Eulene Albert F. Geronimo SPEECOM EG Reflection Paper for Panel Discussion To be honest, we felt a little disappointed when Ms. Jeanne Purpura told us minutes before our panel discussion that the projector was not available for use.
In addition, we also sort of panicked because almost half of what we would deliver that day was only based and could only be delivered effectively by our powerpoint presentation. The graphs and statistics we have researched about were included in that visual aid; the audience might have enjoyed and understood the discussion more if the projector was functioning well.All the same, we still managed to get through. In fact, in my opinion, we have achieved our objective of informing the audience about mobile nuclear drive, its advantages, disadvantages and consequences to the health and welfare of the society.
However, no panel discussion is perfect. In fact, no speech is flawless; everyone has his/her own strengths and weaknesses. And in this paper, I am going to discuss the strong and weak points of our panel discussion. Let me begin with the “Speaker” aspects in the rubric for panel discussion.
I admit that one of the weak spots of our group was the lack of enthusiasm in our facial expressions and voice projection. We, the panel members, also failed to establish rapport with one another. However, in my opinion, my groupmates and I tried our best to be as knowledgeable as possible with regards to our assigned topic. Without a doubt, I can tell that we looked prepared and credible, not just because we are engineering students and are expected to really have some grasp of these kind of topics but because we have really researched and internalized the issue in depth.We also wore appropriate formal attire and took our respective roles as different kinds of engineers seriously.
As a result of these, we had some convincing power towards the audience that I felt their eagerness to listen and learn more about our subject matter. They even asked a handful of questions and this serves as proof that they were really into our discussion. On the other hand, I confess that the flow of our discussion was not that organized. The ideas did not come in a smooth flow and I think, this was one of the consequences of not having a visual aid.In effect, the panel discussion lacked spontaneity.
However, we should have adjusted with regards to that aspect for the reason that technical difficulties are inevitable and a good speaker should have seen that and have prepared for that beforehand. In the rubric, we scored relatively high in the “Message Content” part. I think it is because our arguments are supported with adequate evidence and well–researched facts and information. We failed to cite our references though, for the reason that our list of references was embedded in our powerpoint presentation.
Lastly, based on the feedback we have received from our blockmates, I believe that our group has answered the questions of the audience credibly and convincingly. Next aspect would be the organization. Thanks to our moderator, Mr. Doolittle, who started and ended our panel discussion with a bang. On the other side of the coin, we failed to use transitions and the details we discussed were not that logically organized, like what I said in one of the paragraphs above. In other words, a smooth flow of ideas was not observed.
Apologies. In the aspect of transmission, we also scored relatively high. There was a varied intonation and a conversational tone while we delivered the information. There was also a controlled speed delivery; we went not too fast but not too slow.
In simpler words, we went at a moderate pace, so as not to hurry or lose the eagerness of the audience. When it comes to nonverbal aspects of speech delivery, our group did not fail to apply what we have learned. I noticed some simple but effective gestures while watching our video.Even the effortless movements of hands while discussing could help in transmitting what we are trying to express or say.
Our group also explained the technicalities and the mechanics of nuclear power in layman’s terms so as to be understood by our blockmates who are not that familiar with our subject matter. For this reason, I think it is valid to say that we used clear language to benefit everyone. Still, we fell trap to using fillers like uhm’s and ah’s and unavoidable pauses. Sorry for those. On the bright side, there was no code-switching in our discussion.
In linguistics, code-switching is the switching between two or more languages, or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation. In our discussion, we really tried our very best to explain the topic to our audience through he use of only one language, English. This is for the reason that English will be used when we communicate with our fellow engineers and with other professionals less than five years from now. Last would be the audience rapport. At the beginning of the discussion, our moderator formally acknowledged the presence of the audience, especially of Ms.Jeanne.
Also, our group made it a point to include audience participation in our discussion. In truth, according to them, we have addressed and answered their questions and clarifications properly. Also, a big “thank you” to our moderator, Mr. Doolittle, who did well in maintaining the balance of our discussion and for adding some humor when the topic becomes serious and very technical; without him, the audience might have been bored with the endless scientific terms being bombarded to them.
With this, the audience paid attention and rapport with them was established.What’s more, the fact that our topic, Mobile Nuclear Drive, was new, interesting, appealing and environment-related adds to the list of our strengths of our panel discussion. Conversely, one weak point in this aspect would be the failure of establishing and maintaining eye contact with the audience. To sum up, for the reason that we received more good comments than bad ones from our blockmates, I can say that our panel discussion was not much of a disaster even though we did not have a powerpoint presentation to aid us.Just like the previous activity, the Informative Speech, I also learned lots of lessons in this Panel Discussion activity.
First, be prepared just in case a technical difficulty comes in and ruins your original plan. Always have plan B. Second, rapport is very essential when it comes to almost everything. But to be specific, audience rapport in speeches is a “must” because without it, your whole speech would be wasted because no one will listen to you. Third, know your topic from the heart. Who knows?You could be asked with heaps of questions and you should be able to answer if not all, most of them.
Plus, five years from now, we might be working in a company and when it comes to project or business proposals, we should master every detail, may it be big or small, so as to gain the credibility and trust of other, even higher professionals. Lastly, there must be a logical organization of the details or the parts of your speech so as not to confuse your audience and for them to continue listening with eagerness and full attention.
