Karolina

Set 8 Karolina’s Podcast Karolina in her podcast has excellent understanding of the passage she analyzed from the play Hamlet. She was able to locate where the passage was in the text and give the listener a brief explanation as to what has gone on n the text so far. She also has a good interpretation of the work, because she analyzes the passage finding numerous authorial purposes, but she could also go more in depth with the passage. She identifies many literary features in the text like alliteration, and asyndeton, but she also skips a few like apposition in the passage. Also she misused asyndeton, because the list of words she was using as the example had a conjunction, “and,” which does not make it asyndeton. Her presentation structure was done well, she stated one of her literary terms, said where it was in the text, then stated authorial purpose, and then occasionally connected it with similar literary terms that came up in the rest of the text. The language in her podcast is clear, varied, and precise. She pays attention to the tone and to all elements of the passage, there are occasional pauses, but other than that the word choice was good, except the one mishap with one of the literary terms. I would give this podcast a: 25/30

Paula Choi’s Peer Review of Karolina Swider's Commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Karolina did an outstanding job of fully addressing both the setting in which the event occurs and the purpose of the Shakespeare for adding the passage in the play. She demonstrates a complete understanding of what has happened before the scene in the passage as an introduction to her commentary. Then, as she analyzes the phrases line-by-line, she also briefly includes the part of the story-line that explains why the characters, Queen Gertrude or Laertes, say it. Moreover, Karolina talks about the context of the play, stating that Shakespeare comments on death and decay by referring to nature; through Gertrude’s word-choice of “leaves”, “grass”, “flowers”, etc. and Laertes’s use of the contrast between water and fire, Shakespeare portray by upon people’s deaths, they decay into nature and become part of the earth. Overall, Karolina claims the overarching theme of the passage and constantly provides evidence throughout her commentary to support her argument. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? After introducing the passage by providing the context of the play, Karolina goes through the passage line-by-line. She does not use a simple organizational pattern that consists first with a brief introduction of the context of the play, full analysis of the phrases and quotes, and then a conclusion. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Can you elaborate on the two different similes you pointed out- “mermaid-like” and “like a creature”? Do they portray two contradicting perspectives of Ophelia? Can you elaborate what kind of contrast Laertes is trying to dispay through the description of water and fire? What did the speaker do well? Not only does Karolina exceptionally points out the various literary terms used in the passage but also illustrates how their effects support and embody the overarching theme of the passage. Karolina consistently makes connections to each effect of the literary terms and explains the author’s purpose in using them. Furthermore, she provides a balance between textual evidence and analysis. Also, she does not use informal language and goes slowly from line to line. Hence, her organization is evident and allows the listeners have an easy time understanding her points. Lastly, her conclusion is very precise and summarizes the significances of the passage. What would you suggest for improvement? Karolina should give a brief introduction to Shakespeare main purpose in the passage in the beginning of the commentary. Along with the authorial purpose, she should briefly explain the overarching literary terms used by Shakespeare that help prove his purpose. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) The discussion of the effects of the word choices- “weeds”, “weedy”, and “weeping” and similes “mermaid-like” and “like a creature”, other than just providing emphasis and drawing attention to the reader. Also, the connection of the repetition of “ee” sound and the negative connotation and the court’s reaction to Ophelia’s suicide. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4

//July's People// Commentary on November 25, 2008 media type="file" key="Oral Commentary 1 KS.mp3"

Britt Glassman’s Comments on Karolina’s July’s People OC: Did student address context: Yes, Karolina did a very nice job of giving context. Such an explanation made it very simply to follow. However, I would suggest page numbers next time, just so that the peer reviewer can find the exact passage with any issues. In addition, I thought Karolina did a good job of providing context about each character that was represented within the passage. The detailed account made the commentary that much more informative. Student addresses authorial purpose: Yes, Karolina consisted referenced Gordimer’s purpose throughout the commentary. She did a nice job of keeping the reader informed of the shifting situation of the Smale’s family. She also gives some historical context in the beginning, when she references the condition of apartheid in South Africa. Student addresses literary terms: Seeing that this passage was not necessarily rich with lit terms, I feel that Karolina took advantage of every one that she had at her expense. She did an excellent job of citing important literary features, such as simile, symbol, juxtaposition, and more. Student has organizational principle: Although Karolina chose to move through the passage chronologically, she made her point more cohesive through dividing the passage into two sections. Thus, her focus was fleshed out throughout the entire commentary. Student spoke for at least ten minutes. What would I ask for clarification: Can you elaborate on the gun as a symbol of Bam’s personality and how the gun relates to the authorial purpose of depicting shifts in power. Score on rubric: Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4 JESS ROTHSTEIN //-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?// Karolina does an awesome job discussing the context of the author and the book and the passage. //-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?// Yes, and it is very affective. //-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?// --You speak about African words in the text, and their lack of definition, can you further elaborate on this topic? -- You talk about a ‘bulk theme’ of the Smales as treating themselves as “good masters”, Can you give me more examples from the book? --You end with “one can only wonder if they do in the end”, using evidence from the text what do you think? //What did she do well?// I like the line references instead of general commands like, “later in the passage”, it makes it easier for me to listen and pay attention. She really explains the purpose of literary features well. She is very elaborate when she speaks about a topic. I really understood and could indentify with everything she was speaking about. Overall Karolina did a great job. //- What would you suggest for improvement?// I really liked Karolina’s commentary. I liked how she did not direct quote all the time and she just gave a summary when she could. She should try not to click her pen, also there is an obnoxious beep, which isn’t you’re fault, but it was very distracting. I like how you made a finally //-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)// Karolina does not seem to forget much. She addresses pose, syntax, simile, diction. She does a nice job of not discussing the same thing over and over. You discuss the gun but never acknowledge exactly that it is a motif. Good discussion of shift. Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8.5/10 Presentation: 8/10 Use of Language: 4/5

//Pilgrim at Tinker Creek// Oral Commentary "Stalking" passage 11 01/12/09 media type="file" key="Oral Commentary PaTC KS.mp3"