ปฏิทินโครงการ/กิจกรรมไตรมาสที่3(ก.ค. - ก.ย. 60)

 

 กำหนดการจัดโครงการ “ประกวดสุนทรพจน์ภาษาอังกฤษระดับอุดมศึกษา

” ณ ห้องประชุมราชพฤกษ์ อาคารเฉลิมพระเกียรติ 84 พรรษา คณะมนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏสุราษฎร์ธานี การเข้าร่วมประกวดสุนทรพจน์ภาษาอังกฤษ หัวข้อ “Youth Power in ASEAN+3” ทั้งนี้ สาขาวิชาภาษาอังกฤษจะประชาสัมพันธ์โครงการไปยังมหาวิทยาลัยต่าง ๆ เพื่อให้นักศึกษาจากต่างมหาวิทยาลัยได้เข้าร่วมการแข่งขันในโครงการประกวดสุนทรพจน์ภาษาอังกฤษระดับอุดมศึกษาด้วย

 

 

วันที่ 12 กุมภาพันธ์

2561 08.00 – 08.30 น.       ลงทะเบียนผู้เข้าร่วมโครงการ

08.30 – 09.00 น.                พิธีเปิดโครงการ โดย คณบดีคณะมนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์

09.00 – 11.30 น.                ประกวดสุนทรพจน์ภาษาอังกฤษ หัวข้อ “Youth Power in ASEAN+3”

11.30 – 12.00 น.                 ประกาศผลผู้ชนะการประกวดสุนทรพจน์ภาษาอังกฤษ พร้อมมอบเงินรางวัล และเกียรติบัตร

- รางวัลชนะเลิศ

- รางวัลรองชนะเลิศ อันดับ 1

- รางวัลรองชนะเลิศ อันดับ 2

- รางวัลชมเชย

12.00 น.                            พิธีปิดโครงการ

 

 

 

 

 

Speech Competition Rubric

 

Candidate:.................................................................................................               Judge:..............................................................................

 

Criteria

Outstanding

(9 - 10 pts.)

Good

(7 - 8 pts)

Satisfactory

(5 - 6 pts.)

Improvement Warranted (0 - 4 pts)

Points Awarded

Relevance

All ideas presented related directly to the topic at hand with no extraneous off-topic remarks noted.

Although some ideas lacked relevance to the topic, these did not deter from the presentation's overall effectiveness in terms of addressing the topic.

Overall, the speaker addressed the topic in a manner that was clearly discernible to the audience but a number of extraneous comments limited the performance's overall effectiveness.

The speaker was off-topic numerous times and the audience experience difficulty discerning how some ideas related to the topic.

 

Interest & Creativity

The speaker's approach to the topic demonstrated inventiveness & creativity and resulted in a performance that captivated and maintained the audience's attention throughout.

The speaker's approach to the topic showed a reasonable degree of creativity that captured the audience's attention at times but did not always maintain it throughout

The speaker's approach to the topic was reasonable and adequate but only captured and maintained the audience's attention some of the time.

The speaker's approach to the topic was altogether predictable and lacked originality.  Consequently, the speaker failed to capture and maintain the audience's attention for much of the allotted time.

 

Organization

The presentation was extremely well organized with a clearly discernible introduction, main body and conclusion each of which were linked smoothly and flawlessly with effective use of transitional markers.

Overall, the presentation was well-organized, coherent and clearly delineated but lacked the degree of cohersion one would expect from an outstanding performance.

The presentation was reasonably well-organized but cohesion and coherence suffered at times from unnecessary repetition and/or the lack of transitional markers.

The presentation was difficult to follow at times as the speaker tended to jump from one idea to another without supporting his/her ideas.

 

Grammar & Lexical Resource

The speaker demonstrated both proficiency and accuracy in terms of grammar and the vocabulary used was entirely appropriate for both the topic and the audience.

The speaker's command of both grammar and vocabulary was entirely adequate but some lapses, while not impeding from communication, did detract from the presentations overall effectiveness.

The speaker showed  reasonable proficiency but numerous grammatical errors and/or problems with word choice and form made understanding difficult at times.

The presentation was often difficult to understand due to numerous errors in grammar, word choice and word form.

 

Pronunciation

The speaker's pronunciation was easily understood throughout. A wide range of phonological features were used to convey meaning effectively.

Although L1 accent was  evident,  this has minimal effect on intelligibility.

The speaker's pronunciation was reasonable throughout and the audience experienced no problem understanding what the speakers was saying.  Nonetheless, the speaker's range of phonological features was limited and forced the listener to focus carefully to discern what was being said at times.

The speaker produced the features of spoken English

well enough to be understood throughout though there was occasional strain on the

listener; e.g., mispronunciation causes temporary confusion for the listener.

 

The speaker produced some acceptable features

of spoken English, but overall control was limited and affected intelligibility. There were often "patches" of speech that caused severe strain for the listener.

 

 

 

Criteria

Outstanding

(9 - 10 pts.)

Good

(7 - 8 pts)

Satisfactory

(5 - 6 pts.)

Improvement Warranted (0 - 4 pts)

Points Awarded

Voice modulation & volume

The speaker used his/her voice effectively to communicate meaning clearly, add exphasis to key points and show enthusiasm towards the topic throughout most of the presentation. 

Generally, the speaker used his/her voice effectively to communicate meaning, add emphasis and show enthusiasm towards the topic but some lapses in terms of rhythm, tempo and loudness detracted from the speaker's overall performance.

The speaker used his/her voice effectively at times but not consistently.  There were some "patches" of speech that were difficult to hear and/or understand.

There were numerous times during the presentation when it was difficult to hear and/or understand what the speaker was saying.

 

Nonverbal communication

The speaker used a wide variety of nonverbal cues such as kinesthetic movement, gestures, eye contact and facial expressions to communicate meaning and "color' the presentation.  This helped to capture and maintain the audience's attention throughout. 

The speaker regularly used some nonverbal cues to assist in capturing and maintaining the audience's attention but did not do so with a consistent degree of naturalness and ease. 

The speaker used a limited number of nonverbal cues to assist the presentation.  A strength in one area (e,g., maintaining eye contact) may have been offset by a weakness  in another area (e.g., a rigid posture).

The speaker's use of nonverbal cues did little in the way of assisting the presentation and may have in fact detracted from it (e.g., communicated nervousness & apprehension)

 

Confidence

The speaker exuded confidence and enthusiasm towards both the topic and the audience throughout the entire presentation. 

The speaker appeared reasonably confident and self-assured throughout most, if not all, of the presentation.  If mistakes were made, he/she recovered from them with ease.

The speaker appeared confident much of the time but mistakes or miscues often resulted in noticeable nervousness.

The speaker appeared nervous throughout much of the presentation. 

 

Time Used

No more than 30 seconds above or below the time allotted

No more than 45 seconds above or below the time allotted

No more than 1 minutes above or below the time allotted

Beyond 1 minute above or below the time allotted

 

Overall impression

Outstanding/Excellent - a pleasure to have witnessed

Good - a few mistakes but overall the presenter did a commendable job

OK -- the presenter shows potential that would be facilitated by more practice and instruction

Poor -- the presenter requires much help and a lot of practice in several key areas

 

 

Total =

 

.........../100