This so happens to be my passage for the midterm, it's number is 3 and it's from "Fecundity"
Passage Number 80 from the July's People packet
ALI LISTENED TO YOUR COMMENTARY!!!!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ben addressed a lot of context in the commentary. I think, however, he addressed too much context in the passage. Ben gave many possible themes and purposes. I didn't see you chose one very distinctly however.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Ben went through the passage chronologically and he stated it at the beginning of the commentary.
was a bit confused how going chronologically aided your overall theme of past and present.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
how does the bakki contribute to power in the new situation???
you mention various themes, which one is the most prevalent in this passage??
Do you see any more literary terms??
What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very slowly and I could understand everything you were saying. you also provided good context about the book and your passage.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you should chose one theme and stick with it instead of introducing various themes into the commentary. Also, work on picking out more specific lit terms instead of just talking about parts of the passage.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Lit terms, what lines they are located in.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 2/5
B - 4/10
C - 5/10
D - 3/5
14/30
Carlos also listened to your commentary!!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, the speaker definitely addressed context, although agreeing with Ali a little bit too much to the point where it got redundant, as well as not entirely true (e.g. the liberals were not the ones who enforced apartheid, those were the conservatives- Gordimer was only against the liberals because she felt they were ineffective in their opposition to apartheid). Again, as Ali said, you mentioned several possible purposes, but I didn't really see one that you stuck with and how it mattered overall. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There was an organizational principle utilized in the commentary, although I don't think that analyzing it chronologically was very effective. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What specific lit terms do you think most contributed to your purpose? In what way is the Silvo polish important and how does it contribute to the passage? How does this passage actually reflect Gordimer's view of liberals? -What did the speaker do well? The speaker was very clear and did not stop at any time, making the commentary very easy to understand. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would have mentioned line numbers instead of actually quoting and paraphrasing the passage, as I felt that this diminished the significance of the analysis. Additionally, I would have focused on one thing and then perhaps addressed the rest of the lit terms and themes you found at the very end of the commentary. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Rather than forget to address, I felt that you addressed far too much, although I feel like you could have more specifically focused on more lit terms rather than gone through line by line. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-2/5
B-3/10
C-4/10
D-3/5
Total:12/30
Act I Scene II
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ben addressed some context within the passage but did not utilize the facts that we were given in order to fully develop the context surrounding the passage. Also did not touch much on the purpose of the passage in relation to the play as a whole.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Ben touched on different literary terms that go throughout the passage but after a while he drifted from where they located in the passage, their purpose and to the extent. There was no organizational pattern in relation to the literary terms. It was hard to follow the exact location of the speaker at which times.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
What is the purpose of this passage? Why does Shakespeare use this passage in the play?
What do these literary terms do to the passage?
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker found literary terms and identified their initial purpose and spoke slowly.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Go more in depth as to the context/purpose/affects of lit. terms and develop new analysis of these things. I would also stray away from colloquial langauge.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The purpose of the passage, the area in which specific terms are located, inter-connections.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 3/5
B - 6/10
C - 5/10
D - 2/5
16/30
___
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I definitely saw the reference to the context in your presentation. While it is not always stated how and why this is, it is evident that you know what you're talking about. The purpose, however, was merely alluded to. I saw some of what I thought were the references to the purpose, but seeing as many of them covered varying explanations, it was hard to deduce exactly which one, if any, was the overall purpose. Maybe addressing the purpose at the beginning and making references to it within your presentation would help.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I, personally, had trouble following where you were within the passage after a while of listening. You announce the literary terms, but I do not see or hear of a pattern you are trying to use because, to me, it seems as if you are all over the place when making reference to them (the literary terms).
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
What is the overarching theme? What method of organization are you using? What is the significance of this passage within the play? How do other events in the play support/oppose your argument?
What did the speaker do well?
Identification and evaluation of literary terms and techniques. Clear and focused. No real straying from main argument.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Less lapses within the presentation. State the purpose at the beginning. Link literary terms to the purpose. Think "outside of the box"; try using unique interpretations. Link the passage to different events within the play and also so Shakespeare himself. Be a bit more formal.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Overarching theme/purpose. Purpose of lit terms. Thorough evaluation of Lit Terms.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3/5 - Adequate understanding of the extract or work(s)
B: 5/10 - Adequate interpretation of the extract of work(s)
C: 5/10 - A generally focused and developed response
D: 2/5 - The language is only sometimes clear and coherent
Total: 15/30
Passage Number 80 from the July's People packet
ALI LISTENED TO YOUR COMMENTARY!!!!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ben addressed a lot of context in the commentary. I think, however, he addressed too much context in the passage. Ben gave many possible themes and purposes. I didn't see you chose one very distinctly however.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Ben went through the passage chronologically and he stated it at the beginning of the commentary.
was a bit confused how going chronologically aided your overall theme of past and present.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
how does the bakki contribute to power in the new situation???
you mention various themes, which one is the most prevalent in this passage??
Do you see any more literary terms??
What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very slowly and I could understand everything you were saying. you also provided good context about the book and your passage.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you should chose one theme and stick with it instead of introducing various themes into the commentary. Also, work on picking out more specific lit terms instead of just talking about parts of the passage.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Lit terms, what lines they are located in.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 2/5
B - 4/10
C - 5/10
D - 3/5
14/30
Carlos also listened to your commentary!!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, the speaker definitely addressed context, although agreeing with Ali a little bit too much to the point where it got redundant, as well as not entirely true (e.g. the liberals were not the ones who enforced apartheid, those were the conservatives- Gordimer was only against the liberals because she felt they were ineffective in their opposition to apartheid). Again, as Ali said, you mentioned several possible purposes, but I didn't really see one that you stuck with and how it mattered overall.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an organizational principle utilized in the commentary, although I don't think that analyzing it chronologically was very effective.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What specific lit terms do you think most contributed to your purpose?
In what way is the Silvo polish important and how does it contribute to the passage?
How does this passage actually reflect Gordimer's view of liberals?
-What did the speaker do well?
The speaker was very clear and did not stop at any time, making the commentary very easy to understand.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would have mentioned line numbers instead of actually quoting and paraphrasing the passage, as I felt that this diminished the significance of the analysis. Additionally, I would have focused on one thing and then perhaps addressed the rest of the lit terms and themes you found at the very end of the commentary.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Rather than forget to address, I felt that you addressed far too much, although I feel like you could have more specifically focused on more lit terms rather than gone through line by line.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-2/5
B-3/10
C-4/10
D-3/5
Total:12/30
Act I Scene II
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ben addressed some context within the passage but did not utilize the facts that we were given in order to fully develop the context surrounding the passage. Also did not touch much on the purpose of the passage in relation to the play as a whole.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Ben touched on different literary terms that go throughout the passage but after a while he drifted from where they located in the passage, their purpose and to the extent. There was no organizational pattern in relation to the literary terms. It was hard to follow the exact location of the speaker at which times.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
What is the purpose of this passage? Why does Shakespeare use this passage in the play?
What do these literary terms do to the passage?
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker found literary terms and identified their initial purpose and spoke slowly.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Go more in depth as to the context/purpose/affects of lit. terms and develop new analysis of these things. I would also stray away from colloquial langauge.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The purpose of the passage, the area in which specific terms are located, inter-connections.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 3/5
B - 6/10
C - 5/10
D - 2/5
16/30
___
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I definitely saw the reference to the context in your presentation. While it is not always stated how and why this is, it is evident that you know what you're talking about. The purpose, however, was merely alluded to. I saw some of what I thought were the references to the purpose, but seeing as many of them covered varying explanations, it was hard to deduce exactly which one, if any, was the overall purpose. Maybe addressing the purpose at the beginning and making references to it within your presentation would help.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I, personally, had trouble following where you were within the passage after a while of listening. You announce the literary terms, but I do not see or hear of a pattern you are trying to use because, to me, it seems as if you are all over the place when making reference to them (the literary terms).
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
What is the overarching theme? What method of organization are you using? What is the significance of this passage within the play? How do other events in the play support/oppose your argument?
What did the speaker do well?
Identification and evaluation of literary terms and techniques. Clear and focused. No real straying from main argument.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Less lapses within the presentation. State the purpose at the beginning. Link literary terms to the purpose. Think "outside of the box"; try using unique interpretations. Link the passage to different events within the play and also so Shakespeare himself. Be a bit more formal.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Overarching theme/purpose. Purpose of lit terms. Thorough evaluation of Lit Terms.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3/5 - Adequate understanding of the extract or work(s)
B: 5/10 - Adequate interpretation of the extract of work(s)
C: 5/10 - A generally focused and developed response
D: 2/5 - The language is only sometimes clear and coherent
Total: 15/30
Sorry for putting this in late.
Brunno