Little detail was given to support the main points. Difficult to identify introduction, body, and conclusion.
Fair
Organization was lacking and details were missing to the extent that some persuasive impact was compromised. Transitions need work.
Good
Good general organization but some steps weren't clear or well-developed. Transitions were okay, but not as unique or distinct as they could be.
Excellent
Main points work within the steps and are clearly distinguished with supporting details. Transitions are effectively used for coherent movement from point to point.
PATHOS (emotional appeal)
Needs Improvement
Fails to appropriately appeal to audience emotions. No attempt to use vivid or descriptive language to capture audience emotions.
Fallacies used instead of ethical appeals. No obvious use of rhetorical devices.
Fair
Minimal appeal to audience emotions (anger, fear, status, compassion, etc.) for persuasive goal; fails to observe ethical responsibilities. Creates some effective imagery through language. At least one rhetorical device was used.
Good
Appeals to audience emotions (anger, fear, compassion, status, etc.) to achieve the persuasive goal, but fails to use enough pathos to really move audience, didn't completely observe ethical responsibilities. Creates some effective imagery through language. At least two rhetorical devices were used.
Excellent
Effectively and ethically appeals to audience emotions (anger, status, power, fear, compassion, etc.) to achieve the persuasive goal. Vivid and emotive language effectively used to create imagery to engage audience emotionally. At least three rhetorical devices were used.
LOGOS (logical appeal)
Needs Improvement
Arguments lack relevant and valid evidence. Information is incorrect and/or outdated. Many fallacies are present in the reasoning. Sources either aren't credible or not cited in presentation.
Fair
Arguments lack some relevant and solid evidence. Credibility of sources and/or information is questionable. Many fallacies are present in the reasoning. Oppositional arguments not present or not very apparent. Less than two sources are credible and/or cited aloud.
Good
Some arguments are sufficiently supported but some unsupported assertions are also present. Minor reasoning present. Oppositional argument somewhat addressed. Most sources are credible and cited aloud.
Excellent
Presents sound arguments to support major claim. Arguments are supported with sufficient, relevant and valid evidence. Reasoning is free of fallacies.Addressed oppositional arguments in a fair and persuasive manner. All four sources are cited aloud and are credible.
Conclusion
Needs Improvement
No brakelight, conclusion ended rather abruptly. Most parts of conclusion were missing.
Fair
Brakelight was weak or not present; the speaker concluded the speech in a disorganized fashion. Two or more important components were not present.
Good
Brakelight alerted audience to the presentation conclusion.The speaker recaped main points but missed at least one key component of conclusion (call to action, clincher, tie-back to intro...etc.)
Excellent
Brakelight alerted audience to the presentation conclusion. The speaker summarized the main points, tied back to the introduction to bring the speech full circle, and left the audience with a specific call to action and a powerful clincher
Delivery
Voice
Needs Improvement
Audience had difficulty hearing and/or understanding much of the speech due to monotone or inappropriate variation of vocal characteristics. Inconsistent with verbal message. Excessive fluency errors interfered with message comprehension. Excessive use of vocalized fillers.
Fair
The student could be heard most of the time but at certain points were inaudible and/or inarticulate. Little pitch variation. Pacing was too slow/fast. Verbal fillers were noticable and frequent.
Good
Some limited variation of vocal characteristics. Use of pace, pitch, power and pauses seemed inconsistent at times. Some verbal fillers.
Excellent
Natural variation of vocal characteristics (pace, pitch, power, pauses, articulation) in Standard English to heighten interest and match message appropriately. Few, if any, verbal fillers.
Eye Contact
Needs Improvement
The speaker seldom looked at the audience. Reads speech from notes. Avoided eye contact with audience. Only occasional and sporadic glances.
Fair
Conspicuous use of speaker notes. Seems disengaged from audience for noticeable periods of time.
Good
The speaker looked up occasionally and focused on just a few people during the speech. Some use of speaker notes. Seemed a bit disengaged from audience for short periods of time.
Excellent
Consistently and effectively used eye contact to establish rapport with audience. Inconspicuous use of speaker notes and effective use of scanning to established an expanded zone of interaction.
Body/Appearance
Needs Improvement
Candidate's appearance had no link to the character. The speaker's posture and expression indicated a lack of enthusiasm or comfortableness with the speech. Some gestures were distracting.
Fair
Candidate's appearance had littel connection to character. Facial expressions seemed forced or absent. Stiff or unnatural use of nonverbal behaviors. Limited use of gestures to reinforce verbal message.
Good
Candidate's appearance related to the character. Facial expressions were comfortable.
Gestures were fine--though were limited. Increase use of gestures to reinforce verbal message.
Excellent
Candidate's appearance was an accurate and creative portrayal of the character. Expressive, dynamic, and natural use of gestures, posture and facial expressions to reinforce and enhance meaning.
Visuals/Props
Needs Improvement
No visual used.
Fair
Visuals only slightly helped in understanding some of message. PPT had too many words per slide and/or had several typos. Videos, if used, may have exceeded 1 minute of total speech time.
Good
Visuals helped in understanding some of message. PPT, if used, was easy to see and contained few errors. Videos, if used, may have slightly exceeded 1 minute of total speech time.
Excellent
Visual served as an aid to help us understand the importance of something logical and meaningful. If PPT was used, it was error-free and easy to see. Videos didn't exceed 1 minute of total speech time.
Timing
Needs Improvement
1:00-3:00 over required time.
Fair
31-1:00 over required time
Good
15-30 seconds over required time
Excellent
kept within required time frame
Written Preparation Work
Work in Progress
2.5 pts
Fair
5 pts
Good
7.5 pts
Excellent
10 pts
Outline
Work in Progress
Complete lack of clarity with: Title, Specific Purpose, Central Idea, Introduction, Body, Conclusion, Transitions. Inconsistent symbols & indentation.Main points, Subpoints not in full sentences. No sources cited.
Fair
Rarely/inconsistently had clear and properly labeled Title, Specific Was infrequently clear with Purpose, Central Idea, Introduction, Body, Conclusion, Transitions. Rarely had Main points, Subpoints in full sentences.Few or no sources cited.
Good
Most of the time, clear and properly labeled Title, Specific Purpose, Central Idea, Introduction, Body, Conclusion, Transitions. Mostly used consistent symbols & indentation. Most Main points, Subpoints in full sentences. Most sources cited.
Excellent
Consistent with clearly and properly labeled Title, Specific Purpose, Central Idea, Introduction, Body, Conclusion, Transitions. Consistent symbols & indentation.Main points, Subpoints in full sentences. All Sources cited.
Audience Analysis
Work in Progress
Analysis is not typed and is lacking any substantial analysis and specificity. No customizations and adaptations for this audience were made. Maslow was not used to consider how content would meet audience needs.
Fair
Analysis is not typed and is less than adequate in terms of analysis and specificity. Minor, if any, customizations and adaptations for this audience. Maslow was not used to consider how content would meet audience needs.
Good
Analysis is typed and adequate. Some thought went into each part of the analysis and student provided customizations and adaptations for this audience. Maslow was used to consider how content would meet audience needs
Excellent
Analysis is typed and thorough. Careful thought went into each part of the analysis and provided specific customizations and adaptations for this audience. Maslow was used to consider how content would meet audience needs.
Works Cited
Work in Progress
No Works Cited sheet or Works Cited has mininal sources listed; not in alphabetical order, Not formated using the APA guidelines.
Fair
Four or less questionably credible sources. Not listed in alphabetical order and/or not formated using the APA guidelines.
Good
Four credible sources listed not in alphabetical order and/ formated using the APA guidelines.
Excellent
Four credible sources listed in alphabetical order, formated using the APA guidelines.
Keywords:
persuasion, speech, presentation
Subjects:
Communication
(General)
Types:
Presentation
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More Communication rubrics
More Presentation rubrics
Do more with this rubric:
Preview
Preview this rubric.
Edit
Modify this rubric.
Copy
Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.
Print
Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize
Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark
Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run
Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade
Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate
Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish
Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email
Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss
Discuss this rubric with other members.
Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.
Only with iRubric
tm
.
Copyright © 2024
Reazon Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
n232
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.