Student+Valdez,+Eric

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.

Hello Mrs. G., I am currently planning on utilizing the program of "Audacity" to record my voice. Many thanks, -Eric Valdez media type="file" key="Eric english.mp3" width="240" height="20" (Hamlet Commentary) media type="file" key="Eric English 3.mp3" width="240" height="20" (Much Ado About Nothing Commentary) media type="file" key="Eric English 55.mp3" width="240" height="20" Aaron's Peer review:

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?

He did not address it upfront in great detail, however, throughout the IOC he touches here and there on the context of the passage. However he doesn't really explain how the excerpt fits within the rest of the passage itself.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?

Yes, It was stated upfront how he was going to go through the IOC and he followed it for the most part. This was good.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does this passage fit in with the rest of the essay? What is White's purpose in writing it?

-What did the speaker do well? He speaks very clearly and smoothly. Little pauses and no ums. His information was clear for the most part, and he covered many good points and backed them up well. -What would you suggest for improvement? Use your real voice. I know you were going for clear, and dramatic almost. But it cuts back on the meaning of your actual IOC because the reader is focused on how almost false your persona is. Im not trying to be mean, Im really trying to help you here. Your real speaking voice is much easier to listen to than this. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) He didn't really talk about how the passage fit into the rest of the essay. Or even really discus what the essay or passage were about. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? 3,6,7,3= 19.

Kiko's Peer Review:

Hey, Eric. I just want to say that your commentary was great! You immediately addressed the order in which you would move through your commentary, and had a great variety of things to comment on. There was not any discussion of contextual information, which is always helpful for the reader. Some of these included motif, repetition, them,device, and tone. You even talked about the title a little bit toward the end. You used a lot of supporting evidence and made clear transitions. One thing is that you referred to the paragraph rather than the line, which would make it harder for the listener to find you exact point in the book. Also there was some redundancy: "Last and fifth", "... with girls and/or members of the opposite gender in general". This isn't necessarily good, but it does show that you followed the assignment; the commentary wasn't rehearsed or read from a page. I also foud a couple of claims that were not supported. The first was that "American boys will go through the exact same scenario White did." The other was the claim that girls and women will have just as many problems dealing with the opposite gender as boys and men, though this was never mentioned in the essay. One final improvement you could have made was tying together everything you commented on into one contributing factor to the essay as a whole, or an insight into White's personal history. In conclusion I thought your commentary was stellar. Your vocabulary was astounding and the voice you used in your commentary, I can definitely say, made it interesting to listen to. Good job.

Knowledge/Understanding: (4/5) Interpretation/Personal Response: (7/10) Presentation: (9/10) Use of language: (5/5)

I would give you a 22/30.

Mariah Morrel Peer Review:

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, he talked about the play as a whole as well as what was going on in hs passage directly. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, after the into about the setting and subject he told the listeners the order in which he was going to proceed. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How do the litterary devices add to the play as a whole? -What did the speaker do well? You talked very clearly with very little unmms Godd Job! You also talked breifly about Shakespeare at the beggining with out it dragging on too long. -What would you suggest for improvement? You did a lot of anouncing, "I will not tell you about the orginization" I think that it would be better if you just started talking about what you wanted to say. You did this kind of a lot through out your commentary and i think that if you can improve it then it will help the flow of your commentary greatly. Also thought you could have changed the order of the things that you talked about. Talking about the major themes and tones will be better if they are first, followed by the litterary devices. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You covered everything that i could find in the passage, however i thought that you could have talked more on the big things like tone and theme a little more because they seem to get lost with all the other litterary devices. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? Knowledge/Understanding: (4/5) Interpretation/Personal Response: (7/10) Presentation: (7/10) Use of language: (4/5)

Total Score: 22/30