Steph

Ryan Touhill Ms. Harper IB English A1 HL part 2 – set 8 22 September 2008 Peer Review Stephanie Kardon-Weber Oral Commentary Rubric: Student addresses context - the candidate adequately explains the context of the passage - growth of character before and situation after given passage is given, providing context in relation with the rest of the play Student addresses authorial purpose - candidate rarely refers to the purpose of the author/playwright (Shakespeare) o simply speaks of Hamlet’s intentions Student addresses literary terms - literary terms well-addressed in commentary o used very frequently in relation to passage to create a direct relation between features and their usage - canditate does well in explaining tone of the scene and its significance (Hamlet’s relief, etc.) Student has organizational principle - the candidate follows the passage adequately - shifts from point to point are made well, but the speaking becomes choppy - candidate has small hesitation problem (use less of “um”) - many pauses taken, must flow must be less choppy Student speaks for at least ten minutes - the candidate’s commentary did not last 10 minutes (around 7-8 minutes in length) File is uploaded appropriately and on time - The file was sufficiently uploaded on time Passage value = 14/20 pts.

Steph’s Commentary review: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Steph addressed context, but towards the end of her commentary. Also, she accidently said it was Act one scene two she was addressing, when it was actually the soliloquy in Act two scene two. This would have been a small mistake had context been addressed earlier to set the scene for the analysis. As for purpose, she touched on the ideas of fate and the use of analogy to show Hamlet’s feelings. Also, she addressed the end couplet that encompasses the idea of the passage, however a big-picture purpose in the context of the play was not reached, perhaps because the conclusion was not fully developed. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Steph followed the text as she analyzed, for the most part, though she sometimes skipped around to explain different images and their relation. However, this method was effective and her commentary was easy to follow. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Could you please clarify the explanation you gave of Hamlet referring to both himself and his mother as a whore? What does this show and what conclusion about Hamlet’s point of view could you come to as a result? What is the main reason that Hamlet wants to put on the play and what are the consequences if he finds out Claudius is guilty? Who is the “devil” Hamlet refers to? What is the significance of this? -What did the speaker do well? Steph related the tone and character of Hamlet well. We understood his motives and emotions in the passage and how they affected the delivery and development of the action in the passage. -What would you suggest for improvement? Steph made quite a few factual errors in her commentary. I would encourage her to make sure her analysis is accurate in terms of the literal meaning before delving into the figurative, because this negates her analysis. For example, she says that the “devil” Hamlet refers to is Claudius when he is actually speaking of the Ghost. She also says that Hamlet wants the people of Elsinore to know Claudius’s guilt through the lay, when it is actually for he and Horatio to figure out if Claudius is guilty and should be killed. It is a private affair, despite the public setting. Also, in lieu of describing the importance of characterization or how it adds to the plot Steph sometimes stops at a judgment of the character, using words such as “horrible” and “disgusting,” the repetition of which feels like her judgment, not Shakespeare’s purpose. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Steph addressed literary terms succinctly but could have spent more time telling the reader about the important themes present, she mentions fate briefly, but I believe that theme encompasses purpose; so not spending time on theme shows a neglect of purpose, in terms of plot and authorial message. -What would you score them based on the rubric? 21/30 Knowledge/understanding 3 Interpretation 6 Presentation 8 Use of Language 4

July's People media type="file" key="ASTEPHH.m4a" Peer edit by Liza Apothaker Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Steph said that the passage was in the beginning of the novel, and did not expand past this. Discussing a little more context would be helpful. Steph did a great job of discussing the purpose of the novel, which she laid out in three main points, like a thesis.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Steph went through the passage linearly. But, she set up the organization of the commentary when she discussed purpose. She mentioned three main purposes: to further the plot, to foreshadow, and to highlight the differences between the black and white communities in South Africa. This seemed like it was her thesis. It would have been great if she had organized her thoughts into these three categories instead of discussing her thoughts linearly, which lent itself to some confusion.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does this passage characterize Maureen as a mother?

What did the speaker do well? Steph does a great job of identifying literary terms. She used very specific lit terms such as local color and allusion. She discussed sentence structure. She talked about imagery.

What would you suggest for improvement? Steph should utilize a form of organization, as stated above.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) When Steph discussed the idea of Maureen being unable to change and adapt to the new environment, it would have been nice for her to reference the epigraph. It also would have added to Steph’s commentary if she discussed the relevance of the title “July’s People” in reference to the issue of power and control, as introduced by the bakki.

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 4 Interpretation and personal response: 7 Presentation: 5 Use of language: 4

Peer Reviewer: Connor Johnson

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? • Steph did a poor job addressing context and she only stated that the passage was at the beginning of the book o Summarizing the passage is not equivalent to giving the context of the passage • The discussion of purpose was good but was thrown into the commentary in awkward places, disrupting the flow

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? • Steph went through the passage line by line, put threw in purpose at times when it seemed relevant to the line she had just discussed • Though the analysis of her purpose was strong, putting it in these places made the commentary confusing at times

What did the speaker do well? • Steph did an excellent job analyzing the imager in a variety of lines from her passage • Steph also identified and analyzed a slew of literary devices o She not only analyzed them but talked about why Gordimer might have inserted them, which makes the commentary very strong

What questions would you ask this person for clarification? • How does the Bakki being compared to a fever relate to its transition from pleasure to necessity?

What should Steph do to improve? • Steph needs to work on addressing context a little more extensively at the beginning of her commentary • Steph should also work on including purpose either at the beginning or end of her commentary instead of commenting on it in the middle

What did Steph forget to address? • Steph brought up the idea of using flashbacks as a narrative technique but some elaboration on the advantages and disadvantages of this technique would have made the commentary stronger

What would you score them base on the rubric: Knowledge and understanding: 5 Interpretation and personal response: 8 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 5 24/30