Master Evaluator

Master Evaluator Assignment GuideTIMING: 10 minutes – 1st session

AIM

  • To evaluate assignments which have not already been evaluated.
  • To provide a comment on the overall conduct of the meeting which will serve as a useful guide for future meetings
  • To point out any significant areas you feel an evaluator may have overlooked which maybe useful to the speaker or the meeting. Be careful doing this – do not pick up on minor issues!

It’s a great assignment – hard work, but challenging. You have to listen carefully. You’ll be scribbling all evening yet you will have to be selective about what you say because of time constraints

PREPARATION

Read the assignment guide. Check the aims/responsibilities of the assignments so you know what to expect from each assignment.

ON THE NIGHT

Note: comment only on those assignments in your session

  • The overall tone of the meeting.
    • Was it lively? Entertaining? or Dull?
    • Orderly? Dragging?
    • Too serious or too frivolous.
    • What didn’t you like?

The Sergeant at Arms

  • Did the meeting start on time with a firm introduction and handing over of the gavel.
  • Was all the gear e.g. banner, lectern in place, the water and glasses.
  • Were the visitors made welcome before the meeting?

Welcome

  • Was in sincere, informative, welcoming, different?
  • Were the visitors given enough information?
  • Were any props used (e.g. manual, Toastmaster magazine).

The Toast

  • Was it appropriate, topical, too long, dull, inspiring?
  • Did the Toastmaster remember his glass?
  • Was the Toast itself short enough for the audience to repeat?

Topics Master

  • Did the Toastmaster explain the purpose for visitors?
  • Was there a theme?
  • Was it an imaginative session?
  • Were the questions too long or too difficult?
  • Was the overall session lively?
  • Did he ensure members without a major assignment received a question?
  • Were the visitors asked if they would like a question?
  • Did he give clear instructions for the timer and evaluators?

Table Topics Evaluators

  • Did the evaluators waste time by repeating the question?
  • Did they offer a point of praise and a point for improvement.
  • Were the evaluations likely to help the speakers and audience.

Table Tonic

  • Did it add sparkle to the meeting? Was it something different?

Session 2

Toastmaster

  • Did they put the audience at ease and outline the purpose of the prepared speeches?
  • Was the room set up correctly for each speaker (and himself)?
  • Did they introduce the speakers clearly and make them feel comfortable?
  • Did they name the evaluators and instruct the timer?
  • Did the introductions show he had prepared his comments in advance (had he done his homework!)?
  • Was the Toastmaster too showy, did he try to upstage the speakers?
Don't evaluate the speakers but you do comment on the:

Speech Evaluators

  • Did they give worthwhile and valuable evaluations – e.g. praise/improve/praise.
  • Were they familiar with the objectives of the speech?
  • Were the evaluations too tough, too kind.
  • Did they miss any noteworthy points?
  • Do not mention any specific areas in the speech unless you feel it was overlooked by the evaluator and was important to the speaker.


Reports

  • Do not evaluate the Business Session and Reports – this is covered by the Parliamentarian.

Reports by the Grammarian, Ums & Ahs and Timer:

  • Did they give us the information we wanted?
  • Were the reports concise?
  • Did the grammarian give a balanced report of praise and improve.
  • Did the timer keep the meeting to time?

Finally, don’t forget to evaluate –

The Chairman

  • Did he open the meeting well?
  • Did he fill the position with courtesy tact and firmness?
  • Did he lose control?
  • Did he keep the meeting flowing?
  • Had he prepared in advance?

Site hosted by Foremost Communications