It is hoped that there is no longer any confusion over the content of the review. It is a 500 word piece (+/- 10%) that addresses AO 4.
 
The review is of the presentation only and should not consider the process of completing the coursework portfolio. Best practice involves the candidate being able to see a video of their performance and making a critical assessment of it. As with the investigation it is
essential to integrate theory and move to critical analysis rather than mere description. Some candidates rehearse the decision making that was made in the preparation section and this practice will not gain high marks. A retrospective critique is the order of the day.
 
Thus: Having watched my oral presentation, I am now able to assess how well I performed. I made deliberate use of NVC throughout my oral in order to reinforce and support my verbal speech. As Goffman argues, NVC was a tool to help me .define the situation. and to assert my status.
(potential level 4)
 
This candidate begins by immediately identifying and evaluating communicative strategies employed, drawing confidently upon the course material. The work is focused and analytical, once again using the register of the subject. This can be contrasted with the following:
 
My presentation went well. I believe that it did go well for a number of reasons although if I were to do this presentation again there would be a number of things that I would change.
 
Whilst clear and retrospective, the candidate fails so far to work with the course material and/or to demonstrate critical thinking. The review continues:
 
I used phonology quite well. I kept changing the pitch and tone of my voice to attempt to keep my audience interested and attentive. I moved around quite a lot to try to show to the audience that I was talking to them and not reading to them.
(potential level 3)
 
Comments made here lack sophistication and maturity but do reveal a genuine attempt to reflect on aspects of the performance. The candidate is doing more than describing the process which would have placed the work in level 2.
 
More able students will consider styles of interaction and how they are created.
 
In the discussion phase the register I used was more informal, using more colloquial phrases. This made it a less formal type of interaction and my role changed from being a leader to a participant.
(potential level 4)
 
As in the preparation section, many centres have used early exemplar material to provide a formula for students to conclude their reviews. This often takes the form of bullet points in which recommendations are made to improve future work. However, students can be encouraged to discuss weaknesses and/or strategies for improvement throughout the piece. The ideas and thinking demonstrated are often performance indicators as better work will be rooted in an understanding of theoretical perspectives.
 
I thought my presentation was slightly too fast which may have caused a semantic barrier. Improvement could have been made with more effective use of paralanguage, slowing down pace and varying delivery.
(potential level 4)
 
This can be contrasted with valid, but rather common sense observations:
 
My presentation only lasted for six minutes. This could have been avoided if I had prepared more material and rehearsed my work. I tended to rush through my points and relied too much on my script.
 
To sum up, it is not intended that candidates should try to discuss the entire fifteen minutes of the presentation. When this is attempted the work often becomes narrative and descriptive. Instead, candidates should select and prioritise issues, integrating the course material.