home

=Welcome to the speech learning space for CMST 200. On this learning space you will find the grading rubrics for class, examples of speech outlines and writing tools, a few practice exercises to test your speech skills, and helpful tools, links, and techniques for creating and delivering speeches. The Cognitive Flexibility learning model will be used to guide learners through this learning space. It is my hope that in providing various examples and tools of speeches and speech writing students will better be able to connect the discussions we have in class with cognitive understanding of practical applications of the material being discussed. Please feel free to leave comments and feedback on the learning space survey. =

A Diagram of the Cognitive Flexibility learning model I made using Camstudio: media type="youtube" key="I4rMljgTAAI" width="425" height="350"

A link describing the CFL model as well as an example of CFL in practice: [|Discription of Cognitive Flexibility] [|The Wisconsin card sort experiment]

Introductory Learning Exercise: The Power of Speech

Speeches can unite entire nations or divide them. Listed below are two examples of speeches from two well known orators with opposite ideological principles. Can you pick out the differences between the rhetoric the orators use and their styles of delivery? Can you pick out any similarities?

Watch Minutes 12:30-17:16 media type="youtube" key="t8AxgXxmgFM" width="425" height="350"

Watch Minutes 1:40 - 4:00 media type="youtube" key="eGhdX1SI3KY" width="425" height="350"

Although both orators carry on rhetorical arguments about race, Hitler's concepts of racial unity are ideologically opposite of Martin Luther King's. Hitler's ideological approach to race and national leadership are based upon exclusionary grounds while Martin Luther King's ideological approach to race and leadership are based upon inclusionary grounds of equality. Hitler tends to appear to be far more engaged in his speeches because of his excessive gestures and lavish flourishes of his hands and arms while Martin Luther King seems to practice more poise and restraint while speaking. Although typically it is considered poor speaking practice to carry out speeches with excessive gestures many consider Hitler's exuberance characteristic of his own charismatic speaking style and desire to forcefully insight the unified will of Germany. Critically speaking, one could say that Hitler could afford overt, willful, gestures while addressing mass audiences because of his position of power and dominance over society; while in Martin Luther King's case the very fact of being an oppressed minority under the pressure of centuries old racial inequality and violence necessitated an approach to speaking that was calm, stalwart, and poised in its tone and appearance. While it is often easy to separate differences between subjects that we tend to feel represent good and evil, often the sign of higher level thinking and training is the ability to find commonalities in seemingly opposite approaches. While both Hitler and Martin Luther King share different ideologies concerning race, both their speeches are similar in their call for unity of national spirit, their “a priori” (beforehand) claims to truth, and their calls for the assemblage of the masses under one common banner in order to make a better tomorrow for everyone, especially their youth. This all goes to show, while the delivery, beliefs, and ideologies of orators can often be very different, there still can be seen distinct similarities in the overall approach of speakers whose goals are to influence the hearts, minds, and actions of the masses.