-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Context and purpose are clearly stated at the beginning of the podcast clearly and succinctly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You lay out all the literary devices at the beginning, which I love but then you revert to chronological order. I personally have done nothing but chronological order because I always find it easiest but, like Ms. O says, it might not always be the best way to go about things. Overall however, there was an organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I really enjoyed your analysis of the rain and darkness. Where else in the book did you find this motif specifically? You made reference to the fact that the vehicle represents power due to the fact that July drove it at the beginning and he had power then. What textual references are there alluding to his power at the beginning.
-What did the speaker do well? I really liked your interpretation of the passage and the way you looked at the motifs. I also liked the way you listed everything you were going to discuss from the beginning. Just looking back at prior comments on the Hamlet podcast, it also seems like you have avoided making the same mistakes you usually make, like quoting the text too much. Good Job!
-What would you suggest for improvement? A wider variety of literary terms would have made your argument much stronger. Otherwise I thought everything was laid out well. Perhaps if you had used more literary devices, you would not have to analyze each one so in depth as you did. I kind of got lost in the presentation at some points.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Everything was addressed in a manner that moved the argument forward. Great Job. However, I think it would have been a much stronger analysis if you analyzed more than just similes. At the end of the presentation you say something along the lines of “we see this through figurative language with the three similes, …..” and then even though it sounds like you are going to list more, you stop at that.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4 B- 8 C- 8 D- 4
24
GOOOD JOB HELEN!!!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Context was mentioned as Hamlet and Polonius, but not much goes into what happens directly before the scene Purpose was addressed in the beginning as the showing the corruption of Denmark.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The commentary first addressed context and purpose, then named the literary features which provide the purpose. Then, each literary feature was addressed separately instead of chronologically, followed by literary features besides the main points. A brief conclusion was at the end.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How is this passage typical of Shakespearean drama? What importance would be lost if this passage was omitted from the play?
-What did the speaker do well? Was focused and organized, went into detail without much hesitation
-What would you suggest for improvement? Spend less time reading quotes from the text (such as with the rotting imagery)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) None
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Go into more depth about context, otherwise great. Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10 Could go into more depth about the overlying reason for why these were important to implement and addressed the aforementioned questions I would have asked. Presentation: 6/10 While focused and developed, a bit too much time was spent reading quotes from the text at points. Also, increase length, as it does not reach length requirements Use of Language: 3/5 Remove words like "kinda" and add a bit more sophistication. Total: 22/30
Additional comments: The analysis is only 9 minutes, while I believe that the requirement for time is 10-15 minutes. In case you ever have to record things on a microphone again, try getting a better quality of microphone or record in a quieter spot. It sounds like you're going through a futuristic tunnel. Though I was assigned to be evaluating the work on the page of Allison Wortley, I believe that this is actually Helen Gaynor, especially since she introduced herself as such in the beginning.
Sincerely, Tony Muhplaah Aka Ben Wax
Peer Review Take Two :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You did address context, briefly in the beginning. However, you only really mentioned what was going on in the passage (Hamlet and Polonius were having a conversation); I think that you could go into more detail, address a few scenes before this passage, why this conversation is occurring. I also think that you could bring in some information about Shakespeare and the genre of this play. You address the purpose of the passage, and say that it demonstrate corruption within the court. You could address how that theme is prevalent within other parts of the play, and/or other works of Shakespeare.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You had an organizational pattern-you looked at corruption through imagery, alliteration, and asides. When you spoke specifically about imagery, you labeled it gross imagery; I think that you might want to start by calling it gross imagery (or rotting imagery) right away, specificity is good. Also, I'm not sure if you would categorize asides as elements of drama, and then only talk about asides, or simply leave it as it is.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I would ask: can you explain how the death imagery relates directly to the corruption of the court? What is the effect of the alliteration of the letter "p" (does this letter and how it's used cause any kind of reaction to you)?
-What did the speaker do well? You did a fantastic job explaining basically every single point that you brought up. You did not leave any unfinished ideas, and most of your arguments were incredibly strong; I think you handled the gross imagery really well. I especially liked how you related the sun to the king, and said that the king was causing this growth of a basically decaying state. You also integrated the aside as an element of drama in to your commentary nicely. I think that you tied the whole commentary together very well.
-What would you suggest for improvement? You started and stopped the recording constantly; your ideas are awesome and I think that you could totally do this straight through. Also, make sure not to reread too much of the text back, because some parts of the dialogue you read, you don't use to support your argument. Also, you should draw from different parts of the passage, rather than one or two lines, to support some of your points (specifically alliteration).
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You addressed everything, but you're 45 seconds short of 10 minutes.
-What would you score them based on the rubric? A-4 B-7 C-6 D-3
20/30 Great job Helen! Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar
MIDTERMMMM!!!!!
July's People, pg. 51
James Butler- Response to J's Peeps
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context and purpose are clearly stated at the beginning of the podcast clearly and succinctly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You lay out all the literary devices at the beginning, which I love but then you revert to chronological order. I personally have done nothing but chronological order because I always find it easiest but, like Ms. O says, it might not always be the best way to go about things. Overall however, there was an organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I really enjoyed your analysis of the rain and darkness. Where else in the book did you find this motif specifically? You made reference to the fact that the vehicle represents power due to the fact that July drove it at the beginning and he had power then. What textual references are there alluding to his power at the beginning.
-What did the speaker do well?
I really liked your interpretation of the passage and the way you looked at the motifs. I also liked the way you listed everything you were going to discuss from the beginning. Just looking back at prior comments on the Hamlet podcast, it also seems like you have avoided making the same mistakes you usually make, like quoting the text too much. Good Job!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
A wider variety of literary terms would have made your argument much stronger. Otherwise I thought everything was laid out well. Perhaps if you had used more literary devices, you would not have to analyze each one so in depth as you did. I kind of got lost in the presentation at some points.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Everything was addressed in a manner that moved the argument forward. Great Job. However, I think it would have been a much stronger analysis if you analyzed more than just similes. At the end of the presentation you say something along the lines of “we see this through figurative language with the three similes, …..” and then even though it sounds like you are going to list more, you stop at that.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4
B- 8
C- 8
D- 4
24
GOOOD JOB HELEN!!!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was mentioned as Hamlet and Polonius, but not much goes into what happens directly before the scene
Purpose was addressed in the beginning as the showing the corruption of Denmark.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The commentary first addressed context and purpose, then named the literary features which provide the purpose. Then, each literary feature was addressed separately instead of chronologically, followed by literary features besides the main points. A brief conclusion was at the end.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How is this passage typical of Shakespearean drama?
What importance would be lost if this passage was omitted from the play?
-What did the speaker do well?
Was focused and organized, went into detail without much hesitation
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Spend less time reading quotes from the text (such as with the rotting imagery)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
None
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Go into more depth about context, otherwise great.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10 Could go into more depth about the overlying reason for why these were important to implement and addressed the aforementioned questions I would have asked.
Presentation: 6/10 While focused and developed, a bit too much time was spent reading quotes from the text at points. Also, increase length, as it does not reach length requirements
Use of Language: 3/5 Remove words like "kinda" and add a bit more sophistication.
Total: 22/30
Additional comments:
The analysis is only 9 minutes, while I believe that the requirement for time is 10-15 minutes.
In case you ever have to record things on a microphone again, try getting a better quality of microphone or record in a quieter spot. It sounds like you're going through a futuristic tunnel.
Though I was assigned to be evaluating the work on the page of Allison Wortley, I believe that this is actually Helen Gaynor, especially since she introduced herself as such in the beginning.
Sincerely,
Tony Muhplaah
Aka Ben Wax
Peer Review Take Two :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did address context, briefly in the beginning. However, you only really mentioned what was going on in the passage (Hamlet and Polonius were having a conversation); I think that you could go into more detail, address a few scenes before this passage, why this conversation is occurring. I also think that you could bring in some information about Shakespeare and the genre of this play. You address the purpose of the passage, and say that it demonstrate corruption within the court. You could address how that theme is prevalent within other parts of the play, and/or other works of Shakespeare.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You had an organizational pattern-you looked at corruption through imagery, alliteration, and asides. When you spoke specifically about imagery, you labeled it gross imagery; I think that you might want to start by calling it gross imagery (or rotting imagery) right away, specificity is good. Also, I'm not sure if you would categorize asides as elements of drama, and then only talk about asides, or simply leave it as it is.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I would ask: can you explain how the death imagery relates directly to the corruption of the court? What is the effect of the alliteration of the letter "p" (does this letter and how it's used cause any kind of reaction to you)?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a fantastic job explaining basically every single point that you brought up. You did not leave any unfinished ideas, and most of your arguments were incredibly strong; I think you handled the gross imagery really well. I especially liked how you related the sun to the king, and said that the king was causing this growth of a basically decaying state. You also integrated the aside as an element of drama in to your commentary nicely. I think that you tied the whole commentary together very well.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You started and stopped the recording constantly; your ideas are awesome and I think that you could totally do this straight through. Also, make sure not to reread too much of the text back, because some parts of the dialogue you read, you don't use to support your argument. Also, you should draw from different parts of the passage, rather than one or two lines, to support some of your points (specifically alliteration).
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You addressed everything, but you're 45 seconds short of 10 minutes.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4
B-7
C-6
D-3
20/30
Great job Helen!
Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar