Main purpose: to highlight hamlets greatest flaw, being overly cerebral
You addressed context well, I was able to know exactly what happened prior to this speech.
Great pattern of organization, thank you for being explicit about what you were going to do. You were able to see the development of character and how that changes throughout the text.
Good connection to Shakespeare's use of animal imagery throughout the whole play
I'm very glad you don't pick out every literary term in the passage, but highlight the moreimportant things that are carried throughout the text- this made your commentary easy to follow and very interesting to listen to
"3 parts coward"- very cool and uniqueinterpretation
Loved the connection the the triangle we talked about in class- what a great idea!!!
I never would have thought of the eggshell as metaphor for land, awesome!
The only thing I really saw lacking was elements of drama and how this may be received differently by an audience rather than a reader.
Good wrap up "denmark and hamlet are doomed
Overall, a great job!!! GO JOE! I would give this a 19.5 / 20
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? I loved the way you nailed down the context and purpoe right from the get go. It provided a clear and focused base on which one could easily transition to your personal interpretation.
Context- As Fortinbras' army marches, Purpose- to show Hamlet's cerebral nature and impending doom
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There certainly was an organization method selected in order to attack the passage. This also effectively cleared the way for the listener to easily latch on to your thoughts and ideas. You chose to analyze the passage chronologically which I also took to be the most effective method. My only concern is that chronological order is beginning to look like the easy way out as it is, well, the seemingly easiest way to do things. I did the same thing, but perhaps to show more dedication to your commentary you could group the multiple effects Shakespeare creates into categories and split the commentary up this way. I don't think that dividing your passage into interrogative questions, metaphors, syntactic variations, etc. would take away from the passage's development. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What elements of drama do you see within the passage that you think Shakespeare employed to reach out to the audience? How does viewing the passage chronologically more effectively shows Hamlet's cerebral nature as opposed to approaching it differently? Many other passages seem as pivotal and foreboding. What contextually leads you to believe that THIS is the turning point for Hamlet?
-What did the speaker do well? I thought that overall your presentation was excellent. It was made clear and succinct by stating the purpose and context immediately and I thought the chronological approach made every transition flow smoothly. Your intonation and inflections were interesting and it helped keep the audience member listening. You addressed the literary terms superbly with only a few mistakes. To name a few, you mentioned exclamatory and interrogative sentences, imagery (animal and death), alliteration, polysyndeton, and juxtaposition. One minor error I thought you made was in declaring "eggshell" to be an understatement. I thought that the effect was rather the opposite, that of hyperbole. I could be wrong however. I also loved the way you tied in the imagery you found in your passage with the imagery found throughout the book.
-What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest mentioning the elements of drama you saw. I also thought that at times the presentation was a tad repetitive. When you talked about the straw imagery, you then said "a few lines later" yet reverted backwards in the text and repeated the line that included the straw imagery. Perhaps this is a lack of understanding on my part as you might have purposefully done this in order to undergird the points you were trying to make. However, I think less repetition would make for a cleaner presentation.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You addressed everything except for elements of drama.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. 5- You demonstrated nothing but excellent knowledge and understanding of the text.
B. 9- What keeps you from the 7-8 range is how convincing your argument was. I keep you from a 9 because I think while you did a superb job, there was nothing mentioned that left me dazzled, no interpretation that I didn't expect.
C. 10- Purpose and Structure clear and concise.
D. 5- Your language was not only clear and precise, it was indeed concise which stands out brightly. However, watch your lit terms, (understatement as opposed to hyperbole).
Comments Provided by James Butler
Great job Joe!
Practice oral 2 (July's People - your boy you satisfy passage)
Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes both context and purpose were clearly addressed at the beginning. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There was a good organizational pattern in this passage. You chose to look at it chronologically, which is good, but not great. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I would ask about lit terms because you didn’t address them that much. What did the speaker do well? You addressed context and purpose very well. You also spoke clearly and had a well-developed argument that was easy to follow. What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you could address some more lit terms that you left out. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? I think some lit terms were left out but other than that nothing really. 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 had a very unique interpretation that I thought was very good. C: 9- You had a very structured response and you were really well organized. You stayed organized throughout your entire commentary. Good job Joe. D: 5- The lit terms that you did use were used appropriately and you were very clear in your speech. 27/30 Great job Joe. Isaac
Peer Review by Kate Van Allen
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes! Explicit context and you addressed the purpose within your first couple minutes (highlight the power shift).
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. Within the first 2 minutes, you established a solid organization (chronological). You maintained this organization throughout the passage and it was very easy to understand and separate the different points you made.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How did Gordimer use lit terms in this passage?
What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very clearly and it was very easy to understand. There was also no awkward moments or weird cuts on the track. As a result, your commentary was easy to understand and very understand.
What would you suggest for improvement?
You were talking a *little* slow in parts but other than that-- no complaints.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A bit more lit terms? Other than that I can't think of anything.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 4- No gaps in contexts, could have been a *bit* more for the context of the book and purpose could have had a bit more too.
Part B: 9- Awesome interpretation and somewhat of a unique view.
Part C: 9- Very well organized. You stayed focused and clear throughout your commentary.
Part D: 4- You didn't mention many lit terms but of the ones you did, you used appropriately. You also were very clear and precise. There was no rambling or awkward pauses.
Total: 26/30- Awesome!!
Practice Oral 1
Comments from Kasie Patlove:
Main purpose: to highlight hamlets greatest flaw, being overly cerebral
You addressed context well, I was able to know exactly what happened prior to this speech.
Great pattern of organization, thank you for being explicit about what you were going to do. You were able to see the development of character and how that changes throughout the text.
Good connection to Shakespeare's use of animal imagery throughout the whole play
I'm very glad you don't pick out every literary term in the passage, but highlight the moreimportant things that are carried throughout the text- this made your commentary easy to follow and very interesting to listen to
"3 parts coward"- very cool and uniqueinterpretation
Loved the connection the the triangle we talked about in class- what a great idea!!!
I never would have thought of the eggshell as metaphor for land, awesome!
The only thing I really saw lacking was elements of drama and how this may be received differently by an audience rather than a reader.
Good wrap up "denmark and hamlet are doomed
Overall, a great job!!! GO JOE! I would give this a 19.5 / 20
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I loved the way you nailed down the context and purpoe right from the get go. It provided a clear and focused base on which one could easily transition to your personal interpretation.
Context- As Fortinbras' army marches, Purpose- to show Hamlet's cerebral nature and impending doom
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There certainly was an organization method selected in order to attack the passage. This also effectively cleared the way for the listener to easily latch on to your thoughts and ideas. You chose to analyze the passage chronologically which I also took to be the most effective method. My only concern is that chronological order is beginning to look like the easy way out as it is, well, the seemingly easiest way to do things. I did the same thing, but perhaps to show more dedication to your commentary you could group the multiple effects Shakespeare creates into categories and split the commentary up this way. I don't think that dividing your passage into interrogative questions, metaphors, syntactic variations, etc. would take away from the passage's development.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What elements of drama do you see within the passage that you think Shakespeare employed to reach out to the audience? How does viewing the passage chronologically more effectively shows Hamlet's cerebral nature as opposed to approaching it differently? Many other passages seem as pivotal and foreboding. What contextually leads you to believe that THIS is the turning point for Hamlet?
-What did the speaker do well?
I thought that overall your presentation was excellent. It was made clear and succinct by stating the purpose and context immediately and I thought the chronological approach made every transition flow smoothly. Your intonation and inflections were interesting and it helped keep the audience member listening. You addressed the literary terms superbly with only a few mistakes. To name a few, you mentioned exclamatory and interrogative sentences, imagery (animal and death), alliteration, polysyndeton, and juxtaposition. One minor error I thought you made was in declaring "eggshell" to be an understatement. I thought that the effect was rather the opposite, that of hyperbole. I could be wrong however. I also loved the way you tied in the imagery you found in your passage with the imagery found throughout the book.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest mentioning the elements of drama you saw. I also thought that at times the presentation was a tad repetitive. When you talked about the straw imagery, you then said "a few lines later" yet reverted backwards in the text and repeated the line that included the straw imagery. Perhaps this is a lack of understanding on my part as you might have purposefully done this in order to undergird the points you were trying to make. However, I think less repetition would make for a cleaner presentation.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You addressed everything except for elements of drama.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. 5- You demonstrated nothing but excellent knowledge and understanding of the text.
B. 9- What keeps you from the 7-8 range is how convincing your argument was. I keep you from a 9 because I think while you did a superb job, there was nothing mentioned that left me dazzled, no interpretation that I didn't expect.
C. 10- Purpose and Structure clear and concise.
D. 5- Your language was not only clear and precise, it was indeed concise which stands out brightly. However, watch your lit terms, (understatement as opposed to hyperbole).
Comments Provided by James Butler
Great job Joe!
Practice oral 2 (July's People - your boy you satisfy passage)
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes both context and purpose were clearly addressed at the beginning.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was a good organizational pattern in this passage. You chose to look at it chronologically, which is good, but not great.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
I would ask about lit terms because you didn’t address them that much.
What did the speaker do well?
You addressed context and purpose very well. You also spoke clearly and had a well-developed argument that was easy to follow.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you could address some more lit terms that you left out.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I think some lit terms were left out but other than that nothing really.
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 had a very unique interpretation that I thought was very good.
C: 9- You had a very structured response and you were really well organized. You stayed organized throughout your entire commentary. Good job Joe.
D: 5- The lit terms that you did use were used appropriately and you were very clear in your speech.
27/30
Great job Joe.
Isaac
Peer Review by Kate Van Allen
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes! Explicit context and you addressed the purpose within your first couple minutes (highlight the power shift).
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. Within the first 2 minutes, you established a solid organization (chronological). You maintained this organization throughout the passage and it was very easy to understand and separate the different points you made.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How did Gordimer use lit terms in this passage?
What did the speaker do well?
You spoke very clearly and it was very easy to understand. There was also no awkward moments or weird cuts on the track. As a result, your commentary was easy to understand and very understand.
What would you suggest for improvement?
You were talking a *little* slow in parts but other than that-- no complaints.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A bit more lit terms? Other than that I can't think of anything.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 4- No gaps in contexts, could have been a *bit* more for the context of the book and purpose could have had a bit more too.
Part B: 9- Awesome interpretation and somewhat of a unique view.
Part C: 9- Very well organized. You stayed focused and clear throughout your commentary.
Part D: 4- You didn't mention many lit terms but of the ones you did, you used appropriately. You also were very clear and precise. There was no rambling or awkward pauses.
Total: 26/30- Awesome!!