Become a Great Public Speaker

48 comments:

Dana Raine said...

I have conducted a few interviews in the past. When I was in school in Boston, I was a writer for our school’s fashion magazine. I was writing an article about an environmentally friendly interior design firm in the Boston area. I had to interview the owner of the firm to get information so that I could write my article. Because our schedules didn’t coincide, I ended up doing an email interview. I wish that I could have met with her face to face, or at least on the phone. The email interview was nice because we were able to do it on our own time, and neither of us had to feel like we were being put on the spot. But an in person interview would have been more effective because I would have been able to ask follow-up questions, and get to know her and her firm better. Overall, the interview was successful. I got the information I needed, and she gave detailed responses to my questions

September 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM

NielsenPorter said...

I think that Secondary Sources are better than Primary Sources. I wrote my final research paper for English 2010 in one day, research included. I did it on a topic I really didn't know anything about (Illegal Immigration), and I was only able to do so because of the internet. I vaguely remember doing research without the internet. I did a report on Pearl Harbor in Junior High; I used an Encyclopedia, a book, and I talked to a relative who had been there. It took me weeks to gather enough information and my report was still very shallow. Nowadays I could log onto Youtube and learn more in an hour than that weeks worth of research, and have better information. Because people have been able to trade so much information through the internet things I could access would have facts coming from sixty to a hundred plus different sources, many of them primary. Although the internet is flooded with worthless opinion, there is such a plethora of information, so easily accessible, I'd have a hard time writing anything without it's aid. And although Primary Sources are viable and worthwhile, they tend to be biased and clouded by opinion. But by using Secondary Sources, we can find information prepared by someone who combined Primary Sources leaving out the bias.

September 9, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Jeff Worthington said...

I would like to respond to question #1: I do feel like using a primary source in many instances is better then secondary sources. The reasons that I think this is with a primary source you get to formulate your own opinions or conclusions and I think you can get a better idea of what really happened. I think that it is easier to get the facts straight rather then hearing the facts thru someone else or the media which I think often skewes facts and stories to make things more dramatic. For example I've commented on this before in a business stats class I have here at Dixie we read an article saying how the median salary for lawyers coming out of law school in the top 15 schools nation wide was around $161,000. Which although may seem credible when the research was actually done the median salary was closer to $140,000 ish. I think that research progject for me was a great example of how secondary sources can skew data in stories to make things sound better or worse than what things actually are.

September 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Katie Bybee said...

In my opinion, primary sources such as interviews and surveys are not better than secondary sources. Interviews and surveys can be effected by many different variances. I know that interviews and surveys have a lot to do with who is giving them. They might be biased towards one side. This pushing the person being interviewed or surveyed to maybe be pressured to answer the questions in a certain way. Secondary sources are researched and backed by sources. Libraries, books, newspapers, and credible web sites are all great secondary sources. They are something you can count on. Although I don’t agree that you should use most government publications as a secondary source. I have a roommate this is absolutely obsessed with Glen Beck. I am also a Glen Beck fan, but she believes every single word that comes out of his mouth. I mean hard core! I personally don’t think you can believe everything someone says when they are involved in politics!

September 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Penelope Davis said...

Truthfully, the most recent interview I had to do was for our Introduction Speech. I had to interview someone in our class that I didn’t know at all, to find out some information about them. It shouldn’t have been hard at all, but I felt like I just wasn’t prepared. The hardest part for me was coming up with questions to ask them. I didn’t want to just ask them the normal questions that everyone asks. I wanted to have unique answers to make the speech more interesting. But I guess how you get unique answers is by asking unique questions. So, I needed to come up with some original questions and fast. I did feel good about my shorthand, though. Since this wasn’t a big, serious interview, of course I didn’t have a recorder, so I needed to write my questions and answers quickly, but in a way that I would be able to go back and tell what is trying to be said. In the end, I felt like I had some fun, interesting information about my person, but I definitely didn’t have enough. So, next time I will ask more questions, so that I can have more to choose from and be able to actually fill my time limit.

September 10, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Cindy Rueckert said...

Do you feel that using Primary Sources is easier or better than Secondary Sources? Why or why not?

I feel that Primary Sources are better than Secondary Sources. I feel that they are more reliable because you cut out the "he said, she said." Sometimes I think about it in the opposite way. If someone wanted to know something about me, like my habits, my hobbies, my religion, or my family, I would want them to come directly to me rather than asking someone else, regardless of how well they know me. Outsiders can study a lot and think critically, but they will never fully understand as well as an insider. This is why I like Primary Sources.

However, Secondary Sources are easier, which is why people use them so much. We don't all have the time or motivation to research every little detail from a Primary Source, especially when someone else already has! We just have to make sure the source is credible.

September 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Kati Mason said...

1. I think that using interviews and surveys could be easier, because you don't have to spend so much time looking up information and hoping that it's right, rather than meeting with people who know what they are talking about and getting their knowledge along with surveys that have involved a great number of people. I also think that the secondary sources are also a really big help, because you can get a lot of information on your topic rather than just one or two interviews, you could look up interviews on YouTube or something, so I am kind of in the middle with that, I think that both of the sources are actually very helpful when looking for information on your topic.

September 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Machi Johnson said...

Question 2
In high school I was really involved with my TV Broadcasting class and was really into interviewing/ being an anchor for our school. My favorite thing ever was to go out with a camera man, microphone, and question and/or story in which I wanted to show our school. I always made sure I was prepared with the questions I wanted to ask, and the point I was trying expose. For example, if I was going to do a story whether or not our school should have a longer Christmas break, I'd make sure I would interview a good mix of students and faculty and know what questions I needed to ask to present both sides fairly. There was a couple instances where I went out not prepared at all and those stories never turned out as good as my prepared ones because they were more random and not as in-depth thought went into them.

September 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Rebecca Deering said...

I believe primary sources are better than using secondary sources to a certain point depending on what kind of audience your trying to reach out to and how big. Conducting an interview, you have the chance to have a one on one conversation with the source it self. You have the chance to experience and feel their emotions and feelings when they answer a specific question and you’ll get a better understanding on why they feel they way they do on a personal level. What’s also great about interviewing people is that your answers aren’t distorted. You receive the truth and not information changed by people who “think” they know what there talking about (like the internet). Also, you could even gain credibility; you never know you might hit it off with the interviewee, become friends and gain credibility. Surveys are difficult because you receive information from the person so its true, you don’t have to worry about it being false but if your trying to reach out to the world, the Internet is the way to go!

September 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Cody Ketcher said...

2.Have you ever had to interview someone? What was your experience with it? Why did you have to interview them? What would you do differently next time?
I am a manger at the resturant that I work at to help me get through school. One of my responsibilities is to hire cooks and bus boys. I have to admit that the first time I was doing an interview I found a little nerve racking. But slowly I started to calm down and relaxing a little and the questions i wanted to ask started to come out. After the first few interviews, I was always feeling like "shoot i should of asked them that or I could of gotten to know them a little better". Now when going through the interview process I always review what i am going to be asking and going through senarios in my head according to there response. This process helps me be able to feel more relaxed while doing the interviewing. I have a pretty good track record of the workers that i have hired and I take pride in knowing that i was the one who interviewed them.

September 11, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Rhianna W said...

1.Do you feel that using Primary Sources (Interviews and Surveys) is easier or better than Secondary Sources? Why or why not?

While primary sources are a good way to gather information, I don't feel they are very fast. It takes a lot more time and effort to come up with questions, and actually get out there and ask them. Maybe if you were interviewing someone you lived with or a really close friend it would be simple, but talking to random people can be stressful. I'm pretty comfortable talking to strangers but this could be difficult for others. I feel secondary sources are much easier and accessible. When you’re a procrastinator such as myself, I know I might never actually get to the interviewing, nonetheless actually make up questions! I prefer knowing what I'm looking for and getting online or picking up a few books to find some information. Some times you go the wrong direction with research and that can be a setback, but overall getting on the computer is a lot easier. Just make sure you have an idea of what you need and use specific searches and reliable databases. Secondary Searches are much easier and faster.

September 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Nick Marinko said...

Question 3
I feel that there can be a lot of contention when people talk about anything that they are debating. In many terms in our culture its all about 1 upping the other person or the need to be right. By talking about a subject and finding a statistic that in your own eyes benefits what your talking about it can seem like it is a good source but there might not be enough actual evidence or errors in the statistics used to actually benefit your paper. By having multiple statistics and showing the errors of them or to try to view both sides of the argument it can really help in your own credibility. By having multiple sources if someone asks a question about it or doesnt believe someting, you can pull out that other statistic and be able to see what that can help to the discussion. So there are really numerous ways to resolve the conflict but the main one is to have sufficient evidence and from a very believable source if anything to help your argument.

September 11, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Catharine Carter said...

When I was in high school I had to interview someone who was really old and had been around for many decades. I don't remember who it was I interviewed or what the purpose of the interview was now, but basically I learned about how life was different now from when they were growing up. We discussed inflation and how gas had only been probably a quarter as opposed to the $3.50+ it is now. Side note: I remember when it was a dollar and I miss paying that price! Anyhow, I admired them for all they had gone through in their life. Anyhow, it was probably the last time I could remember really interviewing someone. I'm not sure if I would do things any differently. It was more than ten years ago. I haven't really had a need to interview anyone since then. Aside from this time a few months ago where I did a mock interview for a job with a friend of mine, but that wasn't for any particular purpose, and we were just playing around anyway. I suppose I need more interviewing experience?

September 11, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Katie Greener said...

My favorite interview I ever had to do was with Dixie's very own Dixie. Dixie is this 70year old woman that works in the cafe, and has for the last 30 years. It was for my English class last year. I had to interview someone I didn't know, but interested me; and that was Dixie. She was the friendliest lady you would ever meet. There was never a day I went into the cafe and she wasn't there, except when she had eye surgery. She knew everyone by their name, and it seemed like her entire job was just to talk to the kids. I had to interview her! I had to write a bio on her life and it could be on whatever I wanted, or whatever she wanted to tell me. The interview went really well, and I got good information; but as a good reporter looking back at it, I feel like I should have asked deeper into some of her stories. She gave me good ones, but I bet if I would have asked better questions I would have gotten better stories. It's all about the way you ask something. Next time I interview someone, like even when we did or intros in this class I need to ask people some of their favorite memories or something, you never know what they'll say.

September 11, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Chijindu Ubani said...

Using primary sources such as interviews and surveys are easier and better than secondary sources in most ways because as a source the information has to be very close to accurate if not spot on, and when you interview someone its a personal one on one communication so the person being interviewed has a subconcious mindset to treat it like a private conversation without gimmicks or purposly lieing, and on the other side of reading it through the media which is very relyable for entertaining material but the accuriousy of the truth is slim to none in most everyday cases, even if the story happens to be correct theres still the matter of the media spinning it to be biost toward one mood or image for the public to concieve even though theres alot more the story than a secondary source could put out without the interest in the audience being deminished, so the authenticity of an interview has alot more conciderable details and human intelect tied to it

September 12, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Ryan Tippetts said...

When it comes down to Primary verse Secondary Sources I personally would say that Secondary Sources would be easier. All the work has already been done for you. They've come up with the questions, had the interviews, sourced the material, the whole nine yards. The only task you have to complete when it comes to Secondary Sources is to find a credible source. I personally feel that would be a much easier task than to do all the work yourself plus find out in the end that because you personally did the interview you've lost credibility because you yourself haven't gained it yet. With the additional time you've saved from trying to prepare Primary Sources you can use that time to prepare your speech. You will be better prepared, feel more confident, and deliver a well formatted speech. Of course all this information i just gave comes from a primary source, so who knows if it's credible. :)

September 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Camille Ipson said...

Last year for a marketing class we had to look into a company and interview employees and put together a pro’s and con’s list of the workplace and how to create a better workplace for that company. My group chose Les Schwab. I enjoyed the project a lot because it was very hands-on and it was fun to talk to the people in person. I called ahead and got to meet with one of the managers and interviewed them from one of the locations around the corner. I learned a lot about the company because I got the opportunity for him to show me around the work place. I called two other locations and interviewed two other men on the phone. I wish I could have gone to those locations to see the workplace to compare one from another. If I could go back I think that would have helped me see what things needed to be helped around each location.

September 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Court Garr said...

Personally I feel like using primary sources is much easier than using secondary sources. The reason for this being that primary sources are unfiltered and they give the information on a subject, or the facts of an event as they perceived them. Also, it makes you more credible when speaking. For example, if someone was looking on what it is like to live in Europe, they could cite a secondary source such as an interview conducted by a researcher, and they would get some good information. However, if they used a primary source, conducting the interview themselves, they would be able to hear the experience firsthand, feel the emotion in their words, and hear the inflections in the interviewee’s voice. This would make the information gathered more credible in my opinion and it would allow the interviewer to convey their speech more effectively in the long run.

September 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Holly Marie said...

I will be answering question one and lead into number two. I don't think one general source is better than the other, specifically speaking however, you may find that one source is better or more appropriate for your specific topic. For me I think it is good to have both, I really think it depends on the situation whether one is easier than other. I think it is more interesting and maybe more fun to do interviews or surveys. I had to do an interview for an English paper in high school and I thought it was pretty good! I interviewed someone I knew which I think made me more comfortable but at the same time it can possibly make you bias to information if you're not careful. The only thing I would have changed was to prepare more beforehand and ask more questions. I think sometimes when we get to nervous or stressed, we cut ourselves short or quit. I am trying to get better at this!

September 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Alyssa Mae said...

Needing or being able to interview someone has come along for me a few times. The two instances that were most recent both had different outcomes for me. In high school I did a very in depth report and presentation on Italy. My aunt has been there so I formulated twenty questions that would help my topic immensely and the answers that she gave me were perfect. I had taken the time prior to interviewing her to assess which sort of things I wanted to know and how in depth the answers would need to be to fill the areas that I needed them to. Most recently was the introduction speech for this class. The information given to me was great but after listening to a few speeches the day of presentation I realized that I had not asked near enough questions and that I should have taken more time to find more depth through my "interview." Being able to look back and remember how helpful my aunt's interview was and then comparing to the lack of preparation prior to interviewing for this class has helped me to realize how beneficial an interview will be with the proper amount of prep time.

September 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Wesley Bledsoe said...

Generally speaking I think using secondary sources an easier way to gather information. Someone has already done the work for you and it will save you time and resources. Using a secondary source is a great way to get the big picture of the topic or see it from a different perspective. That can be important when giving a speech to people who don’t share your same ideals. While secondary sources will save you time primary sources often will improve your message. Gathering your own information can be very affective and help enhance your speech because it gives you a chance to do the research behind the topic. It is easier to present a topic that you understand and have a solid knowledge of. When you know the in and outs of the topic it is easier to decide what information to present to the audience and what information can be left out.

September 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Anonymous said...

I had the opportunity to interview a girl who is now a good friend of mine earlier this semester for one of my classes. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience due to the information, and the connection that was established between us. I knew her from just a group of people that I hung out with sometimes but I didn’t know her that well and I wanted to get to know her better, so I used the excuse that I need to interview someone for my speech class, this class, and figured that would be an awesome excuse to get to know her. One of the main things I would have done differently would have been to record the conversation we had so that I would be able to listen to it again so that I can remember more about her and remember the feeling of the interview. Also I would have taken better notes and asked premeditated questions.

September 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Jake Sip said...

#1 Do you feel that using Primary Sources (Interviews and Surveys) is easier or better than Secondary Sources? Why or why not?

I think that there is an up side and a down side to primary sources. If you do the research really well and you have some sound documentation with your research, people will find it credible. If you do your own research then people will know that you care enough to spend the time finding the facts. Good research will help your credibility. I think a downside to research is that it is time consuming, and it takes some thought and hard work. I once had to do some pointless research for a class, and I couldn't get enough people to participate. So I ended up doubling all of my numbers. It had the same ratio, it just seemed like it was more credible. It is definitely a lot easier to type your topic into Google and find some credible sources there, yet it does not have the same effect that your own research would have on people. So all in all, a primary source is better, but more difficult and time consuming.

September 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Yvonne Chen said...

I feel that secondary sources are easier, yet primary sources are more accurate. Secondary sources are well-presented to be taken, while primary sources require instigation and research. However, information that has already been interpreted and put together may be tainted with indirect opinion or not completely accurate because the information has been readjusted, left out, censored, etc. Interviews and survey require more thought than readings and absorption. They require detailed questions without being interrogative, completion of random thoughts being tied together, analysis and attention to detail, and other inputs. Because primary sources need more work to integrate, they present more precise, first hand events or stories. Secondary sources are easier because they are easily attained, with many resources available. Information can be acquired from libraries, the internet, encyclopedias, knowledge from others, and books. Both sources have their up and down sides, which is why they are both available for use when presenting information.

September 12, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Anonymous said...

I in fact have had to interview someone it was in one of my classes I forget which one but I had to introduce him to the class in 2-3 minutes. As I am right now, not liking to talk on the phone, it was a bit hard and not to mention I had no idea what I was going to ask him I hadn’t even thought about it yet though I do realize I should have been thinking about it from the time I left class the day we got the assignment. Next time I will think of my questions before hand and not at the last moment, I’ll write them down to so I don’t just forget them and let them know before hand and get more info when I need it. Even though I didn’t do a very good job getting the right info the first time I did get what I needed eventually.

September 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Brandon Wagstaff said...

Your perception of how credible a source is will determine whether or not you will use them. Perception is more powerful than reality. Just because you are a huge fan of someone doesn't necessarily make them a credible resource. Lets say that you chose a religious leader as a credible source because you like this person AND they have a great reputation in the real world. If you get to a group project and someone says that person is not a credible source and thinks you are choosing them as a personal preference I would say just find a new source. There are so many resources for so many topics so it isn't worth getting in an arguement over an issue that can be solved with an extra few minutes of research in finding another source. I think for most topics there are numerous credible sources to choose from so it's definitely not worth hurting the unity of the group project for a love you have for an individual's ideas.

September 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Unknown said...

Have you ever had to interview someone? What was your experience with it? Why did you have to interview them? What would you do differently next time?

Yes i have. I enjoyed it a lot, It was interesting being on the other side of the interview and being the one to interview the person. It still is a nerve racking experience. Because i also had to prepare for the interview so that the person would want to work for the company i was working for. Now i know that when i am going in to a job interview, i can feel more at ease... knowing that we both had prepared for the interview.

I worked for an animal hospital and took care of the animals and helped the vets with preparing for surgery and taking the dogs on walks etc.. They wanted new interns to come in and to help out their. So i had to go through the process of finding good workers who would be eligible to work their.

Next time i think i would be more open with the person i am interviewing. I am already a people person and enjoy talking with others, but i think it is important to show the person you are interviewing that you love your job and that you enjoy it.

September 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Anonymous said...

Primary sources vs. Secondary Sources... As pretty much everything else in life, there are pros and cons to both. Interviewing is a great way to get information because you can ask only the questions you want the answers to. You can also ask the person to expand on a particularly interesting idea or statement, which can be helpful in creating more credibility in your speech. Cons to primary sources would be that you have to gather the information yourself and put it into something credible. With secondary sources, someone else has done most of the work. You just have to decide if it's credible or not. Cons of secondary sources include being out of date, which I experienced first hand this weekend. I was preparing a sponsorship letter to send out to local businesses and I had found a great statistic from the New York Times that tied in with my themes of women and education. I was thrilled about the statistic because I felt like it made my letter more credible until I noticed the tiny date at the top of the article. July 9, 2006. At that moment, the statistic lost all credibility and I took the quote out. I definitely think both types of sources have their place in the public speaking world and we will be more well-rounded speakers if we take advantage of all the tools out there...even Wikipedia.

September 12, 2011 at 10:58 PM

ann said...

I have had to interview someone before for a dance position in Dance Company at center stage dance studio. My experience was a good one. I loved giving the interview because I got to talk about dance, which I love talking about and could really test if this girl really knew what she was talking about, her work ethic, and personality. I noticed a lot of little things and took in consideration that interviews are really important and I got to see it from the other side. What I would do differently next time is take my self a little more seriously. Be a little more adult about it so the person getting interviewed can take you seriously too. It’s hard for me to be a serious scary person especially if I talk about dance because I like to have fun at dance and joke around with all of my friends and students. So now I know to be more into it and letting the person that getting interviewed that this is serious.

September 12, 2011 at 11:43 PM

ChantelRamos said...

I feel that primary sources like interviews and surveys are better than secondary sources. I feel like the information would be more accurate primary because it is coming from the source. It's also a lot easier to gather the information right away instead of doing research at the library or searching the Internet. Also a lot of the information on the Internet can be fraud. There are a lot of websites that put false information on there so when you give a presentation and it's false information it could upset an audience member if they are familiar with the topic and know it's false. With primary sources you can also tell personal stories that will capture the audiences attention or tell story from who you interviewed. I personally believe that primary resources are better to use when you cite your work. The resources are more reliable and the audience will believe it more rather than saying you read it off Internet.

September 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Jessica Jensen said...

1.Do you feel that using Primary Sources (Interviews and Surveys) is easier or better than Secondary Sources? Why or why not?

Interviewing people isn't always easy. Sometimes it is hard to get completely accurate information especially if you are interviewing multiple people on the same event or topic. If you are interviewing someone that is a primary source, it is more likely that you will get a straight story. They know first-hand what you are talking about. If you choose to interview someone that is a secondary source, the information you get may not be as accurate. In many cases, secondary sources have only been part of the "He said She said" and don't know the original story. With that being said, I think it is easier to interview a primary source because that way you do not have to do as much addition research to figure out the original story of whatever you are interviewing them on. This is important when interviewing witnesses at crime scenes and other scenes that require the original story.

September 12, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Maureena Hoyt said...

Primary and secondary sources are a great way to add validity to your work. It is hard to say outright which is better or which is easier. They each offer attributes that make them appealing when doing research. Primary sources are easy in the fact that all the information is upfront. This allows the information to in a more pure state and less time for it to be lost in translation or misinterpreted. The hard part about primary source is that all the research needs to be organized and created by yourself. It may be hard to figure out what to ask and who to ask to get all the information needed. Secondary sources are the time saving alternative. With secondary sources all the information has been gathered so more time can be devoted in organizing and publishing your material. The downside to secondary sources is that the information may be skewed to better support the previous researchers point. If time and effort were not a factor then hands down primary sources would be the best option. But since time is a factor secondary sources are a good bet.

September 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Shane Brown said...

I work as a radio voice talent and I got my start in Page at kxaz kpge. There were plenty of times I had to do live interviews. Most of the time I interviewed city officials and leaders of non-profit organizations. The interviewee plays a big part in how well or interesting the interview goes. Before hand I would write down a few questions and prepare for the interview based on the questions I had preselected. After my first few interviews I realized that my predetermined questions took something away from the interview because I was so focused on timing those questions and making them fit in with the interviewee and their agenda. So I ditched the predetermined questions and made my interviews more conversational. The conversational interviews were much more interesting and enjoyable and the audience could connect better. The conversational interviews flowed quite a bit smoother than the interviews I tried to plan out. Don’t get me wrong, talking points are good but just don’t bend the interview around them. I found it much easier to extract information asking general questions then listening to the responses.

September 13, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Penelope Davis said...

Truthfully, the most recent interview I had to do was for our Introduction Speech. I had to interview someone in our class that I didn’t know at all, to find out some information about them. It shouldn’t have been hard at all, but I felt like I just wasn’t prepared. The hardest part for me was coming up with questions to ask them. I didn’t want to just ask them the normal questions that everyone asks. I wanted to have unique answers to make the speech more interesting. But I guess how you get unique answers is by asking unique questions. So, I needed to come up with some original questions and fast. I did feel good about my shorthand, though. Since this wasn’t a big, serious interview, of course I didn’t have a recorder, so I needed to write my questions and answers quickly, but in a way that I would be able to go back and tell what is trying to be said. In the end, I felt like I had some fun, interesting information about my person, but I definitely didn’t have enough. So, next time I will ask more questions, so that I can have more to choose from and be able to actually fill my time limit.

September 14, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Mckena Hutchings said...

I feel that it is way easier to use a primary source rather than a secondary source. I also think it makes it more reliable and believable to the listener. When you get your information directly from a person it’s easier to get the exact information you want. Secondary sources take a lot of research to find what you are looking for. Secondary sources are sketchy sometimes because it’s hard to know it’s a reliable source and you have to be super careful when you do decide it’s a reliable source. It’s also important that your audience is familiar with where you got the information or who you got it from. If they know of the source you automatically are more creditable then if they have no idea. Primary sources are definitely easier in my opinion, but whether or not they are better depends. Although it is important that your primary source is reliable or else it does you no good and it is less creditable than a secondary source would be. Having both in a speech or paper, report (anything that requires a good source) is probably the best way to go.

September 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

KJardine said...

Using a primary source I feel is harder to get than a secondary source. Secondary sources have been modified and edited to include the best information. Most of the time it is organized and is able to give you what you need. Gaining a primary source seems like it would take way more effort but has potential to be the best overall. Up to this point in my life I have generally only used secondary sources for gaining information. It is fairly easy to attain and can be very credible. I feel like if I was able to perform an interview or survey I would get a much better understanding of the topic being researched. It would add a more personal touch. In this class we had the chance to interview a peer. I realized many things I did wrong as an interviewer. If I were to apply more of my newly learned "interviewing skills", I would have gotten better material to work with.

September 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Krissia Beatty said...

Last semester for History 1700, we were required to interview someone that was a teenager during the Great Depression. I'll be honest, at first I wasn't very excited about this assignment but I decided to buckle down and interview my great grandfather. It was one of the best experiences of my life! By taking the time to sit down and interview him I was able to discover information that I did not previously know. Not only did I learn more about my grandpa but I also gained a different perspective on the Great Depression and the feelings that people had during that time. The interview was only meant to last a half hour but instead it ended up lasting three and a half. Yes I was there to interview him, but it turned into a great conversation and learning environment. The only thing that I would do differently if I had to interview someone today would be to actually write down the things that they were telling me. With my grandpa, I got so into the conversation that I forgot to write down the information that he was telling me. This made it extremely difficult to write my report later.

September 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Jensen S. said...

Primary vs. Secondary

In my experiences either one can be better or worse for credibility…it simply depends on the situation. For instance I feel that if I were to be speaking to a bunch of psychologists I would be more credible by sharing experiences of my brother who is schizophrenic. If I were to only use secondary sources such as facts from an encyclopedia they would be bored because they already know the information. However by presenting them new information from experience I would gain a portion of credibility as one has first hand experience with mental illnesses. If I were presenting the same information to a bunch of English literature majors then I would use more of a balanced combination of primary and secondary sources to allow them to gain a credible background but also a look into how people personally are affected by these illnesses. Secondary sources do not have a lot of emotion. They allow for a great foundation where the primary source can come in and build walls of anger, sadness, happiness or desire to fix a problem. In my eyes secondary information is what is at hand, secondary information is “why should I give a crap” it can put topics on a more perfect level. Too much of either can severely tarnish your credibility however. If I did not state even a brief foundation of knowledge of mental illnesses to the psychologists my stories of my brother would simply be another case study. So for each occasion you would change your balance between secondary and primary sources.

September 19, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Mike Sheffield said...

To use interviews or surveys to support your speech is definitely a powerful tool. Surveys and interviews are very potent in a speech or presentation, particularly when using them where is specifically applies to your audience. For example, if we are talking about the raise in tuition at Dixie State College, it would mean more to a Dixie student than someone at Southern Utah University. There are several pro’s and con’s to using them and not using them however. First and foremost, they are not always easy to obtain. While it does take more effort to get an interview or a survey, they truly are powerful tools if done properly. A Con of a survey or interview that you conduct rather than a professional institution is accuracy. For example, you may only survey a particular demographic or people with a certain mindset and way of thinking. A professional surveyor would be sure to have the process be fair and to get an unbiased response to the questions. If you can sit down and write a very well thought out survey, and be sure to survey all present demographics touching that topic, then a survey and interview would be a very good source.

September 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Kahri Golden said...

I haven't had much experience with interviewing anyone. I have had to interview a couple people for school projects before. One time I had to interview my grandfather about his time spent in World War 2. I loved talking to him about that subject and it was easy because he was my grandpa. A couple things I would do differently though was take better notes and ask more in depth questions. I would get so wrapped up in his stories that I would forget to write down what he was telling me. Also I wish I would have elaborated on my questions more because it would have gave me better information. I loved interviewing him though, and I would love to interview more people like I did with him. I think being able to interview someone well is a great skill to have. If you can get them to keep talking about themselves or about a certain subject then I think you are doing something right.

September 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Kristin Heywood said...

Question 2:

I have had to interview all of my grandparents before. It was in high school, for my history class. We had to write a paper based on the information that we gathered from a person not the internet. And surprisingly I had to do a lot of research to know the details about the events that they told me about and the certain things that occurred during their lifetime. Mostly because they didn't remember the details but it was still neat that they had lived through it. I knew that the stuff they did tell me and any details they gave me were valid and credible because it's coming from someone who has experienced it first hand. Not someone who has read a little bit about the Kennedy assassination online and then wrote a book on their hypothesis of what happened during the Kennedy assassination. There is no better source than a live person in my opinion. Next time I interview someone I will try to ask as many detailed questions as I can to pull out every bit of information that is in their heads because I think if I ask vague questions I will get vague answers. Asking more detailed questions can help me to understand more about the topic and be assured that my source is credible.

September 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Nathan Hanks said...

I think that primary source is much better to use in almost any speaking. Because the ability to say "I spoke to Dr. or professor whoever, my self and, they told me." In my mind that captures an audience, people love to hear a story. I also think that interviewing isn't used as much because it takes a lot of effort and time to call someone, and set the appointment, and take up their time. I think we interview people all the time. Every time we get to know some one the first few encounters are like non stop interviews. Especially if we are attracted to that person. Most people love to talk about what they are into. I love to talk reptiles, Tom Hopkins loves to talk sales. So if the interview is geared towards that persons interests, you will probably get more information than you ever needed.

October 2, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Madison Davis said...

For my Speech class our first speech was to interview someone in the class and then present that person like we were presenting ourselves, let everyone know there likes, dislikes, quarks, and interests. I interviewed my friend Karhi, and I think if we were to do it over again we would have planned it out better, by planning it better i mean we should have practiced what we were going to make our speeches sound like instead of just writing down facts about each other and presenting them to a room full of people we didn't know. If I could go back and redo that speech I would, its strange how we didn't really think of it as a speech but more, as said before, as a list of facts. Facts are the foundation of a speech, but once you have the facts you should go back and polish what you know to make your speech flow and to gain the audiences trust.

October 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Victoria Sorenson said...

Do you feel that using Primary Sources (Interviews and Surveys) is easier or better than Secondary Sources? Why or why not?
I feel that using a Primary Source will give you more accurate information on a subject. A few years ago I help with a survey in my area about recreational paths and invited several hundred people to give their information on existing out door recreation activities. Along with that data we collected some basic demographic information as to ages and activity level. Based on the information that was collected a program was built in my hometown to help increase the availability of outdoor activities. National averages would never have been able to predict what was needed for a specific area. From this experience even though I just administered the survey I was able to see the results and the direct impact.

October 8, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Christian McMullin said...

I took a coarse last year that was basically a career finder coarse. For one of our assignments we had to interview someone from one of the career fields we had narrowed are choices to, and write a paper no how it went and what I found out. At that point I was decently interested in becoming a landscape architect. I interviewed a family friend who was in the industry. The first thing that i wish i didn't do was ask him a question, i wrote all the answers down on a peace of paper. first, because it wasted a lot of time, mine and his. It also made a lot of awkward silence when i would tell him to hold on while i finished up. Lucky I knew him decently well so it wasn't to bad, but I cant imagine how bad it would look know if i did that, not knowing the guy, and maybe asking for a recommendation later. I think something that would make the process go much smoother next time would maybe record the interview or just take small notes that would help me remember specific moments.

October 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Sam Friend said...

In a family relaionships class, i had to interview a grandparent. This was a very interesting experience because i realized how much i didn't know about my grandma. It feels weird knowing that my 73 year old grandma at one time was going through the same things i am today. She went to college remembers being a starving college kid and trying to find boys to flirt with. Im a guy and i flirt with girls. FYI. Although my grandma is from a whole differnet generation, the basic instincts of young adult dont change. After this interview i remember being kinda dissapointed because if it werent for this assignment, i might have never really learned about my grandma. so looking back, i feel like interviewing someone one can be beneficial because you never know if you might lean something that will never go away.

October 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Alex said...

I interviewed Ryan Braun of the Milwaukee Brewers for a school assignment last year. I honestly didn't love it. He was a cool and nice guy or whatever, but he was just too polished and professional. I was writing a paper about the exotic lifestyles of pro baseball players, and was hoping to get some dirt about crazy gambling stories, hookups with celebrities, etc...but I didn't get anything like that at all. I was able to get the interview through him due to his dating one of my best friends from high school. She had told me a lot of stuff that she had heard/experienced while they had been dating, but he just wouldn't say anything that could remotely be construed as throwing a teammate under the bus or be controversial. Every answer was just politically correct and vanilla as could be, and that wasn't how I wanted my paper, so I had to resort to other sources. I don't know what I could have done differently, and I can't say I blame him for not giving me any dirt. He was just being a good teammate.

October 14, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Tanner Rush said...

2.Have you ever had to interview someone? What was your experience with it? Why did you have to interview them? What would you do differently next time?

During my senior year of high school I took an English class called "Professional Reading and Writing". We learned all kinds of things from how to properly write an e-mail, to how to creatively build a spaceship. For one assignment we had to make up our own surveys. We had to go out and personally interview people and ask them questions based on the survey. Every person I tried to survey didn't seem to have a problem with it. They were all nice and answered the questions really well. If I could change something about the next time I go out and survey people, I will be more prepared for the questions I want to ask people. This will make everything flow much more smoothly. Also if I take time to plan out and think about the most beneficial questions I should ask people, I will be more prepared to ask people those questions.

October 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM