July's People passage 77 Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes she addressed purpose and context well and immediately. Addresses where the passage is and what happened before it. Clearly states the importance of this passage in the beginning. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There was a very good organizational pattern in this passage. You chose to look at movement imagery, water, and sensory experience instead of going chronologically. I feel it creates a stronger commentary when you look at elements individually instead of just going chronologically. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Do you feel Maureen is really desperate or just an opportunist? What did the speaker do well? You addressed context and purpose very well. You also had a strong organizational pattern and followed it very well and effectively. I feel you did a good job at addressing the main lit terms. What would you suggest for improvement?
There were some lit terms that I feel you felt out, but they were only minor and your commentary was still strong without them. Good job. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? I think some lit terms were not addressed but they were not crucial for the success of your commentary. What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 5- I feel you knew the content of the passage and you addressed context and purpose very well. B: 8- You identified and used Gordimer’s style and addressed most lit terms and images and symbols effectively. You were very specific within the passage. C: 8- You had a very structured response with a convincing argument. I thought that this was a great commentary Emily. D: 5- The language choice was appropriate for the context and lit terms and choice of style is are addressed very well.
Total: 26/30
Isaac Luber
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you talk about what happens throughout the novel and the basic ideas about the overthrown apartheid in the text. You also address the importance of the passage and how it is the last one of the novel and it is where Maureen realizes that she can no longer stay in July's village and she is leaving the past behind.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes there was. The organizational pattern was literary terms and symbols, yet you also seem to talk about some of Maureen's desperation through a chronological order, because you look at the progression of the term "she runs" throughout the passage, so it comes off in a chronological way.
What did the speaker do well?
You laid at your main points very well through movement imagery, idea of water as a cleansing vehicle of rebirth
sensory experience and Maureen's sensory experience. You also focus on the phrase "she runs" which I really liked because you took a small phrase and developed it. You also use a good amount of quotes without going overboard.
What would you suggest for improvement?
You may just want to work on your flow a little bit, especially at the beginning, but once you got further into the commentary, you did a great job!
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You may have wanted to put Maureen's struggle in context and talked for a brief period about why she is running away and the progression in her character throughout the book that has ultimately now led to her "rebirth."
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4
B: 9
C: 7
D: 4
Great job overall Emily! I thought it was a really great commentary.
--Drew Ackerman
Death IV. iii. 19-58
Peer Reviewer: Helen Gaynor
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes. You mentioned in both the beginning and the end of your commentary that Hamlet had just committed his first murder my killing Polonius. You may want to mention in the beginning that the murder was an accident just to provide the listener with a little more knowledge before diving into the passage. You clearly stated what you were arguing as the purpose of the passage, death and decay in Denmark to represent corruption of the court. You brought up the elements of drama, however I think you could have connected them to your purpose instead of simply listing what they were. There was not really any mention of the author. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? It was organized very well. You gave context first, and then mentioned the elements of drama. You went on to state your purpose, and then named the three elements with which you would use defend your purpose: decaying imagery, heaven vs. hell, and Claudius’s lies. I found the second topic, heaven vs. hell a little hard to follow the way you were talking about it and I don’t think it was very clear. You said “Hamlet vs. hell” and “heaven vs. hell”. I understood what you meant but it’s just something to look out for. I was not sure how your point about death as the great equalizer was necessarily relevant. It seemed to me like a bit of a stretch to relate that to heaven vs. hell, but that’s just an opinion and I could be completely wrong. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I would ask you how the elements of drama that you mentioned helped prove your purpose and how they were significant in the regards to the meaning the passage was trying to portray. I would also ask you if you had any lit terms to support your heaven vs. hell point. I would also ask what type of irony was created in the end of the passage when you addressing Claudius’s lies. What did the speaker do well?
I thought that you had a very clear organizational pattern and your commentary was pretty easy to follow for the most part. You had a very clear purpose and supported it with good evidence form the passage. What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest that you look for more literary terms in the passage in order to support your points. You mentioned motif and metaphor when you were talking about decaying imagery, which I thought was your strongest point. However, I did not really hear you bringing up lit terms with your last two points; you were just talking about the passage. I completely understood what you were saying and you made strong claims. The only thing is that part of the rubric (B) addresses how well you identify literary terms and devices, so it’s just something to work on. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think that there was olfactory imagery present in this passage (shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby) that could have been mentioned simply because it is so prevalent in the play as a whole. I thought that the irony in the end should have been referred to as dramatic irony; audience knows something that the character (Hamlet) does not. There was a strong theme of beggar vs. king imagery, and I think that can highlight corruption as well. The beggar is painted as the better person in this picture, showing members of the court as corrupt. Maybe that is what you were hitting on with the heaven vs hell point?
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 –you had a good understanding of the play and set your passage with context, though I think you could have been a bit more specific and mentioned more about Shakespeare himself.
B: 7 –I think that your interpretation was great, but I think if you had more lit terms you could have really bumped it up to the next level.
C: 8--your organizational pattern was very clear and easy to follow, however I think you could have been more clear and concise with your second point about heaven vs. hell.
D: 3 –There were a lot of likes’, umms’, and sos’. You had a couple of times were there very pretty long pauses/gaps in your speaking, but overall, it was generally clear.
Total: 22/30 – I thought it was very good, especially for our first real ones :)
By Elliot Levy
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes you addressed context. I think in the beginning you have talked about what happens before and immediately after a little bit more. This would be a nice connection to the purpose in the book. Also, I think you could have mentioned Shakespeare and some facts you know about him or how this is characteristic or un-characteristic of his work. You demonstrated good knowledge on the background, but I think that in order demonstrate great knowledge you must talked about some of the ideas mentioned above. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? It was You organizational pattern is good and easy to follow. It seems to be linear at first followed by non-linear organization when you jump back to relate to the beginning of the passage. This helps support your thought of shift and change occurring within the passage. One suggestion I could add would be to come out and stat your organizational pattern at the beginning so the listener can immediately pick up on your structure.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I would ask if this overlying theme of decay is typical of Shakespeare text. This could just bring you context and purpose score up a little by mentioning Shakespeare and demonstrating knowledge on his background. I would also ask the question, if this were a written essay, would you attack it the same way and why? This would show your understanding on organizational pattern and fully prove to the listener that you pattern is the most effective.
What would you suggest for improvement? More context/purpose – deomastrate complete understanding Clearer organization – lay it out for the listener, don’t have them try to find it or quess You could find more literary terms – particually towards the end
What did the speaker do well? Good job have one main theme that you saw throughout the passage. I though you did a nice job of finding lines that substantiated this thought and also did a good job when transitioning from one line to the next, making sure to relate it back to your overall point in the end.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think you should find more literary terms, especially in the last two points you made. You did a good job of broadening the lines and relating it to the passage as a whole, but you need to bring it back to a specific part of the passage. I think in these paragraphs you related your lines but needed more hard evidence found with literary terns.
What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 4 – good context, talked about before and after, good job mentioning the elements of drama, but just don’t forget to talk about Shakespeare. B: 6 – You interpretation was good. You referenced good lines and connected them with your overarching idea, which was good. More literary terms would definitely help you here. C: 7 –I thought you had a good pattern in the end. It was good was to comment on the passage. I had trouble finding what your pattern was at first, so maybe come out and say this. D: 3 – You diction was good, good use of vocab. You had too many pauses and um’s, which hurt this score.
July's People passage 77
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes she addressed purpose and context well and immediately. Addresses where the passage is and what happened before it. Clearly states the importance of this passage in the beginning.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was a very good organizational pattern in this passage. You chose to look at movement imagery, water, and sensory experience instead of going chronologically. I feel it creates a stronger commentary when you look at elements individually instead of just going chronologically.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Do you feel Maureen is really desperate or just an opportunist?
What did the speaker do well?
You addressed context and purpose very well. You also had a strong organizational pattern and followed it very well and effectively. I feel you did a good job at addressing the main lit terms.
What would you suggest for improvement?
There were some lit terms that I feel you felt out, but they were only minor and your commentary was still strong without them. Good job.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think some lit terms were not addressed but they were not crucial for the success of your commentary.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 5- I feel you knew the content of the passage and you addressed context and purpose very well.
B: 8- You identified and used Gordimer’s style and addressed most lit terms and images and symbols effectively. You were very specific within the passage.
C: 8- You had a very structured response with a convincing argument. I thought that this was a great commentary Emily.
D: 5- The language choice was appropriate for the context and lit terms and choice of style is are addressed very well.
Total: 26/30
Isaac Luber
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you talk about what happens throughout the novel and the basic ideas about the overthrown apartheid in the text. You also address the importance of the passage and how it is the last one of the novel and it is where Maureen realizes that she can no longer stay in July's village and she is leaving the past behind.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes there was. The organizational pattern was literary terms and symbols, yet you also seem to talk about some of Maureen's desperation through a chronological order, because you look at the progression of the term "she runs" throughout the passage, so it comes off in a chronological way.
What did the speaker do well?
You laid at your main points very well through movement imagery, idea of water as a cleansing vehicle of rebirth
sensory experience and Maureen's sensory experience. You also focus on the phrase "she runs" which I really liked because you took a small phrase and developed it. You also use a good amount of quotes without going overboard.
What would you suggest for improvement?
You may just want to work on your flow a little bit, especially at the beginning, but once you got further into the commentary, you did a great job!
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You may have wanted to put Maureen's struggle in context and talked for a brief period about why she is running away and the progression in her character throughout the book that has ultimately now led to her "rebirth."
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4
B: 9
C: 7
D: 4
Great job overall Emily! I thought it was a really great commentary.
--Drew Ackerman
Death IV. iii. 19-58
Peer Reviewer: Helen Gaynor
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes. You mentioned in both the beginning and the end of your commentary that Hamlet had just committed his first murder my killing Polonius. You may want to mention in the beginning that the murder was an accident just to provide the listener with a little more knowledge before diving into the passage. You clearly stated what you were arguing as the purpose of the passage, death and decay in Denmark to represent corruption of the court. You brought up the elements of drama, however I think you could have connected them to your purpose instead of simply listing what they were. There was not really any mention of the author.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
It was organized very well. You gave context first, and then mentioned the elements of drama. You went on to state your purpose, and then named the three elements with which you would use defend your purpose: decaying imagery, heaven vs. hell, and Claudius’s lies. I found the second topic, heaven vs. hell a little hard to follow the way you were talking about it and I don’t think it was very clear. You said “Hamlet vs. hell” and “heaven vs. hell”. I understood what you meant but it’s just something to look out for. I was not sure how your point about death as the great equalizer was necessarily relevant. It seemed to me like a bit of a stretch to relate that to heaven vs. hell, but that’s just an opinion and I could be completely wrong.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I would ask you how the elements of drama that you mentioned helped prove your purpose and how they were significant in the regards to the meaning the passage was trying to portray. I would also ask you if you had any lit terms to support your heaven vs. hell point. I would also ask what type of irony was created in the end of the passage when you addressing Claudius’s lies.
What did the speaker do well?
I thought that you had a very clear organizational pattern and your commentary was pretty easy to follow for the most part. You had a very clear purpose and supported it with good evidence form the passage.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest that you look for more literary terms in the passage in order to support your points. You mentioned motif and metaphor when you were talking about decaying imagery, which I thought was your strongest point. However, I did not really hear you bringing up lit terms with your last two points; you were just talking about the passage. I completely understood what you were saying and you made strong claims. The only thing is that part of the rubric (B) addresses how well you identify literary terms and devices, so it’s just something to work on.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think that there was olfactory imagery present in this passage (shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby) that could have been mentioned simply because it is so prevalent in the play as a whole. I thought that the irony in the end should have been referred to as dramatic irony; audience knows something that the character (Hamlet) does not. There was a strong theme of beggar vs. king imagery, and I think that can highlight corruption as well. The beggar is painted as the better person in this picture, showing members of the court as corrupt. Maybe that is what you were hitting on with the heaven vs hell point?
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 –you had a good understanding of the play and set your passage with context, though I think you could have been a bit more specific and mentioned more about Shakespeare himself.
B: 7 –I think that your interpretation was great, but I think if you had more lit terms you could have really bumped it up to the next level.
C: 8--your organizational pattern was very clear and easy to follow, however I think you could have been more clear and concise with your second point about heaven vs. hell.
D: 3 –There were a lot of likes’, umms’, and sos’. You had a couple of times were there very pretty long pauses/gaps in your speaking, but overall, it was generally clear.
Total: 22/30 – I thought it was very good, especially for our first real ones :)
By Elliot Levy
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes you addressed context. I think in the beginning you have talked about what happens before and immediately after a little bit more. This would be a nice connection to the purpose in the book. Also, I think you could have mentioned Shakespeare and some facts you know about him or how this is characteristic or un-characteristic of his work. You demonstrated good knowledge on the background, but I think that in order demonstrate great knowledge you must talked about some of the ideas mentioned above.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
It was
You organizational pattern is good and easy to follow. It seems to be linear at first followed by non-linear organization when you jump back to relate to the beginning of the passage. This helps support your thought of shift and change occurring within the passage. One suggestion I could add would be to come out and stat your organizational pattern at the beginning so the listener can immediately pick up on your structure.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I would ask if this overlying theme of decay is typical of Shakespeare text. This could just bring you context and purpose score up a little by mentioning Shakespeare and demonstrating knowledge on his background. I would also ask the question, if this were a written essay, would you attack it the same way and why? This would show your understanding on organizational pattern and fully prove to the listener that you pattern is the most effective.
What would you suggest for improvement?
More context/purpose – deomastrate complete understanding
Clearer organization – lay it out for the listener, don’t have them try to find it or quess
You could find more literary terms – particually towards the end
What did the speaker do well?
Good job have one main theme that you saw throughout the passage. I though you did a nice job of finding lines that substantiated this thought and also did a good job when transitioning from one line to the next, making sure to relate it back to your overall point in the end.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think you should find more literary terms, especially in the last two points you made. You did a good job of broadening the lines and relating it to the passage as a whole, but you need to bring it back to a specific part of the passage. I think in these paragraphs you related your lines but needed more hard evidence found with literary terns.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 – good context, talked about before and after, good job mentioning the elements of drama, but just don’t forget to talk about Shakespeare.
B: 6 – You interpretation was good. You referenced good lines and connected them with your overarching idea, which was good. More literary terms would definitely help you here.
C: 7 –I thought you had a good pattern in the end. It was good was to comment on the passage. I had trouble finding what your pattern was at first, so maybe come out and say this.
D: 3 – You diction was good, good use of vocab. You had too many pauses and um’s, which hurt this score.
Total: 20/30 – You have done it again Emily!!!