Student+Snapp,+Andrea

media type="file" key="EBW commentary .mp3" width="247" height="28"
**Mariah Morrell:** -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You did talk about the purpose for White writing this, for pride and to show what they stood for, you also did very well using text to show this to the listener. You did a great job putting the listener in a position that they knew what was going on. It was very clearly stated and to the point. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Had you said what you were going to talk about before you began it would have made your commentary easier to follow. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How did White feel about the league after he learned about the treatment of animals requirement of the league? -What did the speaker do well? You had a very strong intro to your commentary and I liked that you said the date that it was written; even though it is given to you I think that most people didn’t think to address it. This notified the listener that you knew what you were talking about right from the beginning. Also, I thought that your commentary was very clear and well spoken; you used pauses instead of umms, which helped your commentary flow. -What would you suggest for improvement? When listening to your commentary sometimes even though what you were saying was strong, the way you said it lacked confidence which weakened your arguments. Also you made some generalities that I am not sure you could substantiate, such as saying "that would never happen" Never can be a dangerous word. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) I think that you could have addressed some of the basic terms such as the structure of the essay and way that White said things, and in doing this talking about how it contributed to the essay as a whole. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A-5/5 B-8/10 C-8/10 D-5/5 Total Score: 26/30

You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes. You set the stage for the listener in terms of the passage and gave context for the passage in the essay as a whole, but I felt you did not discuss the purpose. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You never mentioned how your commentary was organized. It seemed to proceed thematically but it was hard to tell and you seemed to jump around. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? When you said, “if he never submitted that piece of work” were you talking about White or Jones? If Jones, why does that matter? You mentioned that White just stated that he had won the badges. Why does that matter? Where do you see evidence of the tone and theme in the passage. -What did the speaker do well? You discussed the theme and tone well and set the stage so the listener knew what was going on. I saw what you meant about the theme of patriotism and the proud tone, I did not see that when I read the passage. You gave a lot of background for the passage, telling the listener about the essay as a whole. You talked about some really great points about the League. -What would you suggest for improvement? I thought you could have used more quotes from within the passage itself. You used several quotes from outside of the passage. I also thought you could have used more literary devices and how they contributed to the passage as a whole. I thought your commentary need more “so what.” You talked about some really good points, especially about the League itself, but I thought that you could have said what it did for the passage. -What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You only discussed the theme and tone. Using some other literary terms such as the structure of the essay or connotation vs. denotation and how it contributed to the essay. -What would you score them based on the IB Rubric?
 * Lexi Hartman:**
 * 1) Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 5/5 You had a good understanding the text.
 * 2) Interpretation and Personal Response: 4/10 You showed some awareness of literary devices by talking about tone and theme and had some evidence supporting your statements. You did well in interpreting the passage, but lacked more reference and analysis.
 * 3) Presentation: 8/10 There seemed to be some organization to your presentation, although it was not clear. Your presentation was coherent and focused, though at times you seemed to lack conviction.
 * 4) Use of Language: 5/5 You had a good use of language.

Total score: 22/30

**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 for Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare.__
media type="file" key="Much Ado About Nothing.mp3" width="288" height="36"

**__ Commentary for Hamlet by William Shakespeare (Feb.5.2012) __**
media type="file" key="Hamlet.mp3" width="296" height="29"

Hamlet commentary review: ~Karl Madden

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, you set the stage for the passage, and stated that the speech was a confession.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You seemed to address the passage thematically; however, you never stated how you were going to proceed.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? You mentioned the imagery including blood and the colors white, black and red. What did the reader gain from this?

-What did the speaker do well? You addressed several good aspects of the passage; simile, characterization, tone and imagery.

-What would you suggest for improvement? Address your way of organizing your commentary Take your time to think about what you are saying, you were already talking fairly slow, but you kept stumbling and having to repeat your self in-order to make sense. At the end of several of your sentences your voice went to a higher note, making it sound like you were asking a question rather than confidently telling the reader this is what is in the passage. You had several very long pauses, try different ways of organizing your notes, bullet list, color coding, etc... Your passage was about Claudius' monologue, but you went out side the passage in the middle talking about how Hamlet was about to kill Claud, I didn't think this was necessary. Your ending was a little weak, I would talk about how it was important as a whole, how it affected what came after. You were talking about simile, and then got caught up in your imagery, not sure what happened there but it sounded like you still had something to say for similes.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) You were searching for a word when you were talking about the colors, and you landed on imagery which was your next topic. I personally would have talked about the symbolism with those colors. You even said that white was associated with innocence, black with death, and red with guilt! You just needed to say what is was and what it did. You scraped the surface of the theme of the passage, he is guilty, he is confessing, but you never really elaborated. Didn't mention organization in the beginning.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A: 4/5 You had a pretty good grasp on what was going within the passage. B: 6/10 You didn't analyze much, seemed more of a list of what was going on in the passage rather than how that message was conveyed. C: 8/10 I thought overall the presentation was pretty good and easy enough to follow. D: 2/5 You got mixed up a lot, and said things like: "forgived", "but... ummm... yeah...", "I guess..."

20/30

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, I situated the passage within the play, stating that it was a confession.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? I did not state the way I was going to approach the passage.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why did Shakespeare insert those colors (red, white, and black) within the confession?

-What did the speaker do well? I used a verity of literary terms.

-What would you suggest for improvement? Better oginization of my script and more elaboration on what I state.

-What did the speaker forget to address? (lit terms, themes, etc.) Dig deeper into the meaning and theme and symbolism in the passage.

-What would you score them based on the IB Rubric? A: 4/5 I understood what was going on, but there were a few hi-ups where I wasn't sure what if I was correct. B: 5/10 I need to ebalboate more about what I say to the reader so they can understand what I am talking about. C: 7/10 The presentation was good, it was easy to understand but I was a little slow with talking. D: 3/5 It seemed to come off a little jumbled up, and I stumbled over some word and ideas, but there were not too many umms but more silences'. 19/30