The positive language I used let my team know that I was willing to work and help. Positive language was also helpful when giving constructive criticism to other students as it encourages rather than demotivates. Following this, I reduced my use of negative language when working within the team as it could have lowered motivation and made them not want to work with me. When listening to my team members I made sure to show active engagement by nodding, this let them know that I was listening and paying attention to what they are saying. Asking both open and closed questions allowed different responses suitable for different situations; open questions allowed for a discussion whereas closed questions encourage definite, concise responses and decisions.
This helped me acknowledge I can be empathic with people in diverse circumstances without being judgemental. I also perceived that I appreciated attempting to help people by provoking their own instincts though solicitous but incisive questioning. I had a tough time with the uncomfortable silences while waiting for a reaction from the coachee, I feel I did not give enough time to the coachee to think about things before I went into other questions. Giving for reflection in the session is portrayed as being vital in coaching by Dembkowski, Eldridge, Hunter (2006, p. 49). “A moment of silence is often helpful for the client to dive into his emotions and think about a specific topic or circumstances.” From what I have practiced this statement is correct but it is very difficult to accomplish this as a new coach.
I would also take steps to get over the nervousness I experienced. Even though I would change a few things, I think that my monologue went much better than I envisioned. At first, I was horrified to have to go in front of the class and give a monologue, but afterwards I thought it wasn’t even that bad. I’m glad we did this embedded assessment and got to experience what it is like to give a
I do believe my speech went horribly, but there were some positive attributes. I think that my topic connected with the audience well because it something everyone could relay to. Also, I will be more cautious in the future when editing my speech and make sure that I do not edit out important information I think that I overall had a good speech. Overall, my speech was not as fluent or organized as I prepared or expected it to be but I think that I had a vital learning
I scored high on this part. I’m more of a realistic person. I can see big picture of things like intuition, but I like to have facts and steps. A realistic goal so I don’t trust my instincts or I do not go on a gut feeling. I very detail orient when describing or explain something.
With multimodal designs I was able to show my readers whom I’m specifically referring to. I learned that with the multimodal design component I am able to persuade my audience much better. However, if I had not included any multimodal design component my project would have been very tedious which many readers do not like to read. I learned from the revision process from feedback from the professor, peer and self-editing is that the more I revised the better it will come because there is always something in the paper which part is unclear to the reader especially for me, my paper was little unorganized, which could have been better if I would have done several revision on
There were no prejudices made to the opposing theory other than criticism of their research methods. The author relates this message, “People do love to sort themselves into categories, though, whether they’re scientifically sound or not. And any idea that’s permeated culture as much as birth order has is bound to have an effect on how people see themselves” (Beck). This lets the reader understand it’s easy to bottle ourselves in with certain traits out of habit instead of facts. She mentions how if you are assumed to be a certain way based on external ideas, internally that’s how you perceive yourself.
I often worry and prefer structure while completing assignments; I found many of these instructions vague and prefer more concrete rubrics and guidelines as writing and literature is very subjective. Speaking in front of people has never been a struggle of mine and I consider myself extremely verbally fluent. My audience was very engaged and willing to participate. I found it interesting that some of the less talkative class members were participating and interpreted this as a compliment as it was evident that nearly everyone was engaged in my presentation. Being a dual education major, I am aware that I have an innate ability to teach and creating an outline and lesson plan was quite simple for myself.
Brian Brett: Informative Speech Review (Autism 1) After I finally looked at my video to prevent any emotions of “jacked up” or “jacked down”, I was able to form clear thoughts about my speech and what I could do to improve it. While my introduction and conclusion were stronger than the rest of my body, they all needed improvement because of not utilizing the cards as taught, among other factors which I will discuss very soon. However, this could be tentative, as I may have done better or worse as per the teacher’s guidelines. As with any class speech or thesis or however it’s presented, my introduction is always the strongest. I gave myself a score of “5”, (Gaining the attention of the audience), “4” (Good overview), “4”, (Credibility), “5”, (Central Idea) for the introduction because they are my strong suit, I am most calm or ready during this portion.
From my interpersonal communication profile I have decided that I would like to improve in the category of giving and getting feedback. I wasn 't surprised that I scored lower in this category as I like to avoid the potential conflict of giving someone feedback they may not like. Even when you don 't mean to offend someone they can still take the feedback you have given them the wrong way. For the most part I am very open and receptive of getting feedback. Depending on the person though I can struggle to accept that feedback without issue.
I believe I am more similar to the Extroverted, Sensing, Thinking, and intuition type than the Extroverted, Sensing, Feeling, and intuition type. This is mainly because I am a thinker, not feelers. I am a leader who can be pretty stubborn and bossy, and I like to choose the decision I know is right, even if it doesn 't benefit other people. I believe the reason I had an inaccurate first test, Is because I was sugar-coating some of my behaviors. When the test asked, "Do you usually make sure you get your way or do you value others opinions just as much as yours?"
I would say “alright” and “so” quite often. I believe that these two words were said very often due to my focus on not filling the gap with the word “um” or “uh”. In turn, focusing on not saying those words left me saying other filler words. Speaking slower and slowing down my hand movements would help me focus on the content of the speech and not worry about filling spaces with sound. I believe that if I worked on those setbacks, I would perform much better in front of an audience.
The myer-briggs assessment was fairly accurate and taught me many things I did not know about myself. I was very surprised to read how detailed each trait was described and how it fit my personality in real life. I could relate to many things mentioned about the people with ISFJ personalities. I learned that although I am an introvert, I can connect well with other people much better than other introverts. The type of friend I am considered to be is very loyal and although I may be closed off and protective in the beginning after I can trust you I can be a very trustworthy.
The response that I was thinking in my head didn’t really come true. Instead, I was really showered by love, understanding, and a little of adjustments here and there. But people were still accepting of me which I was surprised from where I was raised because almost anyone who was different would have ridiculed. So, the life lesson was to be not afraid of what people think about
However, Denis’ personality and my efforts to find common values made this conversation successful. When the talk ended, I was relieved that I accomplished my goal of making a person open up. One thing I realized was that I do a better job when I take my time and let the talk flow on its own speed rather than asking previously planned, and directive questions that may sometimes break the continuity of the talk. This is a bit hard for me to do, since I am an introvert; but I know that I have to become an extrovert when it is necessary. With that said, I have to plan my talks regardless, because I tend to get very nervous when I do not know how to resume the conversation.