July's People Commentary - Enjoy!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought context was well addressed, but the purpose, while very much there, was a bit of a non sequitor. You should address how the purpose is related to the context of the novel, or just some kind of transition.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You could have mentioned the organizational principle at the outset of your commentary. This leaves the listener somewhat confused as to where the commentary is going. However, the commentary did stick to a logical route for the most part.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why do you think Gordimer chose to depict Maureen this way?
Do you think Maureen's transformation related to the context in which the book was written, South Africa under apartheid?
-What did the speaker do well?
I think many examples were highlighted to justify each point. In addition, the points are frequently grouped to create larger, thematic ideas.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
First, I would suggest expanding the context section slightly and the purpose section significantly, looking to bridge the two. Secondly, I would suggest delineating a clear organizational principle before delving into the analysis. Thirdly, I would bridge the larger themes in your conclusion more strongly.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I did not notice anything missing. Just try to do it in a single take, though great job powering through with a nasty cold.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4
B - 8
C - 6
D - 4
-Alex Mechanick
hey ben! its allison, heres my audio, I don't know how that happened, weird. Sorry about the confusion.
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Purpose and context are both mentioned in clear detail.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The speaker said that they were going to start at the beginning and work their way through the passage. They did this as well as addressing themes and lit terms along the way. The organization was very good.
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker was focused and organized and included many themes and lit terms in an organized fashion. Passage was analyzed in depth and very well.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Don’t say “quote/unquote”. No need to define what lit terms like motif are.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
All lit terms and themes were addressed in detail and nothing was really left out.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. Very good understanding of the passage.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. Sometimes there seems to be too much info and more than one overlying theme and sometimes its not all focused together. However, their interpretation was very in depth and very creative.
Presentation: 7/10. I felt that there was a lot of information and maybe a little too much to fit into the categories they were putting them in. Sometimes a couple long pauses and interruptions like “they keep interrupting me” and other things are minor miscues, but overall presentation was very god.
Use of Language: 5/5. Very sophisticated language and good use of advanced lit terms for the most part. The speaker knew all their lit terms and what they meant, which is important for presentation and language.
Overall: 26/30.
Additional comments:
Very good presentation Allison. I thought your interpretations and responses were clear for the most part, and very in depth. Sometimes I felt like you were jumping around and picking out lit terms instead of hitting the main idea, but usually you were able to connect it back to a major theme or motif going on during the passage and the play. I was very impressed with this and I’m sure you’ll do amazing on your midterm. J
Isaac
ALI ALSO LISTENED TO YOUR COMMENTARY!!!!!! (have an apple) -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Did a good job of giving the passage a context within the story (what happened before and after). The purpose was clearly stated in the intro and I had a good idea of what was going to be proven. Maybe next time try and give a little more background about Hamlet as a whole or how this passage ties into the whole play.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You did not explicitly state that you would go chronologically through the passage. I also wanted to know why you chose this type of structure. However, once you got into the passage, it was clear you were looking at it chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you give me more about the sun as a motif?
Could you explain a bit more about why Hamlet feels negatively about women, and whether this is all women, or just Ophelia?
You mentioned Hamlet's cerebral nature, how does this tie to the rottenness in Denmark?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of picking out literary terms and applying them to your passage and overall purpose. Thought you also did a good job dealing with the asides in the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think to improve your structure, you could have gone through and grouped the different categories that made the state of Denmark rotten and addressed each in its own way and then tied them all together in the end. Also, you tended to repeat yourself a lot which I think is due to the lack of organizational pattern. Watch the use of um and colloquial diction. Finally, it seemed as though a lot of the ending thoughts were after thoughts and not a clear part of your argument.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The context of Hamlet as a play and how the passage fits into the play.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Good context and purpose. Try to tie the passage into the whole play.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 6/10 I think you needed to go into more depth about how literary features made an argument for the passage. Some of the details were limited in their analysis.
Presentation: 6/10 Presentation of the material could have been done in a more convincing and conclusive way.
Use of Language: 3/5 Remove words like um and try to speak with a bit higher diction.
Total: 19/30
July's People Commentary - Enjoy!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought context was well addressed, but the purpose, while very much there, was a bit of a non sequitor. You should address how the purpose is related to the context of the novel, or just some kind of transition.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You could have mentioned the organizational principle at the outset of your commentary. This leaves the listener somewhat confused as to where the commentary is going. However, the commentary did stick to a logical route for the most part.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why do you think Gordimer chose to depict Maureen this way?
Do you think Maureen's transformation related to the context in which the book was written, South Africa under apartheid?
-What did the speaker do well?
I think many examples were highlighted to justify each point. In addition, the points are frequently grouped to create larger, thematic ideas.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
First, I would suggest expanding the context section slightly and the purpose section significantly, looking to bridge the two. Secondly, I would suggest delineating a clear organizational principle before delving into the analysis. Thirdly, I would bridge the larger themes in your conclusion more strongly.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I did not notice anything missing. Just try to do it in a single take, though great job powering through with a nasty cold.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4
B - 8
C - 6
D - 4
-Alex Mechanick
hey ben! its allison, heres my audio, I don't know how that happened, weird. Sorry about the confusion.
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Purpose and context are both mentioned in clear detail.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The speaker said that they were going to start at the beginning and work their way through the passage. They did this as well as addressing themes and lit terms along the way. The organization was very good.
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker was focused and organized and included many themes and lit terms in an organized fashion. Passage was analyzed in depth and very well.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Don’t say “quote/unquote”. No need to define what lit terms like motif are.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
All lit terms and themes were addressed in detail and nothing was really left out.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. Very good understanding of the passage.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. Sometimes there seems to be too much info and more than one overlying theme and sometimes its not all focused together. However, their interpretation was very in depth and very creative.
Presentation: 7/10. I felt that there was a lot of information and maybe a little too much to fit into the categories they were putting them in. Sometimes a couple long pauses and interruptions like “they keep interrupting me” and other things are minor miscues, but overall presentation was very god.
Use of Language: 5/5. Very sophisticated language and good use of advanced lit terms for the most part. The speaker knew all their lit terms and what they meant, which is important for presentation and language.
Overall: 26/30.
Additional comments:
Very good presentation Allison. I thought your interpretations and responses were clear for the most part, and very in depth. Sometimes I felt like you were jumping around and picking out lit terms instead of hitting the main idea, but usually you were able to connect it back to a major theme or motif going on during the passage and the play. I was very impressed with this and I’m sure you’ll do amazing on your midterm. J
Isaac
ALI ALSO LISTENED TO YOUR COMMENTARY!!!!!! (have an apple)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Did a good job of giving the passage a context within the story (what happened before and after). The purpose was clearly stated in the intro and I had a good idea of what was going to be proven. Maybe next time try and give a little more background about Hamlet as a whole or how this passage ties into the whole play.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You did not explicitly state that you would go chronologically through the passage. I also wanted to know why you chose this type of structure. However, once you got into the passage, it was clear you were looking at it chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you give me more about the sun as a motif?
Could you explain a bit more about why Hamlet feels negatively about women, and whether this is all women, or just Ophelia?
You mentioned Hamlet's cerebral nature, how does this tie to the rottenness in Denmark?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of picking out literary terms and applying them to your passage and overall purpose. Thought you also did a good job dealing with the asides in the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think to improve your structure, you could have gone through and grouped the different categories that made the state of Denmark rotten and addressed each in its own way and then tied them all together in the end. Also, you tended to repeat yourself a lot which I think is due to the lack of organizational pattern. Watch the use of um and colloquial diction. Finally, it seemed as though a lot of the ending thoughts were after thoughts and not a clear part of your argument.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The context of Hamlet as a play and how the passage fits into the play.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Good context and purpose. Try to tie the passage into the whole play.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 6/10 I think you needed to go into more depth about how literary features made an argument for the passage. Some of the details were limited in their analysis.
Presentation: 6/10 Presentation of the material could have been done in a more convincing and conclusive way.
Use of Language: 3/5 Remove words like um and try to speak with a bit higher diction.
Total: 19/30