Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Both purpose and context were explicitly mentioned, but a little bit more background on Gordimer would be a nice embellishment to your context--it would give it slightly more depth.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational pattern seemed to be very complex to me because you mentioned many literary terms. I knew in which order you were going to address them, however because you were addressing so many it was hard for me to tell at times if you were sticking to your organizational pattern.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What is your personal view of Maureen? How does Maureen represent (both in this passage and throughout the book) Gordimer's distaste for liberals?
What did the speaker do well? I was able to pick up everything you were saying because you spoke in a calm, relaxed, and slow voice.
What would you suggest for improvement? Simplify your organizational pattern--if this were a paper where the reader could refer back to the pattern at any time this pattern would have worked perfectly, but since the moderator has to rely on aural cues, the simpler the pattern the better.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) more about the author!!
What would you score them based on the rubric? A - 4-mention more about the author B - 9-very nice analysis C - 8-hard to follow the complex pattern D - 5-as always, your diction and word choice was flawless.
Nice job AMechan, Zoe
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought you addressed the context very well. It was extremely what you said about the author and the novel in relation to the passage. The purpose was also addressed but it might have been better to flat out just say what you felt the purpose of this passage was.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational principal utilized during your commentary was very easy to follow through the fact that you spoke very clearly and slowly. You began with the tone of the passage and followed to identify other literary elements. However, since you did not mention the line numbers it might be hard for others to understand the commentary if they did not know the passage well. It might be better to clearly mention the type of organizational path that you intend to go on.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What, in one sentence, would you feel the purpose of this specific passage would be?
What other views can be taken during the passage that you did not mention?
What did the speaker do well?
The speak definitely identified the literary terms in the passage and the application of those devices. He also mentioned a lot of context at the beginning before the commentary as well as throughout the commentary in relation to specific literary devices.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think one of the biggest things that could be improved is the organizational pattern/structure of the commentary. It might be hard to understand without the passage in front of the accessor.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Clearly identified purpose, line numbers
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 5
B - 9
C - 9
D - 5
peer reviewed by Allison Wortley :)
Ali Herman peer edited your commentary!!!!!!!!! -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? I thought you addressed purpose very well. It was extremely clear why you thought this passage was important and what it was doing. Perhaps you could have included more initial information about how this passage was important in the larger context of Hamlet the play. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational principal was very strong. Each part of the passage was assessed separately in order to come together to prove one thing. The organization did not go line by line which allowed for an overall understanding of the passage. Maybe try to tie the two parts together a little more in the "conclusion" part of your commentary. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? 1. Could you tie more aspects of Claudius' immorality to the fact that death is the equalizer? 2. Did you make anything of the olfactory imagery present in the passage? 3. Do you think that the concept of death as an equalizer is part of Hamlet's inner struggle over death? -What did the speaker do well? You organization was very strong. I really like how you looked at the passage in two parts and tied them together in the end. You were also confidence in what you were saying, which made the commentary easy to understand and believable. -What would you suggest for improvement? I think that you stuck with a limited array of literary features that created your overall idea. I would suggest finding a few more to strengthen your argument. Also, I would suggest giving this passage a place among the play with similarities and differences. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) The only thing you forgot to address was its place in the context of Hamlet the play. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4 marks Did not address the context of the work in relation to other passages (similar/different) in play
B-9 marks Very good analysis, could have included a few more lit terms
C-9 marks Clearly focused with a good structure, but sometimes repeated yourself unnecessarily
D-5 marks Very good overall use of language. Varied diction and speech patterns
27/30
Jaime Toplin peer reviewed it too!! :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really nice job addressing context of the passage within the text, especially your good description of what came before and after it and how it was relevant. I also liked your conclusion about how your purpose was relevant with and consistent with the ideas of death throughout the rest of the text. However, you could have provided a little more information on the work itself such as the revenge tragedy style, the years, etc. You also did a GREAT job of stating your purpose at the beginning and making sure people knew that it is what you were going for. Also, great job of tying back to it throughout the commentary and making sure all your points fit. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
He basically went chronologically, but almost broke it down into two parts. I thought you did a really nice job of labeling them and laying out your commentary in the intro so I knew exactly what you were getting at while I was listening and looking at the passage. I also thought the fact that you laid out your purpose from the get-go and kept tying back to it made for really nice organization. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Can you relate your general purpose to the consistency of Hamlet's characterization? Is this typical or atypical of the characters we see within the passage?
How do you see the corruption of Denmark coming into play here?
Can you name some more lit terms that you see reflected in the analysis of Shakespeare's language? (you talked about what he did, but not how he did it) -What did the speaker do well?
Like I said above, you did a fantastic job of laying out your purpose and structure of the commentary from the beginning. You also did a nice job addressing elements of drama in more than one place and making sure this was treated like a play and not as a stand-alone passage. Great job talking about the context too. You also tied your points together very well, making for an easy to follow commentary that made sense both as a singular passage as well as within the larger text as a whole. I liked the overall themes addressed in both "sections" of your commentary. I also thought your pickup on dramatic irony and King Claudius' ability to poke fun at the upcoming deaths was really interesting. Lastly, your discussion of stage directions and punctuation was really cool and unique. -What would you suggest for improvement?
You tend to get a little wordy and you could cut down on your "ums" and pauses. You also tend to talk in circles a little bit--you'll state a point, talk about it, analyze it, and then sort of say it again. If you work on cutting some of that out and being more concise, you can definitely save yourself some time. You also need to address more lit terms. You mention a few, mostly juxtaposition, but you could just throw some more of our "laundry list" into your passage.These last two are really nit-picky, but I got a bit confused about your irony part until you started analyzing it. You could be a bit more clear about the type of irony Shakespeare is using. Also, remember to mention Shakespeare's infrequent use of tonal punctuation. It'll help in the context section. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Like I said, you could name a few more lit terms and avoid talking about as many themes or ideas. You could also talk about consistency of character a little more, but you even hit on that. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 (need to talk a little more about Shakespeare)
B: 9 (very convincing and believable, good balance of repeating quotes and just stating ideas)
C: 9 (easy to follow, well laid out)
D: 4 (really close to a 5, just watch being monotone as well as "ums")
26/30. AMAZING JOB!! If you have more questions, feel free to ask :)
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Both purpose and context were explicitly mentioned, but a little bit more background on Gordimer would be a nice embellishment to your context--it would give it slightly more depth.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational pattern seemed to be very complex to me because you mentioned many literary terms. I knew in which order you were going to address them, however because you were addressing so many it was hard for me to tell at times if you were sticking to your organizational pattern.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What is your personal view of Maureen?
How does Maureen represent (both in this passage and throughout the book) Gordimer's distaste for liberals?
What did the speaker do well?
I was able to pick up everything you were saying because you spoke in a calm, relaxed, and slow voice.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Simplify your organizational pattern--if this were a paper where the reader could refer back to the pattern at any time this pattern would have worked perfectly, but since the moderator has to rely on aural cues, the simpler the pattern the better.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
more about the author!!
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4-mention more about the author
B - 9-very nice analysis
C - 8-hard to follow the complex pattern
D - 5-as always, your diction and word choice was flawless.
Nice job AMechan,
Zoe
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought you addressed the context very well. It was extremely what you said about the author and the novel in relation to the passage. The purpose was also addressed but it might have been better to flat out just say what you felt the purpose of this passage was.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational principal utilized during your commentary was very easy to follow through the fact that you spoke very clearly and slowly. You began with the tone of the passage and followed to identify other literary elements. However, since you did not mention the line numbers it might be hard for others to understand the commentary if they did not know the passage well. It might be better to clearly mention the type of organizational path that you intend to go on.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What, in one sentence, would you feel the purpose of this specific passage would be?
What other views can be taken during the passage that you did not mention?
What did the speaker do well?
The speak definitely identified the literary terms in the passage and the application of those devices. He also mentioned a lot of context at the beginning before the commentary as well as throughout the commentary in relation to specific literary devices.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think one of the biggest things that could be improved is the organizational pattern/structure of the commentary. It might be hard to understand without the passage in front of the accessor.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Clearly identified purpose, line numbers
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 5
B - 9
C - 9
D - 5
peer reviewed by Allison Wortley :)
Ali Herman peer edited your commentary!!!!!!!!!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought you addressed purpose very well. It was extremely clear why you thought this passage was important and what it was doing. Perhaps you could have included more initial information about how this passage was important in the larger context of Hamlet the play.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational principal was very strong. Each part of the passage was assessed separately in order to come together to prove one thing. The organization did not go line by line which allowed for an overall understanding of the passage. Maybe try to tie the two parts together a little more in the "conclusion" part of your commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
1. Could you tie more aspects of Claudius' immorality to the fact that death is the equalizer? 2. Did you make anything of the olfactory imagery present in the passage? 3. Do you think that the concept of death as an equalizer is part of Hamlet's inner struggle over death?
-What did the speaker do well?
You organization was very strong. I really like how you looked at the passage in two parts and tied them together in the end. You were also confidence in what you were saying, which made the commentary easy to understand and believable.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think that you stuck with a limited array of literary features that created your overall idea. I would suggest finding a few more to strengthen your argument. Also, I would suggest giving this passage a place among the play with similarities and differences.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The only thing you forgot to address was its place in the context of Hamlet the play.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4 marks Did not address the context of the work in relation to other passages (similar/different) in play
B-9 marks Very good analysis, could have included a few more lit terms
C-9 marks Clearly focused with a good structure, but sometimes repeated yourself unnecessarily
D-5 marks Very good overall use of language. Varied diction and speech patterns
27/30
Jaime Toplin peer reviewed it too!! :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really nice job addressing context of the passage within the text, especially your good description of what came before and after it and how it was relevant. I also liked your conclusion about how your purpose was relevant with and consistent with the ideas of death throughout the rest of the text. However, you could have provided a little more information on the work itself such as the revenge tragedy style, the years, etc. You also did a GREAT job of stating your purpose at the beginning and making sure people knew that it is what you were going for. Also, great job of tying back to it throughout the commentary and making sure all your points fit.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
He basically went chronologically, but almost broke it down into two parts. I thought you did a really nice job of labeling them and laying out your commentary in the intro so I knew exactly what you were getting at while I was listening and looking at the passage. I also thought the fact that you laid out your purpose from the get-go and kept tying back to it made for really nice organization.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Can you relate your general purpose to the consistency of Hamlet's characterization? Is this typical or atypical of the characters we see within the passage?
How do you see the corruption of Denmark coming into play here?
Can you name some more lit terms that you see reflected in the analysis of Shakespeare's language? (you talked about what he did, but not how he did it)
-What did the speaker do well?
Like I said above, you did a fantastic job of laying out your purpose and structure of the commentary from the beginning. You also did a nice job addressing elements of drama in more than one place and making sure this was treated like a play and not as a stand-alone passage. Great job talking about the context too. You also tied your points together very well, making for an easy to follow commentary that made sense both as a singular passage as well as within the larger text as a whole. I liked the overall themes addressed in both "sections" of your commentary. I also thought your pickup on dramatic irony and King Claudius' ability to poke fun at the upcoming deaths was really interesting. Lastly, your discussion of stage directions and punctuation was really cool and unique.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You tend to get a little wordy and you could cut down on your "ums" and pauses. You also tend to talk in circles a little bit--you'll state a point, talk about it, analyze it, and then sort of say it again. If you work on cutting some of that out and being more concise, you can definitely save yourself some time. You also need to address more lit terms. You mention a few, mostly juxtaposition, but you could just throw some more of our "laundry list" into your passage.These last two are really nit-picky, but I got a bit confused about your irony part until you started analyzing it. You could be a bit more clear about the type of irony Shakespeare is using. Also, remember to mention Shakespeare's infrequent use of tonal punctuation. It'll help in the context section.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Like I said, you could name a few more lit terms and avoid talking about as many themes or ideas. You could also talk about consistency of character a little more, but you even hit on that.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 (need to talk a little more about Shakespeare)
B: 9 (very convincing and believable, good balance of repeating quotes and just stating ideas)
C: 9 (easy to follow, well laid out)
D: 4 (really close to a 5, just watch being monotone as well as "ums")
26/30. AMAZING JOB!! If you have more questions, feel free to ask :)