Monika

Connor Johnson peer reviewing Monika’s oral commentary

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Monika did a very good job addressing the context of the passage quickly and concisely but the one thing missing was the audience. It is important to point out that Hamlet is speaking only to himself in this passage, and is in essence, thinking out loud. Monika also does a good job addressing purpose. She goes back once she has gone through the lines and phrases it as the passage’s “importance” but she is really talking about its purpose in the play. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Monika went line-by-line, stopping at certain phrases or words that she felt should be further analyzed. Once she is done with this, she goes back and comments on the purpose of the passage, the mood of the passage, and re-occurring themes that appear in this passage. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does Claudius being sickly have to do with him being corrupt and his last days being useless? Using your same logic everyone’s life is useless if it will eventually end in death. Why does Shakespeare so often use couplets to conclude speeches or soliloquies of Hamlets? What did the speaker do well? Monika used a very interesting technique in that she would analyze a line, ask a question a listener might have about her analysis, and then answer it herself. This made it very easy for the reader to understand he analysis as well as making her sound like an expert on the passage. Monika also does a nice job not just stating the literary features but explaining what they create and how they contribute to the overall passage. Monika also did a nice job identifying and analyzing a variety and a good quantity of literary features used by Shakespeare in the passage. What would you suggest for improvement? Monika seems to skip around a lot in this passage, and I found myself having to pause the commentary and find the line she had skipped to very often because the gaps are very large at times. This is fine if there is nothing to analyze but at least give the listener notice by saying something line “And now moving to line 87…”. Once you are done going through the lines you go back and spend time explaining why Claudius is the antagonist. This seems unnecessary and sounds like it is only included to make the commentary long enough. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Monika forgot to address how the extremely short sentences and sentence fragments correlate the action Hamlet is contemplating and the state of mind he is in. The sentences Hamlet uses to say how simple it would be to kill Claudius right now are very simply themselves as well. When Hamlet is talking about what a good time would be to kill Claudius, Monika misses the different moments he alludes to such as when Claudius is gambling or when he is swearing. These were looked upon as sinful by the church and would allow Claudius to receive the same fate as Hamlet Sr. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal response: 8 Presentation: 6 Use of language: 4

Britt Glassman's review of Monika's July's People Podcast

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?

Absolutely. Monika gave context and indicated Gordimer's purpose. However, I would suggest that she be sure to integrate the author's purpose throughout her entire podcast, rather than solely at the end. Such an effort would make the commentary more comprehensive. In addition, a more detailed discussion of context may have been beneficial. Other than these two suggestions, I think Monika did an excellent job with this facet of the podcast.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?

Yes. Monika chose to move chronologically through the passage. Although there may have been more interesting ways to organize the commentary, Monika's was cohesive and thought provoking.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?

I would ask Monika to clarify the metonymy that she references in the beginning of her commentary. Also, I would ask her to clarify her explanation of Maureen and Bam's relationship.

-What did the speaker do well?

Monika did an excellent job of giving a detailed account of the passage. She provided a great deal of literary terms and was sure to emphasis what they were actually accomplishing. In addition, her discussion of the Smales' transformation and how their struggle to assimilate into the black community was informative and detailed. Also, she did an nice job of avoiding 'filler' words and including sophisticated language throughout her whole commentary.

-What would you suggest for improvement?

I would suggest that she work to include authorial purpose throughout her entire commentary.

-What would you score them based on the rubric?

Knowledge and understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal response: 10 Presentation: 9 Use of language: 4

media type="file" key="dillard.mp3"