Student+Madden,+Karl

Welcome to your wiki page!

Determine what the audio recording feature is on your own computer, and respond to this invitation to join the class wiki by writing down what the application or software is called that you will be using to create an audio file of your commentaries. If you do not have such capability on your personal or home computer, please see me to arrange to use a school computer for creating audio recordings of your commentaries.

You will upload these audio files to your personal wiki page, and then you will review the oral commentaries of peers and offer feedback via the discussion feature.

Instructions on uploading files are forthcoming.

Hi Mrs. G, I will be using the same Sound Recorder software that you showed us in class.

Here is my commentary, its a bit short, and it was fairly late when I was able to record it. Sorry about the static, that is surprisingly the best mic in the house, I was able to understand what I was saying though. media type="file" key="Commentary on The Sea and Wind.wma" width="300" height="300" Huh, for some reason I can't listen to this on Google Chrome, and it won't let me install the plug-in. Internet Explorer lets me listen though. (maybe this is helpful for someone else?)

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? Yes, you addressed context. Your summary of the entire essay was VERY GOOD. You summed up the essay very well, addressing White's various conflicts and conclusions and how he came to them. Purpose/focus of commentary was addressed after summary of essay and explanation of audible devices (i.e. rhyme). You said his intellectual and emotional ramblings bring up the universal human conflict between reason and emotion, a civilized self and an instinctual self. I think that spot is where we first hear the focus of your commentary. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes--it was in chronological order, and you also announced each step of what you were going to talk about it every time you changed to a different topic. You addressed that you'd be going through the passage in chronological order while simultaneously moving from topic to topic, you said that "us" meant the readers, and then you went into the commentary. Before each section, you mentioned what you'd be addressing (first, summary of essay, then technique and structure, then you crafted your thesis about the conflict of reason and emotion, then you mentioned tone, imagery, metaphors and personification in the last few lines, what has been revealed of White, and then a specific explanation of the theme). -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? At the end of your commentary, you said the two paragraphs gave evidence of White's impending mortality. What is this evidence? I would ask you to clarify that. You also said that the sensations of sailing make White painfully aware that he is still alive--I would ask you to expand upon that idea. Why is it painful to know he's alive? -What did the speaker do well? Your summary of the essay was excellent. The commentary was organized well, and vocabulary was very good, very formal. You used a good amount of textual evidence that supported your claims. The rhyme that you found in the beginning of the extract was lovely, and you also explained how it was effective. You mentioned imagery, metaphors and personifications, and you touched on the continuity between the paragraphs as a love of the sea but the separation in tones. You fleshed out the parallels between White and the boat, which was fantastic, and also made a titular reference, showing how in the title "The Sea and the Wind That Blows," the wind that blows gives life to the boat whereas the sea gives life to White. You not only quoted this part of the extract but you thoroughly explained the parallel. You explained what was revealed of White in the essay, and you related this essay to his other works by saying that water was a recurring theme in his writing. Your theme that White's relationship with the sea parallels his relationship with life was insightful. At the end, you brought up an interesting theme of mortality, rejuvenation, youth. -What would you suggest for improvement?

First, in the summary, you said that White's first experience with the sea was a disaster, causing him to hate and fear the sea. Immediately, I needed to check just what made this experience with the sea a disaster because it is an important turning point, going from hating and fearing it to loving and fearing it. I would have asked you to clarify if only to understand if this point was important or if it was still background. Then, when talking about tone, you said the first paragraph of the extract was contradictory because of his questioning loyalty to the sea, and the second paragraph was sentimental, focusing on his favorite aspects of sailing. You said this gave the reader a better idea of White's love for the sea, but I would have asked how exactly do the contradictory and sentimental tones lead to an understanding of White's love for the sea. Also, you did say that a theme was how White's relationship with the sea parallels his relationship with life--this was very astute, but it wasn't mentioned until the very end of the commentary. You could have brought that in at the beginning and then proceeded to use textual evidence to support and tie back to that instead of using textual evidence to develop your argument and conclude with explaining what the theme was. Furthermore, the idea of youth and mortality was not broached until near the end of the commentary as well; I think it would have been more clear if that was brought in closer to the beginning to give you more time to support it.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You didn't include line numbers for your quotes though it wasn't hard to understand. There was a personification in the last paragraph that you didn't mention ("the shags gathered on the ledge will note my passage...they will say") but other than that you covered literary terms well. Also, I think you could have addressed "cruel beauty" as an oxymoron or paradox because it would support your focus on a universal human conflict between reason and emotion, etc. Your understanding of themes was very comprehensive and wide-ranging, so you lacked nothing there. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? Criterion A: 5--you obviously understood the essay and the extract and you managed to thoroughly explain themes, changes, and so on, which showed an understanding of the work Criterion B: 10--your interpretation of the extract was convincing, a fully considered focus. You supported your claims with textual evidence, and you did explain effects of literary features. Criterion C: 9--You explained how you would structure your commentary, and it was effective (except at the very end). The response was focused, relevant, and persuasive, and your textual evidence/references to the essay were very well-integrated. The reason for a 9 is for a few of the reasons I explained in the 'improvement' section--I think some of the items you mentioned at the end (theme of White's relationship with sea connecting to White's relationship with life and also youth and mortality) would be more effective if mentioned in the beginning or middle of the commentary so that you have some room to explain and support your ideas. Criterion D: 5--Language was used very well. Vocabulary was good, your commentary was concise, no unnecessary words, and it was very clear. 29/30 I enjoyed listening to this commentary! 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)

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.

-Yes you had an overview which gave the listener the perfect insight to the background info and the passage. You gave a summary that wasn’t too long or wasn’t too short.
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose? **

**-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?** Yes you stated that you would move from topic to topic in a roughly chronological order, which you did very well. haha

**-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?** -I would ask how the imagery affects the reader. -You mention Personification in the commentary (saying that white gives human attributes to the boat.) what does this do for the reader?

-I liked how at the beginning you clarified what “us” meant so that there would be no confusion in the future. -You had a very nice smooth and steady tone which really helped this commentary run smoothly. - I liked your universal theme of reason vs. emotion you even give a quote afterward “does he quit while he is ahead…” this really helped substantiate your theme because you not only give a quote but also an explanation. -I think you did a great job backing up every statement you made which made your arguments sound very reliable.
 * -What did the speaker do well? **

-I would suggest that you think about all the different techniques White uses and how they affect the reader. How do they make the reader feel think act etc. Or if they have any effect on the reader at all? -Also I would try and sum everything up at the end of the commentary. Try and bring everything you stated together
 * -What would you suggest for improvement? **

.**-What did the speaker forget to address? (Lit terms, themes, etc.)** <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">-Yes you say that white uses rhyme in the passage, which is a very important device because you say that “he is hinting to the reader that he may be planning on giving up sailing forever.” <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">-Yes you address how the tone changes from one paragraph to the next. I think this would have been a great place to insert a quote from the text. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">-You mention Personification in the commentary (saying that white gives human attributes to the boat.) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">-I don’t think you forgot to address anything. Good job!

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">A: 4 Good understanding of the passage <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">B: 7 Good interpretations however I think you could have talked a little bit more on how the technique White uses effects the reader. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">C: 10 A clearly focused and developed response <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">D: 5 The language in your commentary was very clear varied and precise. I didn’t hear not one single ummm….or like!! Here is my Hamlet commentary, its a bit short again, but better than last time. I think you can hear by bird in the background a couple times? media type="file" key="Commentary on Hamlet.wma" width="300" height="45"
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">26/30 **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Great Job Karl!! **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">- **

Here is my Much Ado About Nothing: Benedick the bachelor commentary, I don't think it was as good as my last two in terms of content, but it was a good length. Sorry about the poor recording (my mic was acting up), I re-recorded it three times and this one was the best. media type="file" key="Much Ado.wma" width="240" height="240" -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Good job situating the passage, and how all the characters came together and how they act towards each other. You did state the subject of the passage. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, you said how you were going to go though it very clearly and explained why you would be jumping around. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? You talked about 'cupid arrow' what was the signicance of that? You explained it at the end of your commentary, why didn't you explain it when you first brought it up and connect it to the subject? -What did the speaker do well? You went in a well organized manner, I followed along well. You also did a good job telling the reader what was going on in the passage before you started analyzing it, I liked that. And you found a tone for each character in the passage! I like your metaphors, especially the bugle. -What would you suggest for improvement? You had some, um's and you were going to say something, but you stopped and said something else. ew and there a few long pauses. You also pointed out some places where there was "play on words"- but it didn't seem like it was a play on words, it seemed like you were describing how Shakespeare used imagery to convay all the frustration that Ben. had towards love, and how Claud, and DP had frustration towards Ben. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You did a good job overall covering all the basics. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A-4: Good understanding, but you could have brought more into it. B-7: Good job, but you could have connected more back to the subject of the passage. C-10: Great job! You did not go out side of the passage at all. D-7: I was a little confused about what you meant by "play on words" and you had some um's and stutters, but other than that, it flowed nicely. Good job all around though 28/30
 * __ Andie: __**

Much Ado About Nothing commentary review: ~Karl Madden

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes I set the stage for the passage and then continued to talk about what the passage was about.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes I progressed thematically, I totally forgot the word for it when I was speaking, so thats why I said "roughly chronological"

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I don't have any questions for this clearly brilliant person (I did the commentary so it all makes sense to me).

-What did the speaker do well? I thought it was very easy to follow, I said the line of where I was looking. I used textual evidence in several places. I summed up my commentary at the end, and pointed out the irony of this passage in comparison to the end of the play. I'm pretty sure I said what the point of each of my points was, meaning that I don't think I had any unnecessary topics. -What would you suggest for improvement? I could have made it more clear that I was talking about irony in my ending. I was pausing way too often, refrained from saying "uh" too much but the pauses that took its place disrupted the commentary's flow. Along with pauses, I stumbled fairly often causing my to repeat myself several times to make sure I made sense.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) I don't I necessarily forgot anything, I just should have elaborated more on Benedick's humiliation and the Cupid thing.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? 4/5 -needed more elaboration in a couple areas 10/10 -I thought my interpretation was spot on, I clarified what was being said in each instance, and even provided two possible interpretations for one of Benedick's statements. 9/10 -I knew what I was talking about, and I was pretty clear, but as I said earlier my pauses and stumbling disrupted the flow of the commentary. 5/5 -I thought I used some pretty good vocab, and when I was talking I sounded confident. I made sure to refrain from saying vague terms such as: "kinda", "like", etc...

Overall after listening to it again I think I did pretty good, this is a bit in my favor because its hard to say this isn't clear when I know exactly what I was trying to talk about. 28/30