Saturday, November 25, 2006

Group 4 kicked some ass


Peer Feedback on your Project Presentation

Group: Group 4 (SY, YSM, Ugly)

· Content chosen is interesting and the case is well-known. Everyone was able to relate to the context and follow the discussion, The use of Wmatrix and search for concordance were useful in connecting the chosen words with general perceptions of Madam Huang Shuying and her ‘role’ as a study mama.
[General - Positive]

· Thesis well supported with corpus findings. Good use of corpus analytical tools. What kind of ideological construction is shown by the analysis of corpus? Could have explicated. How is Ugly's section related to the group’s thesis? Ugly managed to pull it back later. Well-researched.
[General - Positive; Specific - Almost an UGLY disaster]

· Very focused and in-depth; requires concentration on my part, but I thought it was useful as it provides concrete examples/illustrations of the concepts brought up.
[General - Positively demanding]

· An enlightening research that has highlighted the perspectives in the eyes of the writer/newspaper editor. Thank you!
[In the eyes of the writer/newspaper editor? I didn't know we were at that...]

· The 3 salient portrayals in relation to casting one as the ‘other’ were well brought out. Headlines were analysed well, once again bringing out the portrayal of Mdm Huang Shuying as the ‘other’.
[General - Positive for non-Ugly's parts]

· Good linkage with theories and tools learned in class in the examination if the qualitative analysis presented.
[General - Very.]

· Good trigger to topic on news reporting. Good empirical evidence to support claims made about ideology. Would be interesting to see who these writers of these articles are? Well analysed and presented. Interactive with questions to ponder along the way.
[General - Positively suggesting further options.]

· Systematic, methodical and focused presentation. A lot of groundwork and illustration to put across the message. Speakers were spontaneous and eloquent.
[General - Finally, something positive on the humans.]

· Perhaps coverage of Took and the child would substantiate the case against the portrayal of Huang Shuying. Took was also portrayed as the Other, while Huang Na was given the “Us” treatment. Good use of analytic methods to provide in-depth coverage of the issue.
[General - Positively rounded commentary]

· Thorough, especially through of Software Wmatrix and Wordsmith, Hallidayan transitivity and van Leeuwen’s CDA enhanced the analysis and presentation.
[General - Somehow I think this is positive]

· Explanation of social actors/social actions needs to be clearer. Ideological Discourse Analysis at the start by Yasmin was clear and interesting on the whole.
[Contrast - Ugly is bad/incoherent.]

[Thanks for many a valuable feedback. Appreciate them lots, good or bad.]


From the module co-ordinator herself:

"Dear YSM, SY and Ugly,

I'll be leaving the projects in the General Office on Monday for collection. But just so that your whole group gets to know the grade and the comments, I am emailing you my comments and attaching your peers' comments as well.

The overall grade for your project is Φ.

My comments: A well researched and cogently written paper, with sound analysis (which combines a variety of analytic frameworks) and strong substantiation of your arguments. I enjoyed reading this. Good work, all!"

Signing off........... We pulled off a Houdini........

No comments:

Post a Comment