Grade:
1. Knowledge and understanding of the text: 6
I provided background information and how the extract relates to the novel as a whole; however, I could have supported my claims with more examples.
2. Literary Features: 5
I didn't go as in depth with this one as I would have liked because I was worried about time. I did reference how language affects tone, though, and related that to the reader.
3. Organization: 4
I thought that I organized my commentary well; however, I did go off track a little when I was talking about context, and sometimes I went back to topics after moving on.
5. Language: 3
My vocabulary was not very varied (I said "negative" about 31739 times). I also don't really know what my "register" should be, but I'm sure it was not up to par.
Total: 18
Overall, the practice sounded okay to me (a bit shaky, not gonna lie) but I liked the emphasis you placed on the diction used throughout the passage. You were able to effectively explain the significance of the negative connotation of language that was used. I also thought your description of tone was effective to the passage and the backing up of the story's plot. It was clear to me that you understood the extract and how it related to the novel as a whole. Also, you could've incorporated more literary features and I think you should work on practicing your register more and speaking confidently. Still, good first practice!
ReplyDeleteI love your inclusion of pathos, I forgot to think of pathos, ethos, or logos while examining my passage. You really highlighted the idea of fear and negativity, which was important for the understanding of this passage. You did a wonderful job planning for your oral. I color coded my notes too, which made the process easier. This was a difficult passage (and it was from a long time ago) but you made me understand what was happening and it you gave the information in a way that allowed me, as the audience, to conclude you knew a lot about the passage. Wonderful job, Kiley!!
ReplyDeleteHey K$wag!!
ReplyDeleteI loved being able to see your planning for your IOC, you really excelled at planning and structure. I also really appreciated the lack of "um". I thought it was interesting how you connected all of your points back to the author's tone, it allowed you to include a lot of information on all aspects of language aka I liked your broad end result that allowed room for variation. Because of this I might have given you a higher score on Criterion B. I had a passage from The Handmaid's Tale as well, I wish I would have seen this first because this IOC was a great refresher!
Much love, madzsofly
I like the slow and clear delivery of your IOC. It helped to make your thoughts easier to follow, which makes it easier to understand the organization and pay attention to your points. I liked your analysis of Offred's narration and how the seemingly objective details she provides can be seen to be presented in a purposefully subjective manner. I had some trouble myself with following the order of points that I had made in my planning once I was actually speaking. I'm not sure if this was also a problem for you, but if so, I might mess around with trying to find an organization system that works for you while you're presenting. Your annotations look clear and thorough; I also used a few colors of highlighter and found it worked really well.
ReplyDeleteYour planning looks killer! In your intro, it might have helped with organization to specify what types of language exactly...like figurative language or more specifically diction and comparisons, etc. You did stutter a little bit, but just be more sure of yourself because what you were saying was good!
ReplyDelete