Peer Review by Kate Van Allen Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes! You gave great context for both the passage and the book as a whole. Maybe give a bit more about Gordimer (or the author) though too. No purpose was explicitly said but it is implied.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You set up a solid organization, breaking it into three parts: sexual imagery, animalistic emotion, and use of syntax and you followed this organization to throughout the commentary.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What is the purpose of this passage? The importance of language?
What did the speaker do well?
No awkward pauses. I thought you spoke really well throughout. You also set up a great organization to that passage as well.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Muting your AIM during your midterm commentary…
Also- more mention of literary terms could make this an awesome commentary.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The purpose of the passage wasn't completely clear. Also, you could mention a few more lit terms.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 3- Solid knowledge of of context with a *few* gaps.
Part B: 7- You had a great interpretation on the passage and unique focus.
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: 23/30- Awesome!!
Love, Kate
Peer review by Molly Rothschild
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You spoke a bit about the overall context of the novel- but could have done more on Gordimer and her opinions on apartheid. Good job in putting the passage in context of the book. You did not explain a purpose for the passage until the very end- which was a weakness in your overall commentary because you weren’t referring back to your purpose throughout.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Good job setting up your organizational pattern at the beginning. You did a good job executing the organizational pattern throughout the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Is the animalistic imagery and sexual tension found elsewhere in the novel?
What motifs of the novel are found in this passage?
What is the overall purpose of this passage?
How does this passage add to the characterization of Maureen?
-What did the speaker do well?
Your organizational pattern was great- it was easy to follow and you spoke clearly.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest that you give more purpose to the literary terms you defined- you brought up a lot of good points about power/imagery etc. but it could have been explained further to make stronger claims.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You could have gone more in depth discussing the broken communication between July and Maureen. Also, your purpose was not explicitly stated.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A- 4- Your information about Gordimer was good, but you could have gone more in depth with her views on apartheid, the white liberal and her history in South Africa
Part B- 6- You did a good job in analyzing the literary features, but did not always return to a main theme/purpose of the passage
Part C- 7- You had a well structured response. It was an effective and coherent commentary, you could have made more reference to the other passages in the book
Part D- 4- Your spoke clearly and did a good job eliminating “um” and other filler words. You used some literary terms.
21/30- good job Matt!!
I think that worked
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Clearly addressed context and purpose. You said exactly where the passage was situated in the book, and even linked the context within your commentary. When you said that Hamlet has decided to become a murderer in this soliloquy, this is not completely true because he just killed Polonius. Make sure to be clear and say that he is specifically talking bout Claudius, not just about becoming a murderer in general. Addressed the purpose of the passage. When you said “amount of death he is going to cause” this is not completely true because Hamlet is only planning on killing Claudius. I knew what you were meant, but just be careful with wording. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. You clearly went by characterization of hamlet as an introspective person, sleep metaphors, and the personification of fate. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
In terms of dramatic elements, how do you think the audience would react to this soliloquy?
Were there any other specific literary terms that added to the overall message of this passage? What did the speaker do well?
You clearly stated the organization of your commentary in the beginning, which made it very easy for me to follow. Did a good job of explaining specific lines and their overall purpose in the passage. Explanation of the punctuation used and why that was important was also very good, as Shakespeare does not often use stage directions. Additionally, the idea that Hamlet was evaluating his failure like a mathematical equation was a good and new interpretation. You did a good job of explaining Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes as foils. Lastly, the way you kept relating everything back to the context improved your commentary. What would you suggest for improvement?
You did not need to construct a thesis type sentence. Might just want to say what the purpose of the passage is and then three literary devices Shakespeare used to demonstrate it as your organization pattern (characterization of Hamlet, personification of fate, and sleep metaphors). You addressed some literary terms, such as anaphora, and the purpose of specific sentences, but you should say the literary devices of these sentences. Also, fate and sleep were more motifs and not examples of personification and metaphor. For example, when Hamlet says, “Go to their graves like beds,” that’s a simile, not a metaphor. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You forgot to address how the audience would react to the soliloquy. What would you score them based on the rubric?
Criterion A: 4, “Amount of death Hamlet is going to cause” not completely true because Hamlet is only trying to kill Claudius
Criterion B: 6, stated the purpose of specific parts of the passage, but did not fully address literary terms; additionally, Fate and Sleep were motifs, not personification and metaphor
Criterion C: 8, clearly developed structure. ideas were clear, but you sometimes talked around some of your ideas, rather than explicitly explaining them
Criterion D: 4, your language was generally good, but you used some colloquialisms at times
Peer Review by Kate Van Allen
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes! You gave great context for both the passage and the book as a whole. Maybe give a bit more about Gordimer (or the author) though too. No purpose was explicitly said but it is implied.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You set up a solid organization, breaking it into three parts: sexual imagery, animalistic emotion, and use of syntax and you followed this organization to throughout the commentary.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What is the purpose of this passage? The importance of language?
What did the speaker do well?
No awkward pauses. I thought you spoke really well throughout. You also set up a great organization to that passage as well.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Muting your AIM during your midterm commentary…
Also- more mention of literary terms could make this an awesome commentary.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The purpose of the passage wasn't completely clear. Also, you could mention a few more lit terms.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A: 3- Solid knowledge of of context with a *few* gaps.
Part B: 7- You had a great interpretation on the passage and unique focus.
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: 23/30- Awesome!!
Love, Kate
Peer review by Molly Rothschild
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You spoke a bit about the overall context of the novel- but could have done more on Gordimer and her opinions on apartheid. Good job in putting the passage in context of the book. You did not explain a purpose for the passage until the very end- which was a weakness in your overall commentary because you weren’t referring back to your purpose throughout.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Good job setting up your organizational pattern at the beginning. You did a good job executing the organizational pattern throughout the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Is the animalistic imagery and sexual tension found elsewhere in the novel?
What motifs of the novel are found in this passage?
What is the overall purpose of this passage?
How does this passage add to the characterization of Maureen?
-What did the speaker do well?
Your organizational pattern was great- it was easy to follow and you spoke clearly.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest that you give more purpose to the literary terms you defined- you brought up a lot of good points about power/imagery etc. but it could have been explained further to make stronger claims.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You could have gone more in depth discussing the broken communication between July and Maureen. Also, your purpose was not explicitly stated.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Part A- 4- Your information about Gordimer was good, but you could have gone more in depth with her views on apartheid, the white liberal and her history in South Africa
Part B- 6- You did a good job in analyzing the literary features, but did not always return to a main theme/purpose of the passage
Part C- 7- You had a well structured response. It was an effective and coherent commentary, you could have made more reference to the other passages in the book
Part D- 4- Your spoke clearly and did a good job eliminating “um” and other filler words. You used some literary terms.
21/30- good job Matt!!
I think that worked
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Clearly addressed context and purpose. You said exactly where the passage was situated in the book, and even linked the context within your commentary. When you said that Hamlet has decided to become a murderer in this soliloquy, this is not completely true because he just killed Polonius. Make sure to be clear and say that he is specifically talking bout Claudius, not just about becoming a murderer in general. Addressed the purpose of the passage. When you said “amount of death he is going to cause” this is not completely true because Hamlet is only planning on killing Claudius. I knew what you were meant, but just be careful with wording.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. You clearly went by characterization of hamlet as an introspective person, sleep metaphors, and the personification of fate.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
In terms of dramatic elements, how do you think the audience would react to this soliloquy?
Were there any other specific literary terms that added to the overall message of this passage?
What did the speaker do well?
You clearly stated the organization of your commentary in the beginning, which made it very easy for me to follow. Did a good job of explaining specific lines and their overall purpose in the passage. Explanation of the punctuation used and why that was important was also very good, as Shakespeare does not often use stage directions. Additionally, the idea that Hamlet was evaluating his failure like a mathematical equation was a good and new interpretation. You did a good job of explaining Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes as foils. Lastly, the way you kept relating everything back to the context improved your commentary.
What would you suggest for improvement?
You did not need to construct a thesis type sentence. Might just want to say what the purpose of the passage is and then three literary devices Shakespeare used to demonstrate it as your organization pattern (characterization of Hamlet, personification of fate, and sleep metaphors). You addressed some literary terms, such as anaphora, and the purpose of specific sentences, but you should say the literary devices of these sentences. Also, fate and sleep were more motifs and not examples of personification and metaphor. For example, when Hamlet says, “Go to their graves like beds,” that’s a simile, not a metaphor.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You forgot to address how the audience would react to the soliloquy.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
Criterion A: 4, “Amount of death Hamlet is going to cause” not completely true because Hamlet is only trying to kill Claudius
Criterion B: 6, stated the purpose of specific parts of the passage, but did not fully address literary terms; additionally, Fate and Sleep were motifs, not personification and metaphor
Criterion C: 8, clearly developed structure. ideas were clear, but you sometimes talked around some of your ideas, rather than explicitly explaining them
Criterion D: 4, your language was generally good, but you used some colloquialisms at times
Comments from Michael Witkes