For some reason, Isaac's commentary showed up, so this is my peer review on it. ~Kasie Patlove
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was lacking, you said they were fighting, where is that in the book. Purpose was also lacking, you could have talked about Gordmier and her style as a writer.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
chronological- could have grouped things together, maybe this was a bit of a cop out.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Are there any specific lit terms that Gordimer uses to get her overall purpose across?
-What did the speaker do well?
Adressed theme of role of power very well. You also analyzed the vehicle and how its used throughout the novel. Also, good analyzation of the characters. Disconnect between what July says and how Maureen interprets- good personal interpretation.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Line numbers- would have given us more clarity. You translated the text a lot and didn't necessarily analyze.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You didn't address specific lit terms at all, those are very important. Poetic topography in "fifteen years, your boy, you satisfy"- you could have said a lot about that, although you did analyze the quote itself.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 2/5
B: 4/10
C: 4/10
D: 2/5
By Helen Gaynor
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You spent a lot of time on contest and it was excellent. It was all necessary information that would aid a listener who hadn't read the book. It made your commentary easy to understand. You stated your purpose, I just hink you could have been a littler more clear with it and discussed it more.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I liked how you had it divided into sections and it really helped you analyze it chronologically and it allowed the listener to follow along very well. I think you need to be a bit more clear in the beginning stating the purpose, but otherwise it was very well organized.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why would Nadine Gordimer put this passage into a book dealing with apartheid? How does this passage aid Gordimer's message?
-What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very well and were very coherent with your words. You had a good use of vocabulary and a nice flow.
The beginning was very good and you included a lot of context which was excellent.
You addressed many lit terms and addressed many different aspects of the passage.
The organizational pattern was good and easy to follow.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you could talk more about the purpose of the passage and why Nadine Gordimer wrote it.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You were very thorough and I am pretty sure you addressed everything however I seem to have packet without your passage in it and my book is at school...so I'm going to say you pretty much addressed everythign!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Very Good!!
A: 4/5
B: 9/10
C: 8/10
D: 5/5
Total: 27/30
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was certainly mentioned however perhaps a little more time could have been spent developing the context of the passage within Hamlet a whole. The purpose of the passage was also intimated but as far as i heard, never explicitly stated until the very end of the commentary. Perhaps talking about the purpose of the passage at the beginning of the commentary would make it more clear.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an excellent organizational pattern used for the commentary. I particularly liked how you set this out at the very beginning of the commentary and established four main section you were going to talk about. However, although strong divisions were made between these sections when you were first talking about them, during the main body of the commentary these divisions were somewhat less clear. This is no necessarily a bad thing but mentioning that they flow into one another as you were setting them up could have been useful to help the assessor get a better picture of the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify what you thought Shakespeare's purpose was in writing this passage?
How do you see Shakespeare utilizing the features of drama in this passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
The speaker created an excellent pattern of organization which made it easy for him and most of the time his assessor to follow his commentary.
Lit terms were also very well utilized within the commentary and significantly strengthened the commentary as a whole.
There was generally a very good interpretation of the passage and some inspired insight (air-heir was one i found interesting as well as taking up arms against the water)
The summary at the end of the commentary was well done and did a good job of connecting the various disparate elements of the commentary into one.
Language was well used.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
More time could have spent on context in the beginning of the commentary as well as on the purpose.
The divisions between the sections outlined when you talked about organization could have been a little clearer within the main body of the commentary itself.
Little to no mention was made of the features of drama within the commentary which should be addressed.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
mostly just the features of drama otherwise pretty much everything else was touched upon even if it wasn't developed as fully as it maybe should have been
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
I'm terrible with rubrics so sorry. Overall i thought this was a very strong commentary.
A:4^/5
B:8^/10
C:8/10
D:5/5
overall: 26/30
comments courtesy of Joe Folds
Isaasc Luber’s review of James’ podcast:
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Both context and purpose were mentioned clearly, but could have been developed more. Could have gone into how it applies to Hamlet as a whole.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was a very good organizational pattern that was used at the beginning of the commentary. Towards the end it was still very good, but not as strong as it was at the beginning.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
I would ask about addressing drama features within the passage.
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker made and followed a good organizational pattern, and addressed context and purpose well for the most part. Lit terms and interpretation were strong, and language was very good.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Go into more detail with context and purpose.
What did they forget to address:
You forgot to address drama.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5. Good use of context and purpose but could have gone more in depth.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 8/10. Very good interpretation of the passage. It was focused and well put together.
Presentation: 9/10. You followed the organizational pattern very well and your points were presented with great strength.
Use of Language: 5/5. Language was sophisticated and used well.
Overall: 26/30.
Additional comments:
Great job James, you have a great foundation and I predict an A or B on your midterm.
[ invalid file: July's PeopleCommentary.mp3 ] July's People Commentary Above
For some reason, Isaac's commentary showed up, so this is my peer review on it. ~Kasie Patlove
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was lacking, you said they were fighting, where is that in the book. Purpose was also lacking, you could have talked about Gordmier and her style as a writer.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
chronological- could have grouped things together, maybe this was a bit of a cop out.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Are there any specific lit terms that Gordimer uses to get her overall purpose across?
-What did the speaker do well?
Adressed theme of role of power very well. You also analyzed the vehicle and how its used throughout the novel. Also, good analyzation of the characters. Disconnect between what July says and how Maureen interprets- good personal interpretation.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Line numbers- would have given us more clarity. You translated the text a lot and didn't necessarily analyze.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You didn't address specific lit terms at all, those are very important. Poetic topography in "fifteen years, your boy, you satisfy"- you could have said a lot about that, although you did analyze the quote itself.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 2/5
B: 4/10
C: 4/10
D: 2/5
By Helen Gaynor
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You spent a lot of time on contest and it was excellent. It was all necessary information that would aid a listener who hadn't read the book. It made your commentary easy to understand. You stated your purpose, I just hink you could have been a littler more clear with it and discussed it more.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I liked how you had it divided into sections and it really helped you analyze it chronologically and it allowed the listener to follow along very well. I think you need to be a bit more clear in the beginning stating the purpose, but otherwise it was very well organized.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why would Nadine Gordimer put this passage into a book dealing with apartheid? How does this passage aid Gordimer's message?
-What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very well and were very coherent with your words. You had a good use of vocabulary and a nice flow.
The beginning was very good and you included a lot of context which was excellent.
You addressed many lit terms and addressed many different aspects of the passage.
The organizational pattern was good and easy to follow.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you could talk more about the purpose of the passage and why Nadine Gordimer wrote it.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You were very thorough and I am pretty sure you addressed everything however I seem to have packet without your passage in it and my book is at school...so I'm going to say you pretty much addressed everythign!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Very Good!!
A: 4/5
B: 9/10
C: 8/10
D: 5/5
Total: 27/30
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was certainly mentioned however perhaps a little more time could have been spent developing the context of the passage within Hamlet a whole. The purpose of the passage was also intimated but as far as i heard, never explicitly stated until the very end of the commentary. Perhaps talking about the purpose of the passage at the beginning of the commentary would make it more clear.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an excellent organizational pattern used for the commentary. I particularly liked how you set this out at the very beginning of the commentary and established four main section you were going to talk about. However, although strong divisions were made between these sections when you were first talking about them, during the main body of the commentary these divisions were somewhat less clear. This is no necessarily a bad thing but mentioning that they flow into one another as you were setting them up could have been useful to help the assessor get a better picture of the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify what you thought Shakespeare's purpose was in writing this passage?
How do you see Shakespeare utilizing the features of drama in this passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
The speaker created an excellent pattern of organization which made it easy for him and most of the time his assessor to follow his commentary.
Lit terms were also very well utilized within the commentary and significantly strengthened the commentary as a whole.
There was generally a very good interpretation of the passage and some inspired insight (air-heir was one i found interesting as well as taking up arms against the water)
The summary at the end of the commentary was well done and did a good job of connecting the various disparate elements of the commentary into one.
Language was well used.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
More time could have spent on context in the beginning of the commentary as well as on the purpose.
The divisions between the sections outlined when you talked about organization could have been a little clearer within the main body of the commentary itself.
Little to no mention was made of the features of drama within the commentary which should be addressed.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
mostly just the features of drama otherwise pretty much everything else was touched upon even if it wasn't developed as fully as it maybe should have been
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
I'm terrible with rubrics so sorry. Overall i thought this was a very strong commentary.
A:4^/5
B:8^/10
C:8/10
D:5/5
overall: 26/30
comments courtesy of Joe Folds
Isaasc Luber’s review of James’ podcast:
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Both context and purpose were mentioned clearly, but could have been developed more. Could have gone into how it applies to Hamlet as a whole.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was a very good organizational pattern that was used at the beginning of the commentary. Towards the end it was still very good, but not as strong as it was at the beginning.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
I would ask about addressing drama features within the passage.
What did the speaker do well?
The speaker made and followed a good organizational pattern, and addressed context and purpose well for the most part. Lit terms and interpretation were strong, and language was very good.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Go into more detail with context and purpose.
What did they forget to address:
You forgot to address drama.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5. Good use of context and purpose but could have gone more in depth.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 8/10. Very good interpretation of the passage. It was focused and well put together.
Presentation: 9/10. You followed the organizational pattern very well and your points were presented with great strength.
Use of Language: 5/5. Language was sophisticated and used well.
Overall: 26/30.
Additional comments:
Great job James, you have a great foundation and I predict an A or B on your midterm.