[ invalid file: july's peoplecommentary.m4a ]
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought it was strong both in context and purpose. The context of the book in general was there, but more on the context of the passage within the book would be good, especially if you linked it to the purpose of the passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, it was a chronological course through the passage. Maybe the organizational pattern could have been a bit more detailed. Beyond chronologically, talk about how you will be approaching the passage.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage connect with the larger context of the passage?
How do the time shifts in narration contribute to the purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
The commentary was very well done. You make great points, backing them up with examples from the text and linking them to the overall purpose of the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would expand and link the context to the purpose, and perhaps picking a stronger organizational pattern.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The context of the passage within the book is the only major thing missing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4
B - 8
C - 8
D - 4
-Alex Mechanick
edited by: Rachel Marx
HEY! Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context well but you definitely could've added more about apartheid the historical event and maybe more about Gordimer's connection to the story and more context of the passage itself. You explicitly stated your purpose which was good and made it much easier to understand. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You went chronological. This may be good, because the interesting narrative structure that you pointed out, but its possible that this was just a fallback because chronological is easier.It's not a bad idea to try something different, because it shows a level of sophistication. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ASSESSOR?
Could you please clarify the context of this novel within South African Apartheid?
Could you please clarify the context of this passage within the novel? What did the speaker do well?
You enunciated very well and spoke at a good pace which made it very easy to follow along. You made a very good analysis and used a lot of lit terms which was good. You also clearly stated your purpose which is very good. What would you suggest for improvement?
One thing you did, that I ALWAYS do, is repeat the entire line before analyzing it which causes you to just sound like you're paraphrasing and not adding in that much of you're own stuff so try to avoid that. I would also suggest, as I said before, adding more in about context. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You didn't really address context of the passage within the book. You included almost everything needed, there were simply some parts that needed more, which I have previously pointed out. What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3
B: 6
C: 5
D: 4
Total: 18/30
GOOD JOB ZOOOO!!!
II.ii 197-225
Comments from Jaime Toplin
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context really well. I knew exactly where the passage was situated within the book, and this aided in my understanding of your commentary. However, I would develop the purpose of the passage earlier in the commentary. You mentioned what you thought Shakespeare's "thesis" was, but I believe that if you stated what was your last sentence at the beginning it would have been MUCH easier to understand. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I believe you went by theme, but I would have been more clear about saying how you would address it. I totally understood what you were saying, but sometimes had trouble following your organization because I wasn't sure if you were going by theme or chronologically at times. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What would you explicitly state as the overall purpose?
Can you further develop your point about the narrative structure? I thought it was really interesting but wanted to hear more about it. What did the speaker do well?
You did a really good job of stating names of lit terms and explaining lit terms. I also liked your mention of the life/death used in this passage, since it's not something I picked up on before but fit very well into your argument. I thought your overall connection to context was really good, particularly your explanation of his circular speech and feigned madness as well as your consistency in the characterization of Hamlet and Polonius. Your discussion of the setup of dramatic irony was interesting and set up another comparison to the rest of the play and helped to situate the scene. I was also glad that you mentioned the use of the aside--Shakespeare doesn't use stage directions often and it's always important to note them when he does. What would you suggest for improvement?
My biggest suggestion for improvement would be to specifically state your organizational structure and purpose at the beginning. I figured out that you were going more thematically than chronologically by the middle, but it would have been more clear to state it earlier. Same goes for the purpose--like I said above, if you'd said your overall idea more clearly at the beginning, your commentary would have been simpler. You also tended to draw back a lot, which was good in making connections, but structuring strictly by theme would have made it simpler. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You did a really good job addressing lit terms and how they were used (although you accidentally misnamed one or two of them), but didn't necessarily mention overall themes. It also would have been good to (like I've said) explicitly state your organizational purpose and theme at the start. You also didn't mention anything about Shakespeare of his life. What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 --good understanding of the book, not enough discussion of Shakespeare
B: 6 --your response was good and supported, but a little bit difficult to follow at times
C: 5 --your organizational pattern was not explicit, making it a little challenging to follow, but your themes and ideas were clear throughout
D: 4 --your language was good and you avoided too many "likes" and "ums," but was a bit colloquial at times. I liked how relaxed you were.
Total: 19/30
Even though it was a little hard to follow, you did a good job Zoe! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask :)
More comments from Sofie! -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You did an excellent job of identifying the context within the book, displaying a thorough knowledge of the text of Hamlet. Try and address the context of the book as a whole by talking about Shakespeare a little more than just that he was the playwrite. You never explicitly stated “this is the purpose”, but I felt by using the first sentence of the passage as a “thesis”, you identified a purpose of the text. However, you talked about a lot of different purposes throughout, so for the graders sake, it could be beneficial to state it more explicitly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? I was a little confused by your organizational pattern. You didn’t state what it was, or why, at the start, which I think would prevent this issue in the future. It seemed at first like you were going through it chronologically, which I understood and found easy to follow. However, I think that going back to talk about different literary elements was a little confusing. At the end, it seemed like you had intended to talk first about corruption, then madness, and then dramatic elements. I understood your analysis, but it was a little hard to follow. At some points (esp at the start) you read lines, but then do not explain them, so try to avoid this.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What do you think the purpose of this passage was/why was it important to the text? You talk about “into the grave” meaning the death of Denmark due to corruption, Polonius asking if Hamlet is going to stop being mad, and Hamlet not realizing that Claudius suspects Hamlet of feigning madness; what do you think the primary significance of this line is? What was your purpose for your organizational pattern? What do you think is the significance of Lord Polonius always calling Hamlet “my lord”? What do you think is the importance of Hamlet’s line “words, words, words”?
-What did the speaker do well? I really liked how you introduced the first sentence of the passage as a “thesis”, analyzing it, and then using it as a guiding principle of your oral commentary. Interesting analysis of the double meaning of “conception”. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think it is definitely in agreement with the rest of your argument. Good job mostly going through the presentation without stopping! You dissected and analyzed the passage really thoroughly, and did a good job of identifying literary devices. You clearly have a strong understanding of NUMEROUS aspects of this passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement? Overall you accurately identified your literary terms, but watch out that you don’t mix them up (“slanders sir”, “powerfully and potently” and “hold it not honesty” are examples of alliteration, not anaphora) Also, watch out that your analysis is based on things that will always be in the text. You spoke about the narrative structure of Hamlet’s mini-rant from “slander sir” through “you could go backward”. However, although in our version there is the 2 line, 1 word, 2 line, 1 word, pattern, this is not how it is written in the book, but is only how it was broken up when typed out for the slide. Just watch out in the future when you are analyzing something that it is a part of the text and not a technological oddity. You analyzed the same lines in multiple different ways. It was a little bit hard to try and figure out what you actually thought the purpose of some lines were (like “into the grave”), since there were multiple analyses presented at different times for them. Perhaps talk about them all at once, or explain how one interpretation ties into another?
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Don’t forget to introduce overall purpose and organizational structure!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge of Work: 4 I think a little more information on the context of the book and Shakespeare at the beginning would bring this up. I think it was good that you talked about what theater was like at the time though, later in your commentary, in addition to an obviously very strong introduction of the context within the text of Hamlet.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Extremely thorough analysis and good personal interpretation! I think the only thing you need to work on here is having a clear purpose that you state from the beginning, so the listener can follow along. Otherwise, good job!
Presentation: 4 You had tons of great ideas, but it was hard to follow along with what your organizational pattern was. It became a little clearer at the end, looking at it in retrospect, but while listening, it was hard to follow.
Language: 4 You used language very well. I didn’t notice any lapses in grammar, and I only heard you use “like”/”you know” once or twice, which is awesome. You also did a great job using different emphasis and intonation – the sound of your presentation made it more interesting. However, you misidentified a literary device, so be careful when annotating. It was a bit informal, which was good in that you didn’t sound stilted, but try to incorporate some additional higher-level word choice. Overall, very good.
19/30
Great job! If you have any questions about any of my comments, feel free to ask!
:D sofie
July's People Commentary--Enjoy! :)
[ invalid file: july's peoplecommentary.m4a ]
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought it was strong both in context and purpose. The context of the book in general was there, but more on the context of the passage within the book would be good, especially if you linked it to the purpose of the passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, it was a chronological course through the passage. Maybe the organizational pattern could have been a bit more detailed. Beyond chronologically, talk about how you will be approaching the passage.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage connect with the larger context of the passage?
How do the time shifts in narration contribute to the purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
The commentary was very well done. You make great points, backing them up with examples from the text and linking them to the overall purpose of the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would expand and link the context to the purpose, and perhaps picking a stronger organizational pattern.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
The context of the passage within the book is the only major thing missing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4
B - 8
C - 8
D - 4
-Alex Mechanick
edited by: Rachel Marx
HEY!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context well but you definitely could've added more about apartheid the historical event and maybe more about Gordimer's connection to the story and more context of the passage itself. You explicitly stated your purpose which was good and made it much easier to understand.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You went chronological. This may be good, because the interesting narrative structure that you pointed out, but its possible that this was just a fallback because chronological is easier.It's not a bad idea to try something different, because it shows a level of sophistication.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ASSESSOR?
Could you please clarify the context of this novel within South African Apartheid?
Could you please clarify the context of this passage within the novel?
What did the speaker do well?
You enunciated very well and spoke at a good pace which made it very easy to follow along. You made a very good analysis and used a lot of lit terms which was good. You also clearly stated your purpose which is very good.
What would you suggest for improvement?
One thing you did, that I ALWAYS do, is repeat the entire line before analyzing it which causes you to just sound like you're paraphrasing and not adding in that much of you're own stuff so try to avoid that. I would also suggest, as I said before, adding more in about context.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You didn't really address context of the passage within the book. You included almost everything needed, there were simply some parts that needed more, which I have previously pointed out.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3
B: 6
C: 5
D: 4
Total: 18/30
GOOD JOB ZOOOO!!!
II.ii 197-225
Comments from Jaime Toplin
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You addressed context really well. I knew exactly where the passage was situated within the book, and this aided in my understanding of your commentary. However, I would develop the purpose of the passage earlier in the commentary. You mentioned what you thought Shakespeare's "thesis" was, but I believe that if you stated what was your last sentence at the beginning it would have been MUCH easier to understand.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I believe you went by theme, but I would have been more clear about saying how you would address it. I totally understood what you were saying, but sometimes had trouble following your organization because I wasn't sure if you were going by theme or chronologically at times.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What would you explicitly state as the overall purpose?
Can you further develop your point about the narrative structure? I thought it was really interesting but wanted to hear more about it.
What did the speaker do well?
You did a really good job of stating names of lit terms and explaining lit terms. I also liked your mention of the life/death used in this passage, since it's not something I picked up on before but fit very well into your argument. I thought your overall connection to context was really good, particularly your explanation of his circular speech and feigned madness as well as your consistency in the characterization of Hamlet and Polonius. Your discussion of the setup of dramatic irony was interesting and set up another comparison to the rest of the play and helped to situate the scene. I was also glad that you mentioned the use of the aside--Shakespeare doesn't use stage directions often and it's always important to note them when he does.
What would you suggest for improvement?
My biggest suggestion for improvement would be to specifically state your organizational structure and purpose at the beginning. I figured out that you were going more thematically than chronologically by the middle, but it would have been more clear to state it earlier. Same goes for the purpose--like I said above, if you'd said your overall idea more clearly at the beginning, your commentary would have been simpler. You also tended to draw back a lot, which was good in making connections, but structuring strictly by theme would have made it simpler.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You did a really good job addressing lit terms and how they were used (although you accidentally misnamed one or two of them), but didn't necessarily mention overall themes. It also would have been good to (like I've said) explicitly state your organizational purpose and theme at the start. You also didn't mention anything about Shakespeare of his life.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 --good understanding of the book, not enough discussion of Shakespeare
B: 6 --your response was good and supported, but a little bit difficult to follow at times
C: 5 --your organizational pattern was not explicit, making it a little challenging to follow, but your themes and ideas were clear throughout
D: 4 --your language was good and you avoided too many "likes" and "ums," but was a bit colloquial at times. I liked how relaxed you were.
Total: 19/30
Even though it was a little hard to follow, you did a good job Zoe! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask :)
More comments from Sofie!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did an excellent job of identifying the context within the book, displaying a thorough knowledge of the text of Hamlet. Try and address the context of the book as a whole by talking about Shakespeare a little more than just that he was the playwrite. You never explicitly stated “this is the purpose”, but I felt by using the first sentence of the passage as a “thesis”, you identified a purpose of the text. However, you talked about a lot of different purposes throughout, so for the graders sake, it could be beneficial to state it more explicitly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I was a little confused by your organizational pattern. You didn’t state what it was, or why, at the start, which I think would prevent this issue in the future. It seemed at first like you were going through it chronologically, which I understood and found easy to follow. However, I think that going back to talk about different literary elements was a little confusing. At the end, it seemed like you had intended to talk first about corruption, then madness, and then dramatic elements. I understood your analysis, but it was a little hard to follow.
At some points (esp at the start) you read lines, but then do not explain them, so try to avoid this.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you think the purpose of this passage was/why was it important to the text?
You talk about “into the grave” meaning the death of Denmark due to corruption, Polonius asking if Hamlet is going to stop being mad, and Hamlet not realizing that Claudius suspects Hamlet of feigning madness; what do you think the primary significance of this line is?
What was your purpose for your organizational pattern?
What do you think is the significance of Lord Polonius always calling Hamlet “my lord”?
What do you think is the importance of Hamlet’s line “words, words, words”?
-What did the speaker do well?
I really liked how you introduced the first sentence of the passage as a “thesis”, analyzing it, and then using it as a guiding principle of your oral commentary.
Interesting analysis of the double meaning of “conception”. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think it is definitely in agreement with the rest of your argument.
Good job mostly going through the presentation without stopping!
You dissected and analyzed the passage really thoroughly, and did a good job of identifying literary devices. You clearly have a strong understanding of NUMEROUS aspects of this passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Overall you accurately identified your literary terms, but watch out that you don’t mix them up (“slanders sir”, “powerfully and potently” and “hold it not honesty” are examples of alliteration, not anaphora)
Also, watch out that your analysis is based on things that will always be in the text. You spoke about the narrative structure of Hamlet’s mini-rant from “slander sir” through “you could go backward”. However, although in our version there is the 2 line, 1 word, 2 line, 1 word, pattern, this is not how it is written in the book, but is only how it was broken up when typed out for the slide. Just watch out in the future when you are analyzing something that it is a part of the text and not a technological oddity.
You analyzed the same lines in multiple different ways. It was a little bit hard to try and figure out what you actually thought the purpose of some lines were (like “into the grave”), since there were multiple analyses presented at different times for them. Perhaps talk about them all at once, or explain how one interpretation ties into another?
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Don’t forget to introduce overall purpose and organizational structure!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge of Work: 4 I think a little more information on the context of the book and Shakespeare at the beginning would bring this up. I think it was good that you talked about what theater was like at the time though, later in your commentary, in addition to an obviously very strong introduction of the context within the text of Hamlet.
Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Extremely thorough analysis and good personal interpretation! I think the only thing you need to work on here is having a clear purpose that you state from the beginning, so the listener can follow along. Otherwise, good job!
Presentation: 4 You had tons of great ideas, but it was hard to follow along with what your organizational pattern was. It became a little clearer at the end, looking at it in retrospect, but while listening, it was hard to follow.
Language: 4 You used language very well. I didn’t notice any lapses in grammar, and I only heard you use “like”/”you know” once or twice, which is awesome. You also did a great job using different emphasis and intonation – the sound of your presentation made it more interesting. However, you misidentified a literary device, so be careful when annotating. It was a bit informal, which was good in that you didn’t sound stilted, but try to incorporate some additional higher-level word choice. Overall, very good.
19/30
Great job! If you have any questions about any of my comments, feel free to ask!
:D sofie