You addressed Gordimer as an author and gave a good main point about her work, but it was a bit brief. Good context of passage setting it in the story of the play. Purpose: Comments on power struggle of whites and blacks. You did not explicitly state "the purpose is," which would have made it easier for me to identify that you definitely addressed the purpose.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You did not state the org pattern in the beginning of your commentary, which made the rest of the commentary hard to follow. You did have an org pattern, and seemed to split it up by ideas, but you did not state the ideas you were organizing it by. You also seemed to have made a type of thesis statement in the beginning, which is not necessary.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary terms did you identify in the text?
What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of identifying different ideas and continually connected it back to the purpose in the passage and text as a whole. You stayed calm and collected throughout the entire commentary. This made it seem like you really knew what you were saying.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would not make a sort of thesis statement in the beginning. Also make sure to state your org pattern in the beginning. I was a little lost throughout the commentary because you didn't identify your org pattern in the beginning. You should say line numbers instead of reading the text. You identified a lot of ideas and parts of the text, but make sure to always identify lit terms by name because you didn't always do this.
What did they forget to address?
You did not state your org pattern and did not address all lit terms by name.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Works: 3
Interpretation.Personal Response: 5
Presentation: 5
Language: 4
Edited by Michael Witkes
Kasie Patlove's Peer Review
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You had a great main point about her authorial purpose and put the passage in context in the book as a whole, but you didn't explain who the characters were (Maureen and July). You just assumed that the listener knew. Additionally you did not address organizational pattern.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You didn't specifically say you were going to use a specific organizational pattern, but it seemed as through you grouped the important aspects of the passage. At times it was hard to follow, so adressing the pattern and your main points would have given me a better road map to understanding your commentary.But you did make good references to other parts of the book.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What specific literary terms do you see in the text? Why do you think Gordimer chose those specific terms?
-What did the speaker do well?
You addressed the most important parts of the passage, especailly control, domination and roles. You were also sure to address personal pronouns and how Gordimer uses them in the book, great that you brought in the literary criticism. Good use of liet motif.
-What would you suggest for improvement? i got a little lost overall. Reference line numbers and just make it more clear where you are and what your main point is. A little too much plot summary, maybe not enough direct analysis. Also, Liet motif refers to AURAL cues, not ORAL cues, just be a little clearer in your speech on that :) Also, maybe try and think of some unique interpretations, things we may not have fully touched on in class that you can call your own.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You pointed out the parts of the text where lit terms existed but really didn't specifiy too many lit terms explicitly, or how they contribute to Gordmiers purpose. You also forgot to address the poetic topography in "fifteen years, your boy, you satisfy", its very important in this passage. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
The context was addressed, although briefly. The Purpose was discussed in depth: Hamlet's inability to move forward and act. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I found it somewhat difficult to discern a pattern that the passage was discussed. It seemed to be chronological, but was a bit hard to follow.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you mean by Bestial Imagery? The examples given for this overarching term did not exactly demonstrate this.
What did the speaker do well?
The Speaker had extremely good use of literary terms and devices. Individual instances of devices, such as similes, aphorism, characterization, unrestricted modifier, and aphorism were pointed out, demonstrating a strong knowledge of literary terms. In addition, the purpose of the passage was strongly addressed, the commentary provided many strong incites, and the conclusion was not only in depth, but made good connections overall to the story of Hamlet, and why it is important for Hamlet to be this tragic hero: so that he is a relatable protagonist.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would be more specific with overarching terms that need to be proven. For example, I did not think that "Bestial Imagery" nor "Death and Dying Imagery" were given in enough depth, and that they were not exactly proven. Therefore, I would take the examples I had from the passage and create a less generic term for them. In addition, although understandable for an oral commentary, the vocal tone was somewhat monotone, and "uhm" was used quite a bit, and grammar was off at times. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Lit terms were used strongly, themes were addressed frequently, as there was a focus on the story as a whole and the soliloquy as a piece of the story
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3, the understanding is adequate, there was more of a focus on the play as a whole rather than this particular soliloquy.
B: 6, the anaylsis was generally valid. The use of literary terms was strong.
C: 6, there was a lack of well defined organization, and seemed to be somewhat chronological but not entirely.
D: 3, The Language was generally clear, but there were a few lapses in grammar. Appropriate tone was used, but the vocal quality was somewhat monotone.
Peer Review by Kate Van Allen Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, within your first "section", you addressed context to an adequate extent and purpose was talked about throughout. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There was some form of organization but for next time, you could make more effort to create a clear organization pattern. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What do you think about the use of couplet in the last lines? Could you elaborate on the term "Bestial Imagery"? What did the speaker do well? You were very professional in your oral commentary. You also rarely paused for very long and overall, you were not overtly monotone. You did a great job of exhausting all literary terms found in the passage. You also clearly addressed the purpose of the passage throughout the commentary. What would you suggest for improvement? There were some long pauses and "um"s. Also, the organization was lacking. Perhaps in the next commentary you could state a clearer thesis, tying in overarching themes as well as the lit terms. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? Nothing was forgotten but could have been more in-deeply explored.
What would you score them based on the rubric? Part A: 3- You knew what you were talking about but there were some areas not fully covered. Part B: 6- Awesome use of lit terms but analysis was lacking in depth and organization. Part C: 5- Lacking in organization, need to have clearer sections of thought. Part D: 3- Great use of lit terms but language was not varied and there were some pauses. Total: 17/30
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed Gordimer as an author and gave a good main point about her work, but it was a bit brief. Good context of passage setting it in the story of the play. Purpose: Comments on power struggle of whites and blacks. You did not explicitly state "the purpose is," which would have made it easier for me to identify that you definitely addressed the purpose.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You did not state the org pattern in the beginning of your commentary, which made the rest of the commentary hard to follow. You did have an org pattern, and seemed to split it up by ideas, but you did not state the ideas you were organizing it by. You also seemed to have made a type of thesis statement in the beginning, which is not necessary.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary terms did you identify in the text?
What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of identifying different ideas and continually connected it back to the purpose in the passage and text as a whole. You stayed calm and collected throughout the entire commentary. This made it seem like you really knew what you were saying.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would not make a sort of thesis statement in the beginning. Also make sure to state your org pattern in the beginning. I was a little lost throughout the commentary because you didn't identify your org pattern in the beginning. You should say line numbers instead of reading the text. You identified a lot of ideas and parts of the text, but make sure to always identify lit terms by name because you didn't always do this.
What did they forget to address?
You did not state your org pattern and did not address all lit terms by name.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Works: 3
Interpretation.Personal Response: 5
Presentation: 5
Language: 4
Edited by Michael Witkes
Kasie Patlove's Peer Review
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You had a great main point about her authorial purpose and put the passage in context in the book as a whole, but you didn't explain who the characters were (Maureen and July). You just assumed that the listener knew. Additionally you did not address organizational pattern.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You didn't specifically say you were going to use a specific organizational pattern, but it seemed as through you grouped the important aspects of the passage. At times it was hard to follow, so adressing the pattern and your main points would have given me a better road map to understanding your commentary.But you did make good references to other parts of the book.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What specific literary terms do you see in the text? Why do you think Gordimer chose those specific terms?
-What did the speaker do well?
You addressed the most important parts of the passage, especailly control, domination and roles. You were also sure to address personal pronouns and how Gordimer uses them in the book, great that you brought in the literary criticism. Good use of liet motif.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
i got a little lost overall. Reference line numbers and just make it more clear where you are and what your main point is. A little too much plot summary, maybe not enough direct analysis. Also, Liet motif refers to AURAL cues, not ORAL cues, just be a little clearer in your speech on that :) Also, maybe try and think of some unique interpretations, things we may not have fully touched on in class that you can call your own.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You pointed out the parts of the text where lit terms existed but really didn't specifiy too many lit terms explicitly, or how they contribute to Gordmiers purpose. You also forgot to address the poetic topography in "fifteen years, your boy, you satisfy", its very important in this passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Student addresses context- 5
Student addresses authorial purpose-4
Student addresses literary terms-2
Student has organizational principle-2
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
The context was addressed, although briefly. The Purpose was discussed in depth: Hamlet's inability to move forward and act.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I found it somewhat difficult to discern a pattern that the passage was discussed. It seemed to be chronological, but was a bit hard to follow.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you mean by Bestial Imagery? The examples given for this overarching term did not exactly demonstrate this.
What did the speaker do well?
The Speaker had extremely good use of literary terms and devices. Individual instances of devices, such as similes,
aphorism, characterization, unrestricted modifier, and aphorism were pointed out, demonstrating a strong knowledge of literary terms. In addition, the purpose of the passage was strongly addressed, the commentary provided many strong incites, and the conclusion was not only in depth, but made good connections overall to the story of Hamlet, and why it is important for Hamlet to be this tragic hero: so that he is a relatable protagonist.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would be more specific with overarching terms that need to be proven. For example, I did not think that "Bestial Imagery" nor "Death and Dying Imagery" were given in enough depth, and that they were not exactly proven. Therefore, I would take the examples I had from the passage and create a less generic term for them. In addition, although understandable for an oral commentary, the vocal tone was somewhat monotone, and "uhm" was used quite a bit, and grammar was off at times.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Lit terms were used strongly, themes were addressed frequently, as there was a focus on the story as a whole and the soliloquy as a piece of the story
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3, the understanding is adequate, there was more of a focus on the play as a whole rather than this particular soliloquy.
B: 6, the anaylsis was generally valid. The use of literary terms was strong.
C: 6, there was a lack of well defined organization, and seemed to be somewhat chronological but not entirely.
D: 3, The Language was generally clear, but there were a few lapses in grammar. Appropriate tone was used, but the vocal quality was somewhat monotone.
Peer Review by Kate Van Allen
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, within your first "section", you addressed context to an adequate extent and purpose was talked about throughout.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was some form of organization but for next time, you could make more effort to create a clear organization pattern.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you think about the use of couplet in the last lines?
Could you elaborate on the term "Bestial Imagery"?
What did the speaker do well?
You were very professional in your oral commentary. You also rarely paused for very long and overall, you were not overtly monotone. You did a great job of exhausting all literary terms found in the passage. You also clearly addressed the purpose of the passage throughout the commentary.
What would you suggest for improvement?
There were some long pauses and "um"s. Also, the organization was lacking. Perhaps in the next commentary you could state a clearer thesis, tying in overarching themes as well as the lit terms.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
Nothing was forgotten but could have been more in-deeply explored.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 3- You knew what you were talking about but there were some areas not fully covered.
Part B: 6- Awesome use of lit terms but analysis was lacking in depth and organization.
Part C: 5- Lacking in organization, need to have clearer sections of thought.
Part D: 3- Great use of lit terms but language was not varied and there were some pauses.
Total: 17/30
Great job for the first time! - Kate