John

Oral Commentary Peer Review for John Going - Sarah Gordon Did the speaker address context? Purpose? John addressed context to some degree. I believe he should have addressed it at the opening of his commentary. He also failed to address his passages context in the novel as a whole. He did a good job stating Gordimer’s purpose in including the passage. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? I could not see a unified organizational theme in the commentary. I must assume that John was going through the passage chronologically. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? John, who are these characters? Where does this passage take place in the book? What did the speaker do well? John did a good job addressing Gordimer’s use of diction, and the purpose her ‘animalistic’ diction served. John does a good job describing the more abstract meaning of the scene. John does a good job with discussing the contrast between sex in master bedrooms, and sex in huts. John seems to have a good understanding of the text. John does a good job parsing particular phrases. What would you suggest for improvement? John should speak more about specific literary features. John might want to refer to the ‘blacks’ as ‘Africans’. John should also record in an area with less background noise. John should eliminate some of the repetition in his commentary. I think he might want to use a different organization method. He needs a better conclusion. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) I don’t think that John forgot to address anything, however I would suggest that he go more in depth in the things he did address. Does John’s point about Gordimer’s beliefs about equality contradict his overall point? What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Personal Response: 7/10 Presentation: 6/10 Language: 4/5 media type="file" key="July's People Oral Commentary.m4a" media type="file" key="Pilgrim.m4a"