-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You had a very good discussion of historical context. I really liked that you outlined Gordimer’s view of liberals really thoroughly, since this was obviously essential to your passage. You also set it into the context of what was happening in South Africa which was very good. I liked that for the context within the book, you gave a bit of a scope of the entire book, before diving into where exactly it is. For purpose, you definitely addressed it. However, you spoke more in terms of WHAT it showed (that Maureen can’t get out of the past), and didn’t take it to the level of WHY Gordimer wanted to show that (connect it back to the hatred of white liberals). It’s definitely implied, so it’s obvious you understand it, but it might help your commentary if you state it more explicitly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You definitely organized this commentary very well. I’m not sure if saying that you’re going to organize by lit terms though is a good idea. At first I was like, um, of course she is going to use her lit terms this is a commentary. Once I saw what you meant, it made perfect sense, but I might ask Ms. O if this is something that is ok to say in a commentary, or if there is a better way to phrase it.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
- What role do you think this passage plays in characterizing Maureen?
-How do you think that the idea of a shift in power has shaped this passage? Does each of the elements that you identified illustrate the same thing?
-What did the speaker do well? I think that you did a great job of really developing each of the elements that you identified in the passage. I also really liked that you connect what is seen here to other areas in the book, beyond the passage (like you did with the pigs), since I think that this makes the idea much stronger. Also, your speaking was excellent: good vocabulary and variety of grammatical structures made you interesting to listen to, and you spoke at a good pace so that I wasn’t struggling to keep up with what you were saying, but not so slow that the momentum died. Really good job.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think for each of the motifs that you talk about, you could possibly mention by name the literary devices that give meaning to that. Also, it might help if you just added transition sentences between each of your elements (bakkie to rabbit to bedroom to pigs…etc); the ideas connect, but listening to it seems like you have a list of things – a well developed and thoroughly analyzed list – whereas it might just help a bit to spend a couple of seconds on a transition from idea to idea.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I honestly don’t think that you forgot to mention anything essential. In the parts where you are focusing on a motif (like the bakkie, as opposed to a direct lit term like pronouns), you might mention what lit terms create the idea of it that you are discussing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding of extract: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8, I think that if you had connected your ideas a bit more, then this could easily have been in the highest markband. Great job! Presentation: 7. It was definitely clearly organized, but sometimes felt like it did not flow, and was more like a bunch of separate topics that you then developed. Also, ask Ms. O about if you’re allowed to say “organized by lit terms” because I just don’t know. Use of Language: 5 25/30
edited by: Sofie Seymour
Molly Rothschild, Hamlet 1
Corruption Act 3 Scene 3
HEY MOLDOL! -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You clearly addressed the context and had a good understanding of Hamlet’s background and Shakespeare’s literary career. You also did not explicitly state the purpose as “the purpose is…” but it was clear you understood the purpose.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational structure used was by separating into different literary elements. There was certainly an overall structure, though it was slightly hard to follow throughout. I understood each individual element, but it was hard to understand the connection between them. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What would you say is the overarching theme throughout this passage? You addressed many literary elements throughout your commentary. Which do you believe is the most important and why? What would the text lose without this passage?
-What did the speaker do well? The biblical reference was very interesting. This outside and unique interpretation would probably score very well on the commentary. The speaker also had very good understanding of context both of the passage within the book and of background of Hamlet the play as well. The speaker had a clear understanding of literary elements and did a nice job explaining them in depth and their connection to the play.
-What would you suggest for improvement? Though the author used very good literary elements, it was hard for me to see the overall connecting feature. I think the speaker should remain more focused on one overarching theme and the literary features that create that rather than mentioning everything they see. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) They did not forget to address overarching theme, though it was slightly unclear what it was. Other than that, they addressed everything.
-What would you score them based on the rubric I would give them a 20(my math might be wrong…sorry bout that) Knowledge and understanding of extract: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4
GOOOD JOB!!!!!!
edited by: Rachel Marx
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Clearly addressed context. Nice job of including context of the general play, Shakespeare, and the passage. You also correctly stated the purpose of the passage. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. You organized it by separating the passage through literary elements. I would state the literary elements that you are going to analyze in the beginning of the commentary to make it easier to follow because it was hard to follow sometimes when you jumped from one literary term to the next. -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?
Is there an overall theme in this passage? How did the literary terms you mentioned construct this theme? -What did the speaker do well?
You did an excellent job of identifying literary terms and analyzing them and their overall meaning in the passage. I liked the connection with this passage to “Something rotten in the state of Denmark.” The biblical references were very good and unique, creating an individual interpretation of the text. You had a very good understanding of context, not just of the passage itself, but also of the play itself and Shakespeare. Additionally, you spoke clearly and slowly throughout the entire oral, which made it really easy to understand everything you said. -What would you suggest for improvement?
You were very good at identifying literary terms and explaining their role in the passage, but I would connect these to an overall theme. You started to do this at the end, but I would state a theme in the beginning. You could then construct your organization pattern around your theme. You also did a good job of analyzing the sentence structure, but I would have liked to explain how an audience would perceive this. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Dramatic elements within the passage itself -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding of extract: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7, valid interpretations, clearly analyzed literary features, showed critical thinking and some originality, connecting it to an overall theme would have ranked you higher Presentation: 6, clearly organized by literary terms, but it was sometimes hard to follow since you did not connect them together through a central theme or idea Use of Language: 4
Molly Rothschild, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Midterm
Molly Rothschild, July's People 1
Passage #80
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You had a very good discussion of historical context. I really liked that you outlined Gordimer’s view of liberals really thoroughly, since this was obviously essential to your passage. You also set it into the context of what was happening in South Africa which was very good. I liked that for the context within the book, you gave a bit of a scope of the entire book, before diving into where exactly it is. For purpose, you definitely addressed it. However, you spoke more in terms of WHAT it showed (that Maureen can’t get out of the past), and didn’t take it to the level of WHY Gordimer wanted to show that (connect it back to the hatred of white liberals). It’s definitely implied, so it’s obvious you understand it, but it might help your commentary if you state it more explicitly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You definitely organized this commentary very well. I’m not sure if saying that you’re going to organize by lit terms though is a good idea. At first I was like, um, of course she is going to use her lit terms this is a commentary. Once I saw what you meant, it made perfect sense, but I might ask Ms. O if this is something that is ok to say in a commentary, or if there is a better way to phrase it.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
- What role do you think this passage plays in characterizing Maureen?
-How do you think that the idea of a shift in power has shaped this passage? Does each of the elements that you identified illustrate the same thing?
-What did the speaker do well?
I think that you did a great job of really developing each of the elements that you identified in the passage. I also really liked that you connect what is seen here to other areas in the book, beyond the passage (like you did with the pigs), since I think that this makes the idea much stronger. Also, your speaking was excellent: good vocabulary and variety of grammatical structures made you interesting to listen to, and you spoke at a good pace so that I wasn’t struggling to keep up with what you were saying, but not so slow that the momentum died. Really good job.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think for each of the motifs that you talk about, you could possibly mention by name the literary devices that give meaning to that. Also, it might help if you just added transition sentences between each of your elements (bakkie to rabbit to bedroom to pigs…etc); the ideas connect, but listening to it seems like you have a list of things – a well developed and thoroughly analyzed list – whereas it might just help a bit to spend a couple of seconds on a transition from idea to idea.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I honestly don’t think that you forgot to mention anything essential. In the parts where you are focusing on a motif (like the bakkie, as opposed to a direct lit term like pronouns), you might mention what lit terms create the idea of it that you are discussing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and understanding of extract: 5
Interpretation and Personal Response: 8, I think that if you had connected your ideas a bit more, then this could easily have been in the highest markband. Great job!
Presentation: 7. It was definitely clearly organized, but sometimes felt like it did not flow, and was more like a bunch of separate topics that you then developed. Also, ask Ms. O about if you’re allowed to say “organized by lit terms” because I just don’t know.
Use of Language: 5
25/30
edited by: Sofie Seymour
Molly Rothschild, Hamlet 1
Corruption Act 3 Scene 3
HEY MOLDOL!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You clearly addressed the context and had a good understanding of Hamlet’s background and Shakespeare’s literary career. You also did not explicitly state the purpose as “the purpose is…” but it was clear you understood the purpose.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational structure used was by separating into different literary elements. There was certainly an overall structure, though it was slightly hard to follow throughout. I understood each individual element, but it was hard to understand the connection between them.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What would you say is the overarching theme throughout this passage?
You addressed many literary elements throughout your commentary. Which do you believe is the most important and why?
What would the text lose without this passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
The biblical reference was very interesting. This outside and unique interpretation would probably score very well on the commentary. The speaker also had very good understanding of context both of the passage within the book and of background of Hamlet the play as well. The speaker had a clear understanding of literary elements and did a nice job explaining them in depth and their connection to the play.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Though the author used very good literary elements, it was hard for me to see the overall connecting feature. I think the speaker should remain more focused on one overarching theme and the literary features that create that rather than mentioning everything they see.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
They did not forget to address overarching theme, though it was slightly unclear what it was. Other than that, they addressed everything.
-What would you score them based on the rubric
I would give them a 20(my math might be wrong…sorry bout that)
Knowledge and understanding of extract: 4
Interpretation and Personal Response: 7
Presentation: 5
Use of Language: 4
GOOOD JOB!!!!!!
edited by: Rachel Marx
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Clearly addressed context. Nice job of including context of the general play, Shakespeare, and the passage. You also correctly stated the purpose of the passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes. You organized it by separating the passage through literary elements. I would state the literary elements that you are going to analyze in the beginning of the commentary to make it easier to follow because it was hard to follow sometimes when you jumped from one literary term to the next.
-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?
Is there an overall theme in this passage? How did the literary terms you mentioned construct this theme?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did an excellent job of identifying literary terms and analyzing them and their overall meaning in the passage. I liked the connection with this passage to “Something rotten in the state of Denmark.” The biblical references were very good and unique, creating an individual interpretation of the text. You had a very good understanding of context, not just of the passage itself, but also of the play itself and Shakespeare. Additionally, you spoke clearly and slowly throughout the entire oral, which made it really easy to understand everything you said.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You were very good at identifying literary terms and explaining their role in the passage, but I would connect these to an overall theme. You started to do this at the end, but I would state a theme in the beginning. You could then construct your organization pattern around your theme. You also did a good job of analyzing the sentence structure, but I would have liked to explain how an audience would perceive this.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Dramatic elements within the passage itself
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and understanding of extract: 5
Interpretation and Personal Response: 7, valid interpretations, clearly analyzed literary features, showed critical thinking and some originality, connecting it to an overall theme would have ranked you higher
Presentation: 6, clearly organized by literary terms, but it was sometimes hard to follow since you did not connect them together through a central theme or idea
Use of Language: 4
edited by: Michael Witkes