-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context fairly well, by saying exactly where the passage was in relation to the rest of the book as well as by speaking of the way in which it follows a speech by Hamlet. However, I feel as though that could have been made stronger if you had mentioned the fact that it is a soliloquy within a soliloquy, as that could have furthered the purpose of the passage you were commenting on. In terms of purpose, I feel as though I was able to understand what you were trying to say as the commentary continued, but did not get a clear enough idea at the very beginning. The commentary would also have been easier to understand if you had provided the audience with a clear, specific thesis. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Overall, I feel as though you more or less just went through the passage and looked at things line by line, commenting on the way in which they affect our view as a whole. In the end, I was able to understand that you decided to analyse the passage chronologically, but I did not know why you did this and was at first confused, as it was not explicitly stated. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary techniques do you feel were present in this passage? Do you think the passage lends itself to stronger analysis chronologically or thematically? Why? What umbrella term do you think is created through literary techniques in order to convey the message about Claudius that you speak of? -What did the speaker do well?
You do in fact convey to the audience the way in which Claudius reflects on his actions in a correct manner. You also narrowed in on the specific areas in the passage that support your thesis, which could be made a little bit clearer in reference to umbrella terms but which does become evident, and you looked at the way words carry a certain meaning given the context of the passage, which I thought contributed greatly to your commentary. -What would you suggest for improvement?
The way in which you speak seems very conversational and tends to make leaps that would be appropriate in a discussion but which in the context of an oral commentary seem out of place and too informal. You also pause a lot, something that will definitely improve with time but that you definitely need to watch out for. In general, I feel that, even though I definitely agree with what you are saying and know the reasons why you would speak of how certain elements represent others, I can’t give you higher marks because I don’t understand how or why you make the jump from the words that Shakespeare wrote and the message he was getting across through either an umbrella term or through literary techniques. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You don’t seem to address a single literary technique within the passage itself and imply that certain things give the audience a message without providing why or how this message is created. Specifically for this passage, I would also recommend that you look at syntax, diction, and punctuation, as, having done the same passage, I feel that the three definitely helped me in my analysis and could add to yours as well. -What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 3- Adequate understanding of context, no mention of setting or of Shakespeare B: 2- No mention of any literary techniques, content-based analysis only. C: 5- The response does eventually develop an organizational pattern, but it is implicit and could be a lot clearer. D: 3- The language, while generally clear, is at times broken and too casual/colloquial for an oral commentary.
Total: 13/30 Even though I understood the majority of your presentation and was able to follow it, the fact that you almost entirely omitted literary terms from it means I can’t give you a higher score. However, this is easy to fix and can ensure massive improvement from this commentary to the next.
-Carlos Sisniega
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ^ Those lines are waves. Read the following text as if I were speaking underwater. -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Context was covered well by giving specifics of the location of the scene within the play and the actions which happened directly before it. The purpose was not clearly addressed, though there is evidence that you were aware of the purpose. Perhaps a thesis or outline of purpose should be added next time?
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The commentary first addressed context, then began going into detail about the different pieces of evidence which support the purpose. They appeared to be addressed in chronological order, though there is no justification for why that is being used.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How is this passage typical of Shakespearean drama? What is the overall purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well? Context was through, speaker was able to thoroughly analyze sections of the passage and provide deeper meaning.
-What would you suggest for improvement? Directly mention purpose and literary terms instead of implying them. Address the order of analysis and why you chose it.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Purpose, specifically drawing attention to literary terms.
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 2/5 Did not go into specific detail about purpose, did not address how the work is Shakespearean. Interpretation and Personal Response: 2/10 A higher score cannot be given without awareness of literary features Presentation: 4/10 Organization is present, but the response is not always focused on elaborating why aspects are important other than just stating that they are. Use of Language: 3/5 A bit informal at times. Total: 11/30 Keep on trucking, Bruno! Mention things more explicitly, let the audience know you know what you're doing, and keep your head up high!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context fairly well, by saying exactly where the passage was in relation to the rest of the book as well as by speaking of the way in which it follows a speech by Hamlet. However, I feel as though that could have been made stronger if you had mentioned the fact that it is a soliloquy within a soliloquy, as that could have furthered the purpose of the passage you were commenting on. In terms of purpose, I feel as though I was able to understand what you were trying to say as the commentary continued, but did not get a clear enough idea at the very beginning. The commentary would also have been easier to understand if you had provided the audience with a clear, specific thesis.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Overall, I feel as though you more or less just went through the passage and looked at things line by line, commenting on the way in which they affect our view as a whole. In the end, I was able to understand that you decided to analyse the passage chronologically, but I did not know why you did this and was at first confused, as it was not explicitly stated.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary techniques do you feel were present in this passage? Do you think the passage lends itself to stronger analysis chronologically or thematically? Why? What umbrella term do you think is created through literary techniques in order to convey the message about Claudius that you speak of?
-What did the speaker do well?
You do in fact convey to the audience the way in which Claudius reflects on his actions in a correct manner. You also narrowed in on the specific areas in the passage that support your thesis, which could be made a little bit clearer in reference to umbrella terms but which does become evident, and you looked at the way words carry a certain meaning given the context of the passage, which I thought contributed greatly to your commentary.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
The way in which you speak seems very conversational and tends to make leaps that would be appropriate in a discussion but which in the context of an oral commentary seem out of place and too informal. You also pause a lot, something that will definitely improve with time but that you definitely need to watch out for. In general, I feel that, even though I definitely agree with what you are saying and know the reasons why you would speak of how certain elements represent others, I can’t give you higher marks because I don’t understand how or why you make the jump from the words that Shakespeare wrote and the message he was getting across through either an umbrella term or through literary techniques.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You don’t seem to address a single literary technique within the passage itself and imply that certain things give the audience a message without providing why or how this message is created. Specifically for this passage, I would also recommend that you look at syntax, diction, and punctuation, as, having done the same passage, I feel that the three definitely helped me in my analysis and could add to yours as well.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3- Adequate understanding of context, no mention of setting or of Shakespeare
B: 2- No mention of any literary techniques, content-based analysis only.
C: 5- The response does eventually develop an organizational pattern, but it is implicit and could be a lot clearer.
D: 3- The language, while generally clear, is at times broken and too casual/colloquial for an oral commentary.
Total: 13/30
Even though I understood the majority of your presentation and was able to follow it, the fact that you almost entirely omitted literary terms from it means I can’t give you a higher score. However, this is easy to fix and can ensure massive improvement from this commentary to the next.
-Carlos Sisniega
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
^ Those lines are waves. Read the following text as if I were speaking underwater.
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was covered well by giving specifics of the location of the scene within the play and the actions which happened directly before it.
The purpose was not clearly addressed, though there is evidence that you were aware of the purpose. Perhaps a thesis or outline of purpose should be added next time?
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The commentary first addressed context, then began going into detail about the different pieces of evidence which support the purpose. They appeared to be addressed in chronological order, though there is no justification for why that is being used.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How is this passage typical of Shakespearean drama?
What is the overall purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
Context was through, speaker was able to thoroughly analyze sections of the passage and provide deeper meaning.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Directly mention purpose and literary terms instead of implying them. Address the order of analysis and why you chose it.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Purpose, specifically drawing attention to literary terms.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 2/5 Did not go into specific detail about purpose, did not address how the work is Shakespearean.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 2/10 A higher score cannot be given without awareness of literary features
Presentation: 4/10 Organization is present, but the response is not always focused on elaborating why aspects are important other than just stating that they are.
Use of Language: 3/5 A bit informal at times.
Total: 11/30
Keep on trucking, Bruno! Mention things more explicitly, let the audience know you know what you're doing, and keep your head up high!
Sincerely,
Tony D. Muhplaah
Aka Ben Wax
English Midterm: