Tad

Tad Komacek Oral Commentary January 13: media type="file" key="lastoralcommentarypractice.m4a"

Oral Commentary Rubric: Student addresses context - candidate adequately explains passage - provides context to the rest of the play - alludes to the passage very well, but does not provide as much authorial purpose as much as he should Student addresses authorial purpose - candidate does not address the author/playwright (Shakespeare), BUT DOES explain the purpose indirectly o explains the meaning of the passage as it is received by Hamlet - reveals the characterization of Hamlet (self-proclaimed coward in relation to Fortinbras)

Student addresses literary terms - student adequately brings up literary features and relates them to the characterization of Hamlet and his cowardice o use of diction to relate to death and killing Student has organizational principle - candidate sufficiently addressed passage - many pauses - candidate speeds up and slows down, rhythm is jostled and words are hard to make out from time to time - BREATHE! - Explanations are somewhat sporadic - Candidate is very repetitive during the course of the passage commentary - Candidate speaks very colloquially o Should be more formal Student speaks for at least ten minutes - commentary is not 10 minutes in length o 8-9 minutes long File is uploaded appropriately and on time - the passage is sufficiently uploaded on time Passage value = 13/20 pts.

Rebekah Te Hau’s Peer Review of Tad’s Oral Commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? The speaker does address the context of this passage. I do feel that there could have been a bit more detail in it though, as things like the act and scene numbers were missing, as well as which soliloquy of Hamlet’s this was, as there was more than one in the play. Also there could have been just a bit more background as to how we got to this part in the play. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? I think there is organization in this commentary, as one point flows nicely into the next. However sometimes I feel that there were times in the commentary that sounded like Tad was going round in circles and not always making a clear point. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? One question I would like to ask if I was the accessor is if he believed that this passage showed an essential step which lead to Hamlet being able to bring himself to kill so many people? What did the speaker do well? The speaker was able to analyze and summarize the points and techniques that Shakespeare used throughout this play. He was also able to identify some of the literary features used in this passage, and how and why they were used. What would you suggest for improvement? One major thing which I would suggest as being something to work on is to speak with fewer gabs and pauses in their speech as is takes away from what they are saying, and also makes it harder to follow the thoughts and ideas which they are making. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) One thing that I think was missed was the foreshadowing which the line ‘the imminent death…’ and ‘My thoughts be bloody…’. Both of these line foreshadow the many deaths that are to come in the next few scenes in the play. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 4 media type="file" key="JulyspeoplecommentaryoralTad.m4a"

July's People:

Commentator: Tad Peer Editor: Laura Jungreis

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Tad establishes the setting, explaining the growing tensions that surround this passage. He provides appropriate context of the extract where relevant. Later in the commentary he identifies the purpose of this passage as being an exploration of dignity.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Tad provides a generally focused and developed response. He goes through fairly chronologically, but his infrequent references to the text make this hard to follow. His ideas seem to jump around and he ends up talking in circles.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? If this passage is foreshadowing Maureen’s “break down” and need to run away from her family, how does the issue of dignity apply? What is the connection?

What did the speaker do well? Tad demonstrates a good understanding of the extract. He explains in depth the awkward relationship between Maureen and July.

What would you suggest for improvement? Tad mentions a bunch of Gordimer’s signature literary terms in the beginning and states their general effect. However, he fails to talk about any specific examples from the passage, and few literary terms are analyzed in the rest of the commentary.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Literary terms really need to be given more attention—they’re pretty much the point of the commentary. You are to prove that you understand the book/passage, know the literary terms and most importantly how they affect the text. After pointing them out, answer Mrs. Henry’s famous “so what?”

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 4 Interpretation and personal response: 6 Presentation: 5 Use of language: 3