OH HEY MICHAEEEELLL -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job addressing all aspects of contexts needed, but you probably could've gone more in depth because context should last for about 5 minutes. You explicitly stated your purpose which is really good!
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Though you had a clear organizational pattern, you never stated how you were going to go through it from te beginning, which you should always try to do. However, you grouped it into 3 different sections, and elaborated on them well which is much harder than chronological so good job!!
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify for me why July does not have any responsibility/obligation to the whites, how would you justify him keeping the Smales at his village for such a long time and not getting rid of them at any point in the novel. -What did the speaker do well?
You did a really good job addressing context and you had a non-chronological organizational structure-which is really hard to do. It is also clear that you have a good understanding of the literary terms and Gordimer's writing.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest elaborating more on context, just because context is supposed to be slightly longer, even though you did cover all the basics needed. I would also suggest explicitly stating your organizational pattern. Also, you sometimes starting talking quickly and then would lose your train of thought. Try to speak slower and develop your ideas before you speak so it flows better.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
I forgot to say what organization structure you'd be using but besides that you covered everything, just some things could be more in depth.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 4 Good understanding of context and purpose
B 6 Good interpretation and use of literary devices and analysis are present
C 6 A developed and well done response with interesting structure, but needs to explicit state it
D 3 The language is good, though speaking should be slower as to not lose train of thought as often
GOOD JOB MIKEY!!!!!!!!!!!
Passage 78
Mary Attaliadis -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, the context relating to Apartheid in South Africa, the author Nadine Gordimer’s political stance against the Apartheid as well as purpose were addressed, which is to show the change of societal roles from the whites being in power to the blacks.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, an organizational pattern was established in the beginning of the commentary explicitly. The commentary was broken down into three different sections, (change of roles from old system to new, characterization of Bam and Maureen, and characterization of July) which were all elaborated upon.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify for me why July does not have any responsibility/obligation to the whites, how would you justify him keeping the Smales at his village for such a long time and not getting rid of them at any point in the novel. -What did the speaker do well?
Addressed numerous literary terms and literary devices which was great, also it is evident there was a clear understanding of what Gordimer was trying to portray (the change in societal roles).
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Elaborate on the relationship between Maureen and Bam, why isn’t their marriage working the bush country (because Bam can no longer provide for her, which leads to her favoring July over her husband because he can support her, etc…)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
Forgot to elaborate on your conclusion, it was more of restating your introduction. I think you may have forgotten to highlight on Maureen’s sympathy for July and how that is significant in this passage, as well as throughout the novel.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 4 Good understanding of the extract
B 7-8 Good interpretation, literary devices and uses are evident, and response is supported with references
C 7 Focused and developed response, structure and focus is definitely there, as well as supported.
D 4 The language is clear, varied, and appropriate to the occasion
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I would further develop your context, Nadine Gordimer’s background, the Apartheid in South Africa-> the power struggle between the whites and blacks, Nadine’s stance on the Apartheid, why she wrote the novel, symbols and motifs within the novel, relation to Gordimer writings, etc.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Though you had a clear organizational pattern I would clearly state how you are going to address the passage. I like how you didn’t tackle it chronologically as well!
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage fit within the novel as a whole?
How would you address the power struggle between the smales and july in relation to the power struggle between the whites and blacks in south Africa?
-What did the speaker do well?
I think you had some solid ideas and use of literary terms. Your speech is also pretty clear, which is wonderful. Confidence is a must!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Develop your context, state your organization pattern clearly and why you decided to address that way. Slow down and keep steady voice and further develop your ideas (relate it to outside context and the novel as a whole to show your knowledge!)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
To go further in depth with your ideas, perhaps more literary terms and attention to organization.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 3
B 6
C 5
D 4
-Mary A.
Passage #1: Appearance vs. Reality/Madness Act 1 Scene 2
Molly Rothschild
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
There is good context in terms of location within plot of Hamlet, but overall context with Shakespeare is not addressed. Overall theme is addressed at the start (Appearance v. Reality) but purpose of this theme is not stated explicitly until the very end. At the end death is also mentioned as a theme, but that is not explained explicitly during the commentary.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
It was stated at the beginning that passage will be looked at chronologically and gives legitimate reasoning. That structure is followed Variety of lit terms are used.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How do the two themes of death and appearance vs. reality further the characterization of the characters you mentioned?
How is Hamlet, as the only character in mourning, introduced in relation to the other characters within the play?
What is the general context of the play?
Did you find any other lit terms that portray Claudius’ corruption?
What did the speaker do well?
The dramatic elements of the play are addressed, showing what the text would mean and how it would be portrayed to the audience. Main lit terms are identified.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would state the purpose of the theme more explicitly at the beginning of the commentary and then tie back each lit term mentioned to this theme in a more specific way, other then general “appearance v. reality”
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Shakespeare and the context of Hamlet as a play is not mentioned.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 2- there is knowledge of the context of the passage within Hamlet, but not of Hamlet as a work of Shakespeare.
B- 6- the interpretation of the passage as portraying appearance v. reality is valid, but there is not a huge amount of in depth analysis. Literary features are identified and analyzed well. There are some relevant references to the rest of Hamlet, but sometimes gets off the main point.
C- 6- Clear structure (chronological) and for the most part the focus is kept, references to the rest of the play are integrated well into the response.
D- 4- A few words are stumbled over, but for the most part it is a coherent response
Matt Glick
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought that he addressed the context in a vague sense, but specifics were not mentioned until the end of the commentary.
Was their a specific organization?
It was good that the commentator stated that a chronological order would be used. I do not think however that it is the strongest way to look at this passage.
What would you ask the commentator?
What do you think the reason is that Shakespeare utilizes body imagery?
What did the speaker do well?
It was a very good idea to mention how the passage would be anaylyzed. Also, although easily overlooked, the commentator made his voice interesting to listen to, as opposed to speaking in monotone.
what did they forget to address?
There was a lack of broader context: I.E how it fit in with the surrounding scenes.
A: 3, understanding is demonstrated but not of the overall work, or shakespeare
B: 6 there is strong analysis but it is not very thorough. Points are valid but not looked at in detail.
Passage 78
edited by: Rachel
OH HEY MICHAEEEELLL
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job addressing all aspects of contexts needed, but you probably could've gone more in depth because context should last for about 5 minutes. You explicitly stated your purpose which is really good!
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Though you had a clear organizational pattern, you never stated how you were going to go through it from te beginning, which you should always try to do. However, you grouped it into 3 different sections, and elaborated on them well which is much harder than chronological so good job!!
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify for me why July does not have any responsibility/obligation to the whites, how would you justify him keeping the Smales at his village for such a long time and not getting rid of them at any point in the novel.
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a really good job addressing context and you had a non-chronological organizational structure-which is really hard to do. It is also clear that you have a good understanding of the literary terms and Gordimer's writing.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest elaborating more on context, just because context is supposed to be slightly longer, even though you did cover all the basics needed. I would also suggest explicitly stating your organizational pattern. Also, you sometimes starting talking quickly and then would lose your train of thought. Try to speak slower and develop your ideas before you speak so it flows better.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
I forgot to say what organization structure you'd be using but besides that you covered everything, just some things could be more in depth.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 4 Good understanding of context and purpose
B 6 Good interpretation and use of literary devices and analysis are present
C 6 A developed and well done response with interesting structure, but needs to explicit state it
D 3 The language is good, though speaking should be slower as to not lose train of thought as often
GOOD JOB MIKEY!!!!!!!!!!!
Passage 78
Mary Attaliadis
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, the context relating to Apartheid in South Africa, the author Nadine Gordimer’s political stance against the Apartheid as well as purpose were addressed, which is to show the change of societal roles from the whites being in power to the blacks.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, an organizational pattern was established in the beginning of the commentary explicitly. The commentary was broken down into three different sections, (change of roles from old system to new, characterization of Bam and Maureen, and characterization of July) which were all elaborated upon.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Could you clarify for me why July does not have any responsibility/obligation to the whites, how would you justify him keeping the Smales at his village for such a long time and not getting rid of them at any point in the novel.
-What did the speaker do well?
Addressed numerous literary terms and literary devices which was great, also it is evident there was a clear understanding of what Gordimer was trying to portray (the change in societal roles).
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Elaborate on the relationship between Maureen and Bam, why isn’t their marriage working the bush country (because Bam can no longer provide for her, which leads to her favoring July over her husband because he can support her, etc…)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
Forgot to elaborate on your conclusion, it was more of restating your introduction. I think you may have forgotten to highlight on Maureen’s sympathy for July and how that is significant in this passage, as well as throughout the novel.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 4 Good understanding of the extract
B 7-8 Good interpretation, literary devices and uses are evident, and response is supported with references
C 7 Focused and developed response, structure and focus is definitely there, as well as supported.
D 4 The language is clear, varied, and appropriate to the occasion
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I would further develop your context, Nadine Gordimer’s background, the Apartheid in South Africa-> the power struggle between the whites and blacks, Nadine’s stance on the Apartheid, why she wrote the novel, symbols and motifs within the novel, relation to Gordimer writings, etc.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Though you had a clear organizational pattern I would clearly state how you are going to address the passage. I like how you didn’t tackle it chronologically as well!
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage fit within the novel as a whole?
How would you address the power struggle between the smales and july in relation to the power struggle between the whites and blacks in south Africa?
-What did the speaker do well?
I think you had some solid ideas and use of literary terms. Your speech is also pretty clear, which is wonderful. Confidence is a must!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Develop your context, state your organization pattern clearly and why you decided to address that way. Slow down and keep steady voice and further develop your ideas (relate it to outside context and the novel as a whole to show your knowledge!)
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.).
To go further in depth with your ideas, perhaps more literary terms and attention to organization.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
A 3
B 6
C 5
D 4
-Mary A.
Passage #1: Appearance vs. Reality/Madness Act 1 Scene 2
Molly Rothschild
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
There is good context in terms of location within plot of Hamlet, but overall context with Shakespeare is not addressed. Overall theme is addressed at the start (Appearance v. Reality) but purpose of this theme is not stated explicitly until the very end. At the end death is also mentioned as a theme, but that is not explained explicitly during the commentary.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
It was stated at the beginning that passage will be looked at chronologically and gives legitimate reasoning. That structure is followed Variety of lit terms are used.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How do the two themes of death and appearance vs. reality further the characterization of the characters you mentioned?
How is Hamlet, as the only character in mourning, introduced in relation to the other characters within the play?
What is the general context of the play?
Did you find any other lit terms that portray Claudius’ corruption?
What did the speaker do well?
The dramatic elements of the play are addressed, showing what the text would mean and how it would be portrayed to the audience. Main lit terms are identified.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would state the purpose of the theme more explicitly at the beginning of the commentary and then tie back each lit term mentioned to this theme in a more specific way, other then general “appearance v. reality”
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Shakespeare and the context of Hamlet as a play is not mentioned.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 2- there is knowledge of the context of the passage within Hamlet, but not of Hamlet as a work of Shakespeare.
B- 6- the interpretation of the passage as portraying appearance v. reality is valid, but there is not a huge amount of in depth analysis. Literary features are identified and analyzed well. There are some relevant references to the rest of Hamlet, but sometimes gets off the main point.
C- 6- Clear structure (chronological) and for the most part the focus is kept, references to the rest of the play are integrated well into the response.
D- 4- A few words are stumbled over, but for the most part it is a coherent response
Matt GlickDid the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought that he addressed the context in a vague sense, but specifics were not mentioned until the end of the commentary.
Was their a specific organization?
It was good that the commentator stated that a chronological order would be used. I do not think however that it is the strongest way to look at this passage.
What would you ask the commentator?
What do you think the reason is that Shakespeare utilizes body imagery?
What did the speaker do well?
It was a very good idea to mention how the passage would be anaylyzed. Also, although easily overlooked, the commentator made his voice interesting to listen to, as opposed to speaking in monotone.
what did they forget to address?
There was a lack of broader context: I.E how it fit in with the surrounding scenes.
A: 3, understanding is demonstrated but not of the overall work, or shakespeare
B: 6 there is strong analysis but it is not very thorough. Points are valid but not looked at in detail.
C: 7 I really thought the focus was solid.
D: 4