Constructive Feedback

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Du Toit (2012) stated that constructive feedback is a tool that focuses both on the task and process which
is also a useful medium that enhances learning process and assessment. This essay aimed to analyse the
intellectual discourse conducted by Tesl G’s students, Nurul Aimuni, Syifa Diyana, and Afiqah Ilyana. The focus
of this essay is on the constructive feedback that will be given in line with ideas organisation, language and
paralinguistic features.

2.0 IDEAS ORGANIZATION

In terms of organising ideas, they did an excellent job as I could see the flow from the introduction to the
conclusion. For an intellectual discourse, transition is one of the crucial elements to implement. For instance,
Ilyana warmed up the session with a cheerful greeting and proceeded to introduce her teammates. In addition,
she also gave a brief overview of their discussion to let the viewer know beforehand what they will be talking
about. The next member also flawlessly engages in the discourse by agreeing and giving her own opinion and
experience regarding the topic. Nonetheless, it appears to be that the conclusion was quite sudden and blurry
despite the usage of discourse markers. It seems quite confusing as Aimuni was the one who gave her last
opinion and point but also the one who did the conclusion. Therefore, it would be better if they give the sum-up
part to another person in order to summarise the points better. To conclude, I would say that the ideas are well
organised and they would do a much better job if they were given the opportunity in the future. The next section
in this feedback is centred around language.

3.0 LANGUAGE

Next, in the language used, I noticed that they use very suitable language for the discussion. For an
intellectual discourse, it would be odd if they insert colloquial language and curse words. During the conversation,
all three of them chose great words to convey their information. They also provide evidence to justify their
argument while politely expressing their opinion. In addition, the coherence and cohesion were delivered greatly.
I saw that they keep using repetition in a systematic way to organise their point by relating back to the scenario
and flawlessly inserting their speculation regarding the matter. Hence, it seems like I do not have anything to
comment on and they would be a good speaker if they keep this up. The next focal point of this feedback is on
paralinguistic features.

4.0 PARALINGUISTIC FEATURES

Thirdly, for the paralinguistic features, we will focus on intonation and voice projection. As this is an
intellectual discourse, it is important to have these elements inserted so that information can be delivered
successfully. It is likely that one of them has trained or has natural talent in discussion, however a few of them
need some more training. While observing, I felt that Diyana was the only one who maintained an adequate
change of intonation with high clarity of pronunciation and good voice projection. Ilyana also did an exceptional
job with voice projection but the intonation seemed quite confusing as it was high when she was confident but
very low and kept stuttering when she was not confident with her point. Aimuni on the other hand, I believe that
she showed a good confidence level by delivering her points in a calm manner but it appears to me that keeping
a monotonous intonation can cause the viewer’s attention to shift to other things as there is nothing that could
make them stay focused. Another thing to add is, I could see that they were looking at the script that they placed
in front of them. I do believe that having a script is good to draft out and put a number on the ideas and sequence
but, relying on it made their performance look a little bit stiff and planned. Thus, I suppose that it would be better
if they instil more faith in themselves while understanding the concept well in order to carry out a better
performance in the future.

5.0 CONCLUSION

To conclude, this feedback has offered criticism to identify where they can improve more in relation to
concepts organisation, language, and paralinguistic aspects is the main topic of this article. I think this team gave
a superb performance and I could say that there is room for improvement. The aim of the discussion which to
negotiate and exchange information was well accomplished.
 REFERENCE

Du Toit, E. (2012). Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students' self-regulation and performance in
higher education. Perspectives in Education, 30(2), 32-40. https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC121476