Purpose?
As Joseph previously stated, the commentary properly placed the passage within the context of the book, as well as the entire works of Nadine Gordimer. However, organizationally, the purpose was not mentioned first.
Organizational Principle?
The organization was strictly chronological. Although this works, I am hesitant to say that this was strongest possible organization pattern. However, this is subjective, and the chronological order works.
What Questions Would you ask?
What are the specific literary devices used by Gormdimer here, and is this typical of Gordimer's work?
What did the Speaker do well?
The speaker had strong links to context and overall investigation was strong.
What Would You Improve?
The organizational pattern could be a little tighter, and based on lit-terms. This would however require more detailed literary analysis.
comments (July's People) - Joe Folds
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes you certainly did a great job placing the passage in the context of the novel and it was great how you put the novel in the context of Gordimer's work in general. Purpose was also well dealt with although it might have been helpful to put your purpose at the beginning of the passage so that the listener can follow along better and you can let it guide your commentary.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes there was, chronological unless i am very much mistaken. I would perhaps explicitly say how you are organizing the commentary and give a reason why but that is only my personal preference and your way was still perfectly fine.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you elaborate on the literary terms and features that you see Gordimer using in this passage?
What did the speaker do well?
Your general interpretation of the passage was clearly well thought out and i liked the way you addressed purpose even if it might have been better to put it first.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Some of the things i have already mentioned but i think that you should also try and get to your point quicker in many cases and try and do away with some of the "ums." It wasn't all that distracting but it was fairly consistent so it might be something to work on.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I hate to make the same points as Kasie has below me but it think that much more emphasis could have been put on the literary terms in the passage. You mentioned a few but not too many preferring to skip right to interpretation.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 5/5 cant fault you here. your understanding of context and purpose was indeed excellent
B - 6/10 I thought that you interpreted the passage well but without more lit terms my hand is forced and i cant give you above a 6
C - 8/10 you had an organizational structure and your response was well developed but it think work could be done with the integration of references to the text
D - 4/5 your language was predominantly clear however the multitude of phrases such as "um" kept you from the 5
Overall - 22/30
Great job with context. Thank you for doing this right away, it made it much easier to follow your commentary. Good job addressing your main claims and purpose at the beginning, this was very helpful
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Didn't address how you were going to organize the commentary. But you basically go chronologically so that was fine.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Are there any specific lit terms you feel really drives home the purpose of this passage?
What did the speaker do well?
You addressed the main features of the passage and the overall purpose very well.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I feel like you were a little wordy and it got slightly difficult to listen to what you were saying. Lots of "you know"'s and "um's", those are awfully distracting. You also repeated yourself a lot in the last 2 minutes of your commentary, I think you were trying to make the time limit.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
There was not a ton of emphasis on specific literary terms, more on themes and underlying messages.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 5- You really knew the background and purpose of the passage Part B: 6- in terms of interpretation-not any really original ideas but clear and thorough. yet you barely addressed any literary features besides theme.... Part C: 8- very focused organized and thorough response- very good Part D: 4- good, just work on being less wordy and losing the "ums" Total: 23/30- Nicely done!
Matthew S. Glick Esquire III
Purpose?
As Joseph previously stated, the commentary properly placed the passage within the context of the book, as well as the entire works of Nadine Gordimer. However, organizationally, the purpose was not mentioned first.
Organizational Principle?
The organization was strictly chronological. Although this works, I am hesitant to say that this was strongest possible organization pattern. However, this is subjective, and the chronological order works.
What Questions Would you ask?
What are the specific literary devices used by Gormdimer here, and is this typical of Gordimer's work?
What did the Speaker do well?
The speaker had strong links to context and overall investigation was strong.
What Would You Improve?
The organizational pattern could be a little tighter, and based on lit-terms. This would however require more detailed literary analysis.
comments (July's People) - Joe Folds
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes you certainly did a great job placing the passage in the context of the novel and it was great how you put the novel in the context of Gordimer's work in general. Purpose was also well dealt with although it might have been helpful to put your purpose at the beginning of the passage so that the listener can follow along better and you can let it guide your commentary.Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes there was, chronological unless i am very much mistaken. I would perhaps explicitly say how you are organizing the commentary and give a reason why but that is only my personal preference and your way was still perfectly fine.What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you elaborate on the literary terms and features that you see Gordimer using in this passage?What did the speaker do well?
Your general interpretation of the passage was clearly well thought out and i liked the way you addressed purpose even if it might have been better to put it first.What would you suggest for improvement?
Some of the things i have already mentioned but i think that you should also try and get to your point quicker in many cases and try and do away with some of the "ums." It wasn't all that distracting but it was fairly consistent so it might be something to work on.What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I hate to make the same points as Kasie has below me but it think that much more emphasis could have been put on the literary terms in the passage. You mentioned a few but not too many preferring to skip right to interpretation.What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 5/5 cant fault you here. your understanding of context and purpose was indeed excellentB - 6/10 I thought that you interpreted the passage well but without more lit terms my hand is forced and i cant give you above a 6
C - 8/10 you had an organizational structure and your response was well developed but it think work could be done with the integration of references to the text
D - 4/5 your language was predominantly clear however the multitude of phrases such as "um" kept you from the 5
Overall - 22/30
Corruption- Act 3, Scene 3, 40-76
Comments- Kasie Patlove
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Great job with context. Thank you for doing this right away, it made it much easier to follow your commentary. Good job addressing your main claims and purpose at the beginning, this was very helpfulWas there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Didn't address how you were going to organize the commentary. But you basically go chronologically so that was fine.What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Are there any specific lit terms you feel really drives home the purpose of this passage?What did the speaker do well?
You addressed the main features of the passage and the overall purpose very well.What would you suggest for improvement?
I feel like you were a little wordy and it got slightly difficult to listen to what you were saying. Lots of "you know"'s and "um's", those are awfully distracting. You also repeated yourself a lot in the last 2 minutes of your commentary, I think you were trying to make the time limit.What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
There was not a ton of emphasis on specific literary terms, more on themes and underlying messages.What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 5- You really knew the background and purpose of the passagePart B: 6- in terms of interpretation-not any really original ideas but clear and thorough. yet you barely addressed any literary features besides theme....
Part C: 8- very focused organized and thorough response- very good
Part D: 4- good, just work on being less wordy and losing the "ums"
Total: 23/30- Nicely done!