-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Your amount of detail and clarity on the context was fabulous. The purpose of the book itself was addressed in the beginning along with the purpose of the passage itself. Nice work, my man.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The commentary was organized thematically, which was unique since most others did commentaries in chronological order.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Did Gordimer intend for Maureen's actions to be seen as positive or negative?
-What did the speaker do well?
Many, many things. I liked your organizational style and attention to detail.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Work on improving your use of language. Throughout your commentary you paused and used words like "uh."
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Nope, nothing was forgotten.
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. Let's face it, you're good at this Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. I was slightly confused on whether the passage was supposed to be positive or negative as your interpretation hinted at both, though. Presentation: 10/10 Very nicely done, you had a great organization style. Use of Language: 3/5. You could have spoken clearer and hesitated less. Total: 27/30
Sincerely, Tony Muhplaah
Also known as Ben Wax
Oh hey, Carlos. Catherine Haslam will be reviewing your commentary tonight!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think you did a good job addressing the context of the play, and throughout the commentary you described its different purposes with regard to the different lit terms.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, you mentioned the chronological, linear organization of your commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Do you think that Claudius' line, "All may be well" at the end, means that Claudius sincerely has hope, or rather, is a failed attempt to console himself?
What are the three most essential literary elements used in the passage to convey Shakespeare's intentions of Claudius' character?
Is Shakespeare commenting on the corruption of the state of Denmark in addition to the corruption of the characters?
-What did the speaker do well?
You definitely spoke very clearly, and logically covered each lit term and line thoroughly with evidence for explanation. A very thorough analysis. Also, while taking the listener through the passage step-by-step, you reaffirming previous ideas in each new line and term, which made it easier to follow your main points.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I found it to be too long--if you could pick just a few lit terms and focus on them, I think it would make for a more concise analysis. At times, it can also sound scripted, so try to do this as if you're having a converstaion. It was a bit redundant at points when explaining the reasoning behind using different lit terms, but overall, these are minor things that can be easily fixed next time.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
He seemed to cover them all thoroughly. The contrast of positive and negative diction throughout the passage could have been another route of analysis, however his lit terms cover this idea successfully.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-9
C-8
D-4
July's People Oral Commentary
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Your amount of detail and clarity on the context was fabulous. The purpose of the book itself was addressed in the beginning along with the purpose of the passage itself. Nice work, my man.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The commentary was organized thematically, which was unique since most others did commentaries in chronological order.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Did Gordimer intend for Maureen's actions to be seen as positive or negative?
-What did the speaker do well?
Many, many things. I liked your organizational style and attention to detail.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Work on improving your use of language. Throughout your commentary you paused and used words like "uh."
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Nope, nothing was forgotten.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. Let's face it, you're good at this
Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. I was slightly confused on whether the passage was supposed to be positive or negative as your interpretation hinted at both, though.
Presentation: 10/10 Very nicely done, you had a great organization style.
Use of Language: 3/5. You could have spoken clearer and hesitated less.
Total: 27/30
Sincerely, Tony Muhplaah
Also known as Ben Wax
Oh hey, Carlos. Catherine Haslam will be reviewing your commentary tonight!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think you did a good job addressing the context of the play, and throughout the commentary you described its different purposes with regard to the different lit terms.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, you mentioned the chronological, linear organization of your commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Do you think that Claudius' line, "All may be well" at the end, means that Claudius sincerely has hope, or rather, is a failed attempt to console himself?
What are the three most essential literary elements used in the passage to convey Shakespeare's intentions of Claudius' character?
Is Shakespeare commenting on the corruption of the state of Denmark in addition to the corruption of the characters?
-What did the speaker do well?
You definitely spoke very clearly, and logically covered each lit term and line thoroughly with evidence for explanation. A very thorough analysis. Also, while taking the listener through the passage step-by-step, you reaffirming previous ideas in each new line and term, which made it easier to follow your main points.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I found it to be too long--if you could pick just a few lit terms and focus on them, I think it would make for a more concise analysis. At times, it can also sound scripted, so try to do this as if you're having a converstaion. It was a bit redundant at points when explaining the reasoning behind using different lit terms, but overall, these are minor things that can be easily fixed next time.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
He seemed to cover them all thoroughly. The contrast of positive and negative diction throughout the passage could have been another route of analysis, however his lit terms cover this idea successfully.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-9
C-8
D-4
26