Pavel's+podcast

media type="file" key="Hamlet internal practice 1 pavel.m4a" - Pavel IB Oral Commentary Grading Manuel Tebas-Pueyo Using this rubric: http://dante.udallas.edu/schofield/05-06_Courses/All_Courses/IB_Oral_Assessment_Rubric.htm

Pavel Aprelev: A: 4/5 Adequate knowledge of the work – talks about context, but not in great detail. Understands the context of the passage he is commenting on. B: 6/10 Mentions a few literary terms, but fails to explain authorial purpose for using the terms several times. Analysis is basic, but covers what is necessary. He supports his claims with evidence from the text. C: 7/10 There is no noticeable organization, though he follows the passage from start to front. He is clear and coherent, and supports his ideas through the text. Not very convincing. D: 4/5 He uses varied language, and accurately describes literary terms. Total: 21/30

Pavel Aprelev

Pavel begins by giving a complete contextual introduction of what has just happened in the play. This then leads very nicely into the reason why Shakespeare has included this soliloquy. However, I feel that Pavel gives too much context, and should focus more time on addressing the authorial purpose. And though he does briefly touch upon why Shakespeare may have placed this passage in this part of the play, Pavel does not address what the passage’s content actually contributes to the overall message conveyed. Pavel’s organizational strategy is to first summarize briefly the line he is about to address. Then, he quotes the phrase and gives his analysis, which often demonstrates much insight into why Hamlet says such a thing. Unlike merely reading line by line, this organizational style keeps both the commentator and the audience focused. However, these analyses only sometimes includes the authorial purpose, and at times, is not deep enough. They do not say what Shakespeare wishes to achieve, only what and why Hamlet is saying such words. However, in the phrase “Examples gross as earth exhort me:”, I disagree with Pavel’s interpretation. Rather than being “disgusted at the way the world is, which is caused primarily by his inability to do anything,” I took it to mean that “gross as earth” (i.e. evident from the footnotes) portrays the obvious reasons for enacting revenge. Just as the dirt upon which we stand is so apparently supporting our feet, the apparent reasons pushing Hamlet to kill Claudius is just as “supporting,” supposedly providing enough evidence to convince Hamlet. In addition, Pavel misses the use of assonance in the phrase “fust in us unused”, where the “us” is repeated, linking the word “unused” with the image of becoming moldy and stagnant. When Pavel quotes from “while, to my shame” to “to hide the slain?”, he should try breaking this large chunk into smaller phrases to analyze. Though he does say the overall meaning and significance of this part, Pavel does not analyze the image being created here, and why Shakespeare chose to use this illustration to contrast against Hamlet’s indecision. Finally, Pavel ended his commentary strongly, but his joke at the end is not very professional. It is funny, but make sure not to make this type of conclusion a regular practice!!

Questions:
 * You clearly show in the first part of the passage Hamlet’s coming-into-awareness of his own cowardice, and the apparent and laid-out reasons for revenge. Yet Hamlet does not act. What may Shakespeare have been attempting to comment on concerning human nature? How can Hamlet’s actions, or lack thereof, be related to humanity’s traits?

Score: • Knowledge and Understanding: 4 • Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 • Presentation: 7 • Use of Language: 4

July's People Podcast: media type="file" key="july's ppl1.m4a"

Rebekah Te Hau's Peer Review:

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Pavel address the context of this passage and slightly went into what had happened in the book leading up to this point. However, he doesn’t go into the purpose of this passage.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There is organization to Pavel’s commentary, however it is just a line by line analyses. For the future it might be better to connect elements within the passage, which are related, for example all of the ways that show diction, as this might help the ideas to flow better.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Some questions I would ask if I was the accessor: -Do you believe that Maureen was already use to other people acting as the mother figure for her children in her old life, or do you believe that it is because of the change in lifestyle that led to this change? -You mentioned the eating with the fingers and it showing Bam and the children acting in a primitive way, do you believe that this shows how they were adapting to this new way of life faster than Maureen?

What did the speaker do well? Pavel was able to pick out a few literary features such as diction and imagery. He was also able to give an analysis of what was happening in the passage.

What would you suggest for improvement? Some things that I would suggest for Pavel to do next time, which would help to improve his next commentary is to firstly analyze the purpose of the passage and the literary terms used throughout it. Secondly, is to plan what you are going to say, or make a plan, as this will help your commentary to flow better.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Apart from the purpose of the passage and the literary features use the only other thing Pavel forgot was the other literary features used in this passage. The only two, which he really picked up on were diction and imagery. There was also symbolism of the gun, and many others, which would have helped to given you more to talk about and also helped you to get a better analyses of the passage.

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge/Understanding: 3/5 Interpretation/Personal Response: 5/10 Presentation: 5/10 Use of Language: 3/5


 * Melissa Langer's peer review of //July's People// Commentary**

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Pavel addresses context by explaining that the passage takes place after the meeting with the chief, but he does not mention authorial purpose. However, his understanding of the passage is affected by some misinterpretations, such as Maureen being characterized as parasitic and selfish. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The commentary generally follows the order of the passage, but at one point he jumps to a later section and then resumes analyzing the beginning. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How is Maureen parasitic throughout the novel? How does the encounter with the chief display July’s power, or lack of power? -What did the speaker do well? Pavel does include literary features imagery, symbolism, juxtaposition and characterization -What would you suggest for improvement? When Pavel addresses diction he should specify what kind. He should also be careful making assertions that are not supported throughout the rest of the text. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.). Pavel did not have a complete conclusion to sum up his commentary and does not explicitly explain authorial purpose. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4

Pilligrim media type="file" key="pilligim1.m4a"