Rebekah

media type="file" key="Pligrim at tinker creek.mp3" Rachel Eisenstadt On //July's People// Oral Commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Rebekah addresses context in that she relates that it is the exposition of the book, as she describes the Smale’s first day in the black village. She displays the principle conflict in the passage, with July’s mother and wife. Additionally, she mentions items to come later in the book which relate (such as Maureen drowning the kittens). Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? For the most part, it was chronological, however she did attach thematic to each section of the passage. Additionally, when it was called for, she addressed later areas of the novel, which had identical thematic structures. This allowed me to see how these themes developed. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How do you think July views the Smales? (does he value them as friends or investments?) What type of imagery was used? How do you think economic classes play into this passage? What did the speaker do well? Rebekah spoke clearly, annunciated, and rarely paused. It was very clear and easy to follow. She identified relationships between characters well, such as between July and the women, or July and the Smales. Her vocabulary was varied, as well as her use of different examples from the text. She was well versed in the text and could refer to later occurrences. What would you suggest for improvement? She switched which chicken represented the Smales. First it was the white chicken, which makes sense as it was lucrative, as was July’s relationship with the Smales. However, she then related the brown chicken with the broken leg to the Smales, because it was different or holding others back. I would disagree with this view and would try to seek clarity in the future. Additionally, at times she stated that Gordimer used a simile in a line, but never quoted what the line was. Therefore, it made it more difficult for the listener to necessary agree with her point; it would strengthen her argument to quote and refer to areas of the quote. There was a slight editing problem at the end of the tape, and left the listener waiting for a conclusion. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? Often she would state an umbrella term, such as imagery, but never goes farther to display what type of imagery it is, or how this imagery is created (ex: through simile, metaphor etc.). Some of the literary terms are repetitive, such as imagery. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 4 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 3

Rebekah addressed the context of the passage very well. She discussed who the Smales family was as well as who was July and his family, in relationship to each other. She provided good context of what happened before as well as after this passage, and quickly summarized what happened during the passage. She discussed the purpose as being racism in the society and the relationship between the blacks and the whites. More focus on Gordimer's purpose would be appreciated.
 * Karolina Swider's Peer Review of Rebekah's //July's People// OC**
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**

The oral commentary started out going through the passage linearly with references to line numbers. However, as the commentary continued, it was somewhat disorganized. There was no continual utilization of a linear principle, and I could not make out any other way of organizing the commentary. It seemed somewhat random.
 * Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**

What does the chicken show about the relationship between the Smales family and July? How does the death of the kittens characterize Maureen? What is Nadine Gordimer's purpose in utilizing the literary features you mentioned?
 * What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?**

Rebekah mentioned lit features well; she discussed contrast, imagery, simile, irony, foreshadowing. She discusses the theme of the role of racism in society through the white and dark imagery portrayed through the chicken and the dark china. She characterizes the Smales and Maureen well through the chicken being a symbol for the family.
 * What did the speaker do well?**

To improve, Rebekah could discuss what Gordimer intended through the utilization of literary terms; focus on the authorial purpose presented in the passage. She could develop a stronger organization principle.
 * What would you suggest for improvement?**

Rebekah did not discuss the use of the Afrikaan language in the passage and its utilization by Gordimer. She did not discuss the purpose of literary terms, ad thus authorial purpose. She is somewhat missing a conclusion that includes some sort of an overarching summation of the passage.
 * What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)**

Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 4
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?**

Dan Levin reviewing Rebekah Tehau Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Rebekah gives a thorough level of context for setting up the soliloquy that she is about to annotate, although her conclusion is lacking in clarity and direction. She does not show well enough the importance of the soliloquy to the progression of the story. While her context is above sufficient, her discussion on authorial purpose is lacking. She does mention when Shakespeare uses literary terms, and at times why he uses it but never analyzes how it affects the perception of the character or how it affects the play. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? In Rebekah’s oral commentary, she utilizes little organizational structure past the progression of the play, almost a line-by-line following. She begins with an intro rife with context but when she begins her actual annotation her descriptions of where she is describing is lacking in clarity, she jumps around from literary terms to annotation in a way which can get confusing. A more structured organization, possibly more stratified could be very beneficial. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does this relate to the theme of Tragic Hero? What is the extent of the role of religious imagery in this passage, and its affect on the play? Was there any authorial purpose behind the use of religious imagery in this scene? If so, how does this reflect Shakespeare’s view of religion in society? What did the speaker do well? Rebekah was calm and collected during her annotation. She had almost no “ummms” or “likes” in her entire oral commentary. Her sentences were coherent and thought out with intent behind them. Her level of context was exceptional; if I had never read Hamlet I would have had good idea of what events lead up to the scene at hand and the characterization, which led to the intentions of the actions in the scene. Rebekah also has a keen eye for identifying and interpreting literary features throughout the scene. What would you suggest for improvement? The main area of improvement, which Rebekah could use, would be a closer analysis of the authorial purpose and its relation to its purpose in the play. It would greatly improve her commentary. A more structured organized plan of attack would make the commentary more viable and fun to follow. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? Relation of imagery, and literary terms to the main theme of tragic hero is not apparent in the commentary. This is the main focus of the commentary, and without it there is no true purpose to the oral and a commentary without relating the points to the theme in question will suffer greatly. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4