Janette

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? The speaker does not address the context of the passage. Instead they just jump into their analyses of the passage. This leaves the accessor or the listener with no idea as to what has occurred before this scene and what has built up to it. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organization of this commentary is very good. Each idea and piece of analyses flows nicely into the next one. In doing this Janette is able to link her ideas nicely together, which makes it easier for her to provide evidence for the points she is making. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? One question that I would like to ask is if Janette believes that this passage shows how Claudius doesn’t care about Hamlet’s philosophical reasons and his actions? And how she can prove her views. What did the speaker do well? The speaker analyzed this passage and the techniques use by Shakespeare very well. Janette’s explanations for why Shakespeare used these techniques and what effects they had on the play and the meaning behind each word was very good. What would you suggest for improvement? The most important thing that I think she could improve on is giving a background on where this passage has come in the text and the events which have lead up to the particular passage being analysed. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) One thing which I think Janette did not address was the great number of literary features which are used throughout this passage, and why the author, Shakespeare used these and the effects they had. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 4
 * Rebekah Te Hau’s Peer Review of Janette’s Oral Commentary

Janette by Elliot Weiser** Though she could have provided more background knowledge of the events surrounding the passage, Janette provided effective context for the sake of this commentary. In terms of addressing authorial purpose, she frequently refers to Shakespeare’s active involvement in the text, specifically Shakespeare’s commentary on death and the meaninglessness of life. This commentary’s organization principle involved analyzing the passage line by line in order to bolster Janette’s arguments in her commentary. Though this method was effective for her, there are definitely other ways in which Janette could strengthen the structure of this commentary. - Where else in Hamlet can we find evidence of Claudius’s condescending tone? - Can you see this passage as possibly foreshadowing something later in the text, and if so, where can you find this foreshadowing? - Where else in this play can we find evidence that supports the claim that death is the “great equalizer?” Janette constantly supported her claims with evidence from the text and created a very strong conclusion that summed up the points she made in her commentary. She kept excellent focus and almost never diverged from the main topic of her commentary. I would suggest very little, however it might have benefited Janette had she used an organizational principle that could have been adapted more effectively to her commentary. Her analysis of HOW and WHY was very complete; she discussed a plethora of literary features that went toward her focus. Janette could have also discussed the presence of imagery in this passage, and how it is created. Knowledge/Understanding: 5 Interpretation/Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**
 * Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**
 * What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?**
 * What did the speaker do well?**
 * What would you suggest for improvement?**
 * What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?**
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?**

none