Student+Candelaria,+Jessica

media type="file" key="IOC hamlet passage.wma" width="300" height="300"Hamlet IOC media type="file" key="IOC afternoon of an american boy.wma" width="300" height="300"Afternoon of an American Boy IOC

media type="file" key="IOC much ado about nothing part1.wma" align="left" width="300" height="45"much ado about nothing (part1)

media type="file" key="IOC much ado about nothing part2.wma" width="300" height="45" much ado about nothing (part2)

Please go in depth for the sake of your peers. Make sure to make specific comments, not general, ambiguous ones. Please write your responses in clear, full sentences. Think critically about what you just heard, and reply appropriately. Sophie Tran You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You addressed context of what E.B. White was like at that age, but did not elaborate about the storyline we could expect from the rest of the essay. However, it was good that you did give the listener an idea of what E.B. White was like, his awkwardness, his shyness. As for purpose, there were a number of things you talked about that could have been your focus of the commentary; I feel like you were bringing most of your arguments back to revealing White's shyness and stubbornness, but this point was not used in your conclusion, so I was unclear on whether it was the prime focus or purpose of the commentary. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, you said you'd be going in a chronological order, starting with an overview of the passage. I think that though you started out chronologically, you did come back to look at it thematically. You gave an overview of the passage, then chronologically went through the first paragraph, but when talking about theme, tone, technique, you went back and forth between both paragraphs, depending on what supported the claims, so I felt that part was organized thematically. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Could you expand upon the sister's role? You talked about her many times, you said she was helpful, she gave dancing advice, but I think her character could be explored in more depth. I would ask you to clarify a point when you were talking about how White's tone was balanced by sympathizing with himself and bringing himself back up. What I got out of that section was there was a contrast between pitiful aspects of White and positive aspects of him, but I would ask that you clarify that that is indeed the point. What does that reveal about him? -What did the speaker do well? You were very perceptive about how White's story and even his offhand quotes reveal part of his young self. You mentioned the quote about how he couldn't do any of these accomplishments successfuly and seldom tried, and your connection to how that revealed that he was unwilling to try anything new to get to know a girl and didn't want to take that chance, revealing stubbornness as well, was very astute. I like that you mentioned the foreshadowing in the first paragraph with 'far brassier, far gaudier' because it obviously sets the stage for the rest of the essay. Also, what you noticed regarding the balance of the tone was very good--it was interesting to hear your examples on White balancing good and bad in his past self. -What would you suggest for improvement? There were a few times where you paraphrased quotes (presumably so that you could keep talking about White in the third person?), but in my opinion, direct quotes tend to bring out stronger support for the claim. Then, when you're talking about the foreshadowing that the words 'far brassier, far gaudier' bring up, you explained the purpose of the foreshadowing but at around 3:03 I was under the impression that you repeated the same point (you had already explained that the reader would be left wondering, that the actions were brassier and gaudier, but then you repeated that it was greater and more unique than taking a girl to a drugstore)--while this repetition may have had a significance as you did use it to conclude that it left the reader in the dark, there were some unnecessary reiterations in that section of your commentary. This is really the only part of your commentary though that I found unnecessary. I think that to improve, you could have been more clear about an overarching theme or a focus/purpose of the commentary, something that you can support throughout the commentary and keep coming back to. I think the tone was the point in your commentary that you could tie everything back to, that related to everything, and your explanation of the young White's character definitely recurred throughout the passage and your commentary, but I was not clear on whether either of those points was your main focus. My last suggestion for improvement would be to change your conclusion--at the end, you concluded that the organization of the passage, the technique he uses to disperse information, give the reader encouragement to read on, and this is what makes White a great writer. I'm glad you talked about organization of the passage and the fact that he packs information into a short passage, but I would avoid ending with the conclusion that he's a great writer simply because it's a little subjective and the point of the commentary is not to prove that he's a good writer. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) Though you did point out foreshadowing, tone, structure/technique, you did not address any other literary devices, or a lack of literary devices. There were definitely other literary terms that could have been mentioned--diction, an alliteration as well as assonance in 'bashfulness and backwardness,' perhaps some imagery as he's describing his activities. Also, in line 18, the words "it never fails to amaze me in retrospect" would have helped immensely in supporting your explanation of a reflective tone. But your commentary stood very well on its own even without other literary devices, the focus is very steady. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? Criterion A: 3--Your understanding of the extract is good and thorough but there wasn't enough explanation given to the context in the full essay, how this passage is situated. Criterion B: 8--Your interpretation of the passage and especially of White's shortcomings (stubbornness, etc) is convincing and detailed, and your commentary is supported by textual evidence. You talk about tone, foreshadowing, structure, but leave out other aspects of the passage (diction, imagery), so the analysis of literary features could be stronger. Criterion C: 8--Your structure was logical, your supporting quotes were relevant and well-integrated into the commentary, but it lacked persuasiveness simply because, as I've mentioned before, I was unclear on what your main focus was. Criterion D: 4--Your vocabulary is good and while language is clear, varied, and precise, it was not always concise. Literary terms were not always clearly defined because you seemed to go the long way to explain something in understandable terms, and that's also when your language was less concise (i.e. repeating the foreshadowing explanation) 23/30 I really enjoyed listening to your commentary! If you're unclear on anything I suggested, let me know! Sophie Tran **Please be sure to write your name under your comments in order to be given credit for your work.**

Peer Review Rubric: -Did the student provide helpful information in a clearly written response? -Did the student offer praise, where appropriate, in a clearly written response? -Did the student offer hypothetical questions? Peer Review Value= _/30 (this is for BOTH passages)

- Commentary review: ~Karl Madden -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, you gave a summary about what the essay was about, told us all the pertinent information we need to know, and there was a clear purpose behind everything you said.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You said you would go chronologically, and you did for the most part.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? You were very clear about what you would be doing right off the bat. How long is it? Still can't see the stinking time on these clips. -What did the speaker do well? You kept a constant tone up till the very end, making it easy to understand what you were saying.

-What would you suggest for improvement? I think your ending was a little weak, in a way your tone made it sound like you were ending with a question. I there were any leaps for vocabulary, not that it was un-scholarly vocab, I just think it could have used a few more big words. I'm not sure because I can't see, but I think I can hear you struggle to not let out an "um" in between thoughts, this gave several very quite pauses (they were short ones though) Use more of a variety in your commentary as far as lit. techniques. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You spent alot of time on tone, theme, and structure, but there wasn't much else. You could spend a whole lot more time talking about all the different types of litterary devices that can be found in White's writing.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? Criterion A: 3 Criterion B: 8 Criterion C: 8 Criterion D: 3 22/30 I thought it was pretty good, and I enjoyed listening!

__

Commentary review by Michael Dickey -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes you provided an overview of the context of the passage by stating where the passage is located, who is talking, and what they are talking about. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes you stated that you would address the passage in chronological order and you did so. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What is it about Benedick's constantly stating that he will not fall in love that leads you to the conclusion that Benedick would end up falling in love? -What did the speaker do well? You enunciated when speaking and elaborated on your ideas. You also presented convincing argument and made sure to back your statements up with evidence from the text. -What would you suggest for improvement? You stumble over your words a couple of times and you use the word um a lot. for your next commentary I would recommend that you do a practice attempt or two before commentating -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You forgot to address general literary devices instead you focus on theme and tone. As well as structure.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? Criterion A: 4 Criterion B: 7 Criterion C: 7 Criterion D: 4 24/30 Yes, I did provide an overview of the passage
 * Did the Speaker address context? Purpose?**

Yes, I stated I would go through the passage in a chronological order -starting with the overview theme -specific overview of passage -devices Shakespeare uses in the passage
 * Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**

I think I did a good job with the overview of the passage I think it gave a great insight which helped the overall commentary run smoothly.
 * -What did the speaker do well? **

Much of this commentary is focused on Benedick and how he is the person of interest in the passage. How do the other characters contribute to the play?
 * What questions would you ask?**

I did have a lot of “ums” in my commentary, I try so hard not to say them but the just come out when I’m nervous. (I am not making excuses for myself) I should of also added some literary devices, its just that I could not find any in the passage, so I mostly concentrated my time and effort on the theme tone and structure. I should also not try and repeat things that I have already stated.
 * -What would you suggest for improvement? **

Criterion A: 5 Criterion B: 7 Criterion C: 7 Criterion D: 4 25/30
 * What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?**

Jessica Candelaria (myself) aka me **Please be sure to write your name under your comments in order to be given credit for your work.**

Peer Review Rubric:

-Did the student provide helpful information in a clearly written response?

-Did the student offer praise, where appropriate, in a clearly written response?

-Did the student offer hypothetical questions?

Peer Review Value= _/30 (this is for BOTH passages)