Marissa

media type="file" key="Marissa Fasanelli StalkingPATC.m4a"media type="file" key="July's People Commentary.m4a"

Oral Commentary Peer Review for Marissa Fasanelli - Sarah Gordon Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Marissa did a fairly good job addressing the context of the passage in the novel. She also did a fairly good job addressing the purpose of the passage. She did a good job addressing the significance of the passage. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational principle was chronological. She used the organization successfully. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Marissa, does this passage foreshadow anything? What is the most important part of this passage? What did the speaker do well? Marissa did an extremely good job addressing literary features, and dissecting particular phrases. She does a good job explaining the importance of the chickens. She doesn’t sound too nervous. She had a good insight in the touching of hands between Maureen and July’s mother. She had a good conclusion. What would you suggest for improvement? I would talk about the passage in more general terms, as well as addressing specific aspects within the passage. She needs to pronounce “Smailes” correctly. She should record in an area with less background noise. What does she mean by “morbid orders”? She should cut down on some of the repetition, it seemed almost as though she was just filling time. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) In my opinion Marissa addressed everything. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Personal Response: 8/10 Presentation: 8/10 Language: 4/5

Commentator: Marissa Fasanelli Peer Editor: Eugenia Sokolskaya

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Marissa addressed context enough to get the listener oriented, but did not dwell on it for longer than necessary. She also addressed purpose; however, the author's intent in writing the passage was not always clear as she discussed specific details in the text. Introducing a thesis earlier on and then bringing every argument back to it would have made the purpose much clearer. Was there an organizational principle used for this commentary? The organization was linear, but grouped evidence to general topics. Overall, the organization was easy to follow, although once again the thesis would have been clearer if it were at the beginning. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, if you were the accessor? Did July make the right choice in killing the chicken with the eggs? How does that relate to his choices regarding the white family? What did the speaker do well? Marissa did a good job of picking out the phrases that best illustrated the importance of the passage and tying them to a general argument. The conclusion derived about the meaning of the passage and the author's purpose in writing it was very insightful and valuable. She sounded confident in her conclusions. What would you suggest for improvement? Once again, I would give a summary of the commentary's conclusions at the beginning. Also, the slow pace of the commentary made it feel as though Marissa was buying time, which downplays the value of the commentary. What did they forget to address? Nothing was forgotten, although a little bit more time could have been spent on the implications of July's choice of chicken and what it indicates about his relationship to the Smales. How would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5 Personal Response: 9/10 Presentation: 8/10 Language: 4/5

Will's reflection: 1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose? a. Yes, Marrisa talks about the Smales connection to the Bakkie at the time. She then goes on to do a nice job commentating on July’s relationship to the Smales at the time. There were, however, some specific details missing regarding the process of Gordimer’s commentary and how it has been created up until this point. Overall, context was addressed in a very concise way, easy for the listener to understand where in the book the piece was coming from. 2. Was there an organizational principle used for this commentary? a. The organization was clear, linear, and successful. It is not original, however, perfectly acceptable for an IB oral presentation. 3. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, if you were the accessor? a. Does this characterize July as someone that is not “the savior” as described by Maureen? b. What does this text foreshadow? 4. What did the speaker do well? a. Marrissa spoke very well and efficiently. She did a nice job picking on the literary devices within the passage. b. She picked out very good pieces and broke them down, rather than picking out every single one and seeing if it might have some significance. c. I liked the part about July’s mother “finally touching white skins” and the change in societal standard that is possible and the “dying of old power.” d. Marissa seemed very poised and efficient all throughout her oral commentary. 5. What would you suggest for improvement? a. I would focus a bit more on the realization of change, and how it foreshadows the new system that will grow. It is addressed, however I believe you could go into more detail surrounding this point. 6. What did they forget to address? a. Nothing. How would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4.5/5 Personal Response: 8/10 Presentation: 9.5/10 Language: 4/5