Student+Tran,+Sophie

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.

"The St. Nicholas League" extract on page 285, "I suppose there exist....learn to live" (28 lines) media type="file" key="st nicholas league.wma" width="300" height="300"

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 did a good job on giving the back ground story. You even put when the essay was written, which I thought was very clever and helpful for the listener. However I don’t think you needed so much information, I would just give enough for the listener to understand what is going on. That way can have more time to comment on the actual passage that you were given.
 * -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? **

Yes you stated that you would go through the commentary in a chronological order and then comment on the themes in the passage. You seem to have stayed on your path. Good job!
 * -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? **

Tone you stated was Nostalgia, I wasn’t sure what this was so I had to look it up…you might want to explain that a little bit more
 * - -What questions would you ask this person for clarification **

You had a very nice tone of voice talking in the commentary it was not to monotone and not to upbeat. However, sometimes you were mumbling. And sometimes you sounded like you were not to sure of yourself. Remember “Confidence is key”
 * -What did the speaker do well? **

You backed up your tone and especially your theme of genuines very well. This helped the commentary run smoothly.

I loved the idea about why Art is capitalized. (To show that white now as an adult understands that the awards are not what mattered most, but it was the importance of the art which included the poetry, drawings and writings.)

You did a great job at the end of the commentary, summing it all up! I liked how you brought the tone and the theme into the structure of the passage. It really helped bring the commentary together. I would ask that you talk a little bit closer to the microphone because at times it is very hard to hear what you are saying.
 * -What would you suggest for improvement? **

I would also suggest that you set up your quotes more smoothly because sometimes I would get confused about what you were talking about.

Also you bring something up towards the end of the commentary about how E.B white is now a major writer yet began his earlier years writing about his love for animals. You latter say it is ironic but you don’t say why. You do this several time throughout the passage. I would try explaining these kinds of things.

You addressed everything (I think). I especially liked your example of alliteration in the passage I thought this was a very good example.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">-What did the speaker forget to address? (Lit terms, themes, etc.) **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Criterion A: 5 you definitely knew what was going on in this passage and even provided back ground information
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Criterion B: 9 you had many interpretations just need a bit more of personal input

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Criterion C: 9 your arguments were very convincing because you had very good evidence to back them up <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Criterion D: 3 Tone was very nice throughout the passage. However there were a lot of unnecessary words that at times made your points hard to understand.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">26/30 <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Great job Sophie! <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">I’m very proud!

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">- <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Commentary review: <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">~Karl Madden

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, you provided more than enough information about the essay.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, it was very organized, and very easy to follow. You said what order you would be addressing the essay in, and you followed that plan. Rather that reading off each quote, you also occasionally included what line it was on (I forgot to do this).

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? A couple times you paused in the middle of a thought, did you just lose your train of thought? Or did you lose your place in your notes? How long is the commentary?

-What did the speaker do well? You spoke clearly, rarely said "like" or "um", and you had good transitions.

-What would you suggest for improvement? While ending a point you occasionally rephrase your comment several times.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) Nothing that I wouldn't have missed, you brought up aspects of White's life and related them with the essay, and you listed several different techniques.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? I thought you did a awesome job. Criterion A: 5 Criterion B: 10 Criterion C: 9 Criterion D: 5 29/30

Much Ado Commentary due 1/29/12

media type="file" key="Much Ado About Nothing.wma" width="300" height="300"

Hamlet commentary due 2/5/12 media type="file" key="hamlet commentary.wma" width="300" height="300"

You are required to address:

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes you did a great job addressing the context of the passage and describing why it is purposeful. Since Hamlet is the only speaker I liked how you made the connection to Fortinbras Army early on – it made the commentary clear and easy to follow.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, you gave a short description of events prior to the passage then stated the order you would proceed in. From there you connected the main chunk of the commentary to the short description you gave at the beginning (about Fortinbras Army) and also linked many of the literary devices and techniques to it. I think that the organization was spot on considering that you brought in some material which was out of context.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Nothing. If I **__HAD__** to pick something it would be about the connection you made between Hamlet and Fortinbras – both fighting a pointless battle for nothing more than "honor". You explained, but could have gone onto more detail. The reason I would ask this is to clarify if Hamlet is seeking revenge in the name of honor or something else.

-What did the speaker do well? You used clear and convincing language. Also I liked the structure of the commentary and how you blended in literary devices in with the main explanation of the extract. You paused instead of "umm'd" which is good.

-What would you suggest for improvement? Towards the end, I felt that the repeating references to avenging King Hamlet didn't give it any progression. Some pauses were long, for me at least as the listener it broke up the streamlined thoughts and made it a bit hard to follow – this end was the main area that this happened but the rest of it had some minor ones as well.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) The literary devices/techniques were plentiful and you addressed everything in the extract (you also referenced some material prior to the extract which was nice) so off the top of my head I do not see anything that was missed of left hanging.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?
 * 1) Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5
 * 2) Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10 – The repeated references.
 * 3) Presentation: 9/10 – Pauses
 * 4) Use of Language: 5/5

Total Score: 28/30

Additional Comments: Great job! A strong, convincing commentary.

Peer Reviewer: Troy Squillaci

Self-review (but I am going to address myself as 'you') You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, you addressed context. It wasn't too much background information either, you addressed what was happening at the beginning of that scene--Fortinbras marching through Denmark to attack a small portion of land in Poland, and that context was pertinent to your commentary as you were talking about how this example spurred Hamlet to revenge. You did address purpose, you said the focus of your commentary was how the seeming pointlessness of Norway's attack on Poland causes Hamlet's resolution in taking revenge on Claudius, bringing out tone of sincerity and theme of nothingness. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You said you would be addressing the extract chronologically and then structurally. You followed through with this approach pretty well, you went through the soliloquy analyzing it chronologically and then you backed up and talked about the structure of the whole speech and how it allows the audience to see Hamlet's thought process. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Can you elaborate on the section where Hamlet is talking about 3/4 cowardice, 1/4 wisdom, and his inability to distinguish whether his thought comes from bestial oblivion or from not wanting to think too much on it? You mentioned how this reveals part of Hamlet's character and how he views himself, as 3 parts coward, one part wisdom, but why is that important, to what effect? Why is it significant that Hamlet cannot distinguish whether his thought is bestial oblivion or craven scruple, something he doesn't want to think about? What does the tone of sincerity contribute to in the passage? You mentioned that invisibility, fantasy, trick of fame all demonstrate that reasons and causes are not always clearly seen or defined. What significance does this have in the work, what reasons are not clearly defined? I know you were referring to honor as an invisible cause, but this should be clarified. -What did the speaker do well? Your contextual setup was good, you only provided enough background information that would be important to the extract, just the information about Fortinbras' army, and this was important because it prompted Hamlet's resolution. You drew a good parallel at the beginning back to Hamlet's 'what a piece of work is a man' speech, noting human value as a recurring theme in the work. You specifically stated that the first line 'how all occasions do inform against me and spur my dull revenge' provided the full meaning of the soliloquy, that the encounter with Norway has spurred Hamlet to revenge. You pointed out the contrast between ambition which is considered divine and the examples of nothingness--humans who do not use reason and this army marching through Denmark. You mentioned alliteration in 'death and danger dare,' and you mentioned the EFFECT that this alliteration has, meant to sound nice but contrasting with the gravity of the fact that these men are going to their deaths. You found another alliteration in 'for a fantasy and trick of fame' and said it was important because it caught the audience's attention, drawing it to the reason for the Norwegian attack. You mentioned the importance of the rhyming couplet at the end of the soliloquy. You talked about how the theme of nothingness becomes cyclical, appearing in the beginning with human's who do not use their own reason being worth nothing and then wrapping up at the end with Hamlet feeling he will be worth nothing if he does not take revenge. -What would you suggest for improvement? At the very beginning, you said Hamlet's soliloquy was a lament on the pointlessness of war--though the pointlessness of war was the aspect that spurred Hamlet's desire for revenge, it was not by any means the meaning of the whole soliloquy, and though you fleshed out the meaning later, you should not say this at the beginning. It deserves mention, yes, but it should not be your first reference to the extract because it makes it seem more important than it really is. At times, if the focus of your commentary is contingent on knowing what's happening in the extract, then it could be mentioned after you summarize the extract, but I think here you could have mentioned your focus BEFORE you summarized the extract, giving the listener more to think about while you are summarizing and therefore getting the purpose stated at the beginning. At around 4:20 you talk about the simile 'examples as gross as earth,' and so we have earth and beasts likened to nothing. Though your meaning is implied, that the simile is significant because it compares the army to nothingness, you should explicitly state this. As I talked about in the clarification questions section, you need to talk about the importance in the work of causes not being clearly seen or defined. Specifically say that in this case, the invisible cause is honor! You can definitely elaborate on the topic of 'honor.' If you wanted to reference other parts of the work to illustrate the importance of invisible causes, you could even tie it back to the fact that Hamlet is the only one who can speak to the ghost, to the theme of madness in the play. You failed to state why the imagery at the end is important. Does it have a significant effect in the extract? Beginning around the point where you talk about the plot of land that is not tomb enough for the deaths, you start to lose momentum, you sound unsure of yourself. After you addressed the extract chronologically, you had a long pause, gathering yourself, and then you jumped into the structural interpretation of the thought process. Though you had obviously come to the end of the extract, there was no warning that you were going to go back to the beginning to talk about structure, so just interject that structurally, the audience can see Hamlet's thought process, that he starts out at the beginning already resolved, and then continue. At times in your structural analysis of the thought process, I wasn't convinced you were analyzing anything, it just seemed like you were summarizing again to incorporate the other points. This did not happen throughout the whole structural portion of the commentary, but it happened at times. Remember to tie it back to thought process if that's what the structure is contributing to. Explanation of greatness and its ties to honor, though understandable, was a little unclear. In your structural analysis, you said Hamlet wants to reclaim his mother's honor as King Hamlet had accused Claudius of incest and adultery when he visited Hamlet as a ghost. This was a little unclear and frankly unnecessary, you can just say that Hamlet's mother has a stained reputation of incest/adultery, no need to bring the ghost into it if it's not important. You talked about the sincerity of the tone, and while tone should be relevant, you didn't convince me that it was. You mentioned it at the very beginning as part of the focus of your commentary, and then you barely talked about it. If you can't find a reason for tone to be relevant, if it doesn't contribute to something, mention it, talk about it, but do not include it in your commentary focus. It leads the listener to expect it, and then it never comes. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You didn't talk enough about Hamlet's uncertainty on if his plan was 'bestial oblivion or some craven scruple of thinking too precisely on the event.' This could be very insightful into Hamlet's character/thought process, but you didn't talk about it. You touched on the idea of a thought being 3/4 coward and 1/4 wisdom, but like I said before, you should elaborate. Though you talked about the theme of nothingness and the objects in that theme, beasts, earth, egg-shell, straw, you didn't call them metaphors! The example of earth came from a simile, which you mentioned, but egg-shell, straw, and beast were all used as metaphors, and you didn't even mention that. I think you could have dissected the lines at the end a little more, for instance 'fight for a plot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause' could help you talk about honor, invisible causes. There are also some sections that are very clearly in iambic pentameter, and you could have commented on that (i.e. 'my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth') as pleasing to the ear and therefore sounds clean and ends well. You could have compared Fortinbras and Hamlet; since Hamlet calls Fortinbras a 'delicate and tender prince whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd makes mouths at the invisible event', you could compare their situations. Both are young princes with dead fathers, and Fortinbras is assuming authority, fighting for honor, and now Hamlet is resolved to do just that, avenge his father and his mother's reputation for HONOR. You could comment that it's interesting that the encounter with Fortinbras was an example that spurred Hamlet to revenge, and now Hamlet, whether he wishes to be like Fortinbras or not, is modeling himself after him, taking his example to fight for honor. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A: 4 Though you were thorough in what you did talk about, you didn't address important aspects of the soliloquy like Hamlet's similarity to Fortinbras, the significance of honor, the thought that might be bestial oblivion or might be craven scruple. B: 8 Valid interpretation of the extract, good awareness of literary devices (though you completely forgot metaphors), but you did not always explain explicitly what EFFECT these literary devices have in the extract. C: 8 Logical structure, clear but not necessarily purposeful. It was usually focused and relevant, with a few exceptions, but there were some points that I mentioned above that failed to be completely effective or persuasive, and by the end, there was less focus and you repeated yourself sometimes in making the structural analysis another summary. D: 4 Vocabulary, while occasionally very good and effective, did not remain consistently effective or precise and wide, it could have been better. You weren't consistently CONVINCING, and this was a fault both in presentation and language because you might have improved your points with more effective language. Total: 24/30 Self review by Sophie Tran **Please be sure to write your name under your comments in order to be given credit for your work.**