Laura

media type="file" key="fecundity.m4a" Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

media type="file" key="JulysPeople.mp3"Peer Edit Of Laura's Oral Presentation by Cate Butler: Laura did a really nice job in identifying the majority of the literary terms throughout the passage that she chose; the only two literary terms that I found that she did not pick up on was the personification of death (‘For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak”] and some examples of contrast throughout the passage. Laura also did a great job in identifying why Shakespeare chose to have Hamlet speak in iambic pentameter, and many more techniques that he used. She also did a great job pointing out the defining words and phrases that give insight into the characters of Hamlet and Gertrude. There are only a few things that could be improved; she talked kind of slowly which suggested that she was just trying to use up time, which is not true at all as she had over 15 minutes recorded. She also read many of the lines which takes up time, it was difficult with the copies we received in class as they did not have line numbers but in the future she should try to refer to lines by their numbers instead of reading them. Also, although Laura referred to ‘the big picture’ a couple of times, for next time she should try and identify more motifs that are present, such as revenge! The final comment I have would be to identify the importance of this passage; if it was chosen by Ms. O it must play a key role in the play. A few questions I would ask would be: “What were the events that preceded this passage?” “Why is Hamlet so frustrated?” “What is Hamlet’s plan for tricking his uncle into showing his guilt?”. If I were scoring this presentation I would give Laura a 3 for knowledge and understanding; 8 for interpretation and understanding; 7 for presentation; and 4 for use of language.

_ July's People media type="file" key="Laura Jungreis Oral Commentary due 11-24-08.mp3" Peer edit by Liza Apothaker Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Laura She mentioned context in a sentence or two, but did not expand or discuss the importance or purpose of the context. Laura did discuss the purpose of the passage; at the end of her commentary, she nicely sums up the main ideas and themes in the passage.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Laura went through the passage linearly. She read a line, and then she interpreted it.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What do you mean by the Whites being more “moral” than the blacks? I’m confused by your word choice. How do you reconcile this passage with the paragraph right before in which Maureen is jealous of July’s mistress? Do her thoughts reflect a desire to break down the economic barriers between desire and duty because she has feelings for July?

What did the speaker do well? Laura did a great job with literary features. She made sure to mention specific terms, such as simile, metaphor and diction. She discussed literary features such as ambiguity and rhetorical questions.

What would you suggest for improvement? Create a frame of organization. Come up with two or three main points such as in a thesis, instead of going through your commentary linearly. This will help so that you don’t need to re-read each line to the audience before you discuss it. This will also allow clarity of main ideas in the passage.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) The immediate context of the passage, as well as its general place in the novel, plays a large role in this passage. Make sure to take note of the relationship between Maureen and July at this point, as well as Maureen’s place in the village during this time in the book.

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 3 Interpretation and personal response: 6 Presentation: 5 Use of language: 3

Commentator: Laura Jungreis Peer Editor: Eugenia Sokolskaya

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Very little of the context was discussed, definitely not enough for someone not recently familiar with the book. Purpose was discussed within the book; however, it was not related to Nadine Gordimer's purpose in writing the book or this particular passage.

Was there an organizational principle used in this commentary? The presentation was so linear that there seemed to be no organization: details were picked up as they were encountered, although the summary of main points at the end did a good job of tying up loose ends.

What questions would you ask as clarification, if you were the assessor? What do you think Nadine Gordimer wanted to show about whites by the inclusion of this passage? Does this passage show which of desire or duty should ideally govern one's life?

What did the speaker do well? Laura did a very good job picking sentences apart word by word, analyzing not only general literary terms but also specific word choices. She made good use of vocabulary to discuss the literary features of the passage. The conclusion was also well done, effectively summarizing and clarifying the overall purpose of the passage.

What would you suggest for improvement? A more structured and theme-based approached would have made for a clearer commentary. A preliminary summary of the passage's purpose would be supported by details from the text, which could then be picked out based on themes or in chronological order. This would allow the listener to more easily follow the argument.

What did they forget to address? Context was addressed insufficiently - details about the relationship between Maureen and July were not mentioned. Also, although the conclusion summed up the importance of the passage for a reader, the passage was not connected to the author's general purpose in writing the novel.

Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Personal Response: 7/10 Presentation: 5/10 Use of language: 4/5