Student+Morrell,+Mariah

Hello Mrs. G I will be using Sound Recorder on my mom's PC

Commentary

media type="file" key="St. Nicolas League Commentry by Mariah Morrell.wma" width="300" height="300"

**How well does the candidate know and understand the content of the extract or work(s)? **
The student knows and understands the contact very well. They showed good comprehension of the various aspects of the work.

===**How well does the candidate situate the extract of work(s) within the context of the larger work from which it has been taken or the body of works to which it belongs, where relevant? **=== The student is able to situate the listener by providing a brief but meaningful description of the rest of the work and then directing attention to the specific passage. They then went on to provide a detailed description of its meaning and how it relates to the work as a whole.

5/5

**How valid is the candidate’s interpretation of the extract or work(s)? **
The student has original interpretation of the work. I particularly enjoyed the part where they mentioned that the passage which was short and simple reflected Whites interpretation of the League. The student stated the literary features they would be going over then spend the right amount of time squeezing out the importance imbedded within them. The student's response shows originality on various levels but I believe the most prominent example of this is when they linked the physical structure of the passage to White's interpretation of the poem. The student has multiple textual references that all further the class made in the commentary.
 * How well has the candidate identified and analyzed the effects of literary features in the extract or work(s), such as diction, imagery, tone, structure, style and technique? **
 * To what extent does the candidate’s response show critical thinking and originality? **
 * How precise and relevant are the candidate’s references to the extract or work(s)? **

10/10

**How structured is the candidate’s response? **
The student dives right into the commentary and although the order was meaningful (roughly first four minutes description ––> literary analysis in passage), I found my self trying to keep up and quickly jot down new points as they came up. Shortly after the four minute mark, an order for addressing the literary features was brought up and from there on it was easier to keep track since I had a heads up as the what was coming next. The student's presentation as a whole is convincing. The student has plenty of textual evidence to backup the claims made throughout the commentary.
 * How effective and convincing is the candidate’s presentation? **
 * How appropriately does the candidate integrate supporting references to the extractor work(s)? **

7/10

**How accurate, clear and precise is the language used by the candidate? **
The student used a clear vocabulary and some key words that strengthened some of their claims.
 * How appropriate is the candidate’s choice of register and style for the occasion? **

===**(Register refers, in this context, to the candidate’s sensitivity to elements such as the vocabulary, tone, sentence structure and idiom appropriate to the task.) **===

**Literary terms are taken in the widest possible sense, for example, novel, play, poem,persona, character, narrator. **
Yes, very good.

5/5

Overall score: 27/30

Additional notes: You do good job that one young grasshopper.

Edit: So apparently that was wrong... So disregard that and follow the following review.

You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You gave some important information in White himself which helped situate me for the rest of the commentary. You gave context for essay as a whole and gave context for passage. You talked about the purpose of the essay. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Well I felt the organization was lacking until when you specifically mentioned how you would address the literary devices about half way in. Once you did that then it was easy for me, the listener, to keep up and expect what was coming next. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How do some of the points you brought up in the beginning of the commentary relate and/or further the commentary as a whole? -What did the speaker do well? You spoke clearly and didn't repeat yourself. Also I felt that your interpretations of the passage in the essay (linking them to White himself specifically) were fabulous. The information you provided at the beginning of the essay was brought up here and there later on which was good. -What would you suggest for improvement? Address the order that you will (hopefully) stick to for the entire commentary at the beginning to make things easier on the listeners. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) In most of White's essays, I have noticed that they are packed full of imagery. He writes in such a way that you are almost put in the magic of the moment, this essay was no exception. If you mentioned imagery or maybe just one more literary device then it would make the tail end of the commentary seem more complete. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?
 * 1) Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5
 * 2) Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10 – Another literary device.
 * 3) Presentation: 8/10 – Addressing order.
 * 4) Use of Language: 5/5

Total Score: 27/30

Additional Comments: Overall, good job. A solid commentary.

Peer Reviewer: Troy Squillaci

You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You gave info on White besides just the essay, gave context for essay as a whole and gave context of passage in terms of the essay as a whole. You talked about the purpose of the essay. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You clearly state how you will proceed with the commentary. You outlined what you would discuss and in what order. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Did you feel that White was successful in what he was trying to convey to the reader? -What did the speaker do well? You supported arguments well with evidence from the passage. You set listener up well in context and commented on White’s other works in the beginning of the commentary. You clearly said how you were going to proceed during the commentary. You discussed the structure of the passage and connected it to the League, the passage and the essay as a whole. You talked about the ton and theme of the commentary. You gave a summary of what you had talked about. -What would you suggest for improvement? The background noise made the recording sound fuzzy. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) I thought you could have addressed more literary terms than just tone and theme, maybe metaphor or imagery or a simile. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A. Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5
 * 1) Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10-More literary terms/devices
 * 2) Presentation: 10/10
 * 3) Language: 5/5

Total Score: 29/30

Additional Comments: I thought your commentary was excellent. You did a good job and seemed convinced of what you were talking about.

Reviewer: Lexi Hartman

IOC On Much Ado About Nothing By William Shakespeare 1/29/12 media type="file" key="Much Ado About Nothing IOC.wma" width="300" height="300"

You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You gave some interesting background information on Shakespeare to set up the commentary. You gave context for play as a whole and gave context for provided passage. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Initially, I was a bit confused as to the order in which your commentary would proceed. You did, however, eventually mention that you would go about the analyzation process in a chronological manner. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does the information you gave about Shakepeare and the Globe Theatre directly connect with the provided passage? (This threw me off a bit) How does the structure of the provided passage affect the manner in which the author delivers their intended meaning? -What did the speaker do well? You spoke in a very eloquent manner. For the most part, your words sounded as if they came directly off the page of a written essay. You analyzed the literary devices present within the passage quite well. Some of them being monolouge and dramatic irony. It should also be mentioned that you clearly adress the effect each device has on the provided passage as a whole. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would shorten the ammount of time you spent situating the passage and or summarizing the plot; just inform the listener of necessary infomation. I would also state the order in which your commentary would proceed a tad earlier as it seemed to have been delivered quite late. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You forgot to adress the structure of the provided passage. You also forgot to adress potential information which was revealed about the authors life through the passage. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?
 * 1) Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5
 * 2) Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10
 * 3) Presentation: 8/10
 * 4) Use of Language: 5/5

Total Score: 27/30

Additional Comments: It was a pleasure to listen to your commentary. You are on track and know what you are doing. Keep up the good work. Peer Reviewer: Eric

IOC on Hamlet by William Shakespeare media type="file" key="Hamlet IOC.wma" width="300" height="300" Self Review by Mariah Morrell:

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes I did talk about the subject of the passage and the purpose, However it might have gone on too long. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes I did lay out the order in which i was going to talk, in my commentary. There are a few instances where i did not stick to the pre set organization, but i stayed with at for the most part. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? You said that the syliquy added depth to Kind Claudius's character, how and why did it add depth? -What did the speaker do well? I had some good points that were suported by textual evidance, and i used more pauses rather than umms, which i felt sounded better. -What would you suggest for improvement? I could have stuck better to my plan for orginiaztion. It sounded very choppy and it did not flow very well, so going into it maybe if you layed out each thing you were going to talk about in the oder i was going to talk about it, and try not to deviate from the layout. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) I could have talked about more litterary devises,I talked about tone and soliliquy but I did not address many of the devices in Shakespeares writing itself. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?

Total Score: 19/30
 * 1) Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5
 * 2) Interpretation and Personal Response: 6/10
 * 3) Presentation: 6/10
 * 4) Use of Language: 3/5