By Qi Dan
After I identified the problems of my first draft, I decided to rewrite the introductory paragraph and modify the following paragraphs. Since my first draft exceeds the word limit of WA2, I also tried to make my language in the second draft more concise and cut off some unnecessary expressions.
The rewritten introduction begins with definition of Generation IV reactors and gas-cooled fast reactor, one specific type of Generation IV reactors. After the definition, I introduce the key issue, which is “whether R&D funding for gas-cooled fast reactors should be supported”, and talk about opinions from both sides. In the last, sentence of the first paragraph, I write my new thesis statement which contains the argumentative issue, my own stance, and the development of this essay.
After I have done some research, I found that the three main advantages of gas-cooled fast reactors are better sustainability, safety and a wider-range of industrial applications. Regarding the this three advantages, I have searched issues such as the destructive effects radioactive wastes produced by gas-cooled fast reactor, some nuclear accident and the global energy supply scenario in order to identify some opposing views. After reading through many online-document and scientific journals, I summarize the ideas that can be used in my essay. Then, I replace the first sentence of the each body paragraph using a summary of one specific opposing view. After the opposing view, I rebut using some scientific evidence such as some statistical data and experiment results. At the end of each body paragraph, there is a short summary sentence.
Last, I summarize the three main points of my essay and restate my thesis in the last paragraph.
11.13.2009
11.12.2009
Review on the my WA2 first draft
By Qi Dan
After consultation with Dr. Sadorra, I found that some key features of an argumentative essay were missing in my essay.
In the introductory part, I use one third space of the whole paragraph to talk about some general background information regarding to nuclear power which does not relate to the thesis of my essay very well. After that, there is a definition about the nuclear reactor being discussed in this essay but I forgot to presents the controversial issues surrounding the reactor. This makes my essay more look like a “discussion” essay rather than an argumentative one. Another mistake I made is the ambiguous thesis statement. I write “this essay will examine three main advantages of Gas-cooled Fast Reactors…” instead of answering the essay prompt directly. Hence, readers cannot identify the argumentative issue of this essay from such thesis statement. Moreover, I follow a wrong style in the body paragraphs. For an argumentative essay, each supporting paragraphs should begins with an opposing view. However, I write a topic sentence of my own view at the beginning of each paragraph. Last but not the least, I should do some further research on my topic because most of my arguments in this draft only respond to issues surrounding generation IV reactors in general.
To summarize, the main problem of my WA2 first draft is about the structure. After discussion with Dr. Sadorra, I decided to go back and read the chapter 9 of our writing text book, Writing Academic English, and read more scientific journals on Gas-cooled Fast reactors.
After consultation with Dr. Sadorra, I found that some key features of an argumentative essay were missing in my essay.
In the introductory part, I use one third space of the whole paragraph to talk about some general background information regarding to nuclear power which does not relate to the thesis of my essay very well. After that, there is a definition about the nuclear reactor being discussed in this essay but I forgot to presents the controversial issues surrounding the reactor. This makes my essay more look like a “discussion” essay rather than an argumentative one. Another mistake I made is the ambiguous thesis statement. I write “this essay will examine three main advantages of Gas-cooled Fast Reactors…” instead of answering the essay prompt directly. Hence, readers cannot identify the argumentative issue of this essay from such thesis statement. Moreover, I follow a wrong style in the body paragraphs. For an argumentative essay, each supporting paragraphs should begins with an opposing view. However, I write a topic sentence of my own view at the beginning of each paragraph. Last but not the least, I should do some further research on my topic because most of my arguments in this draft only respond to issues surrounding generation IV reactors in general.
To summarize, the main problem of my WA2 first draft is about the structure. After discussion with Dr. Sadorra, I decided to go back and read the chapter 9 of our writing text book, Writing Academic English, and read more scientific journals on Gas-cooled Fast reactors.
11.11.2009
Reply to Xueyuan’s peer review
Shen Xijiao
First, thank you Xueyuan for your inspiring message!
Secondly, thank you for your careful checking. I oversaw the format of essay. I have changed the word font from Arial Unicode MS to Arial so that it is more formal. I have also changed my spacing to 1.5.
Thirdly, thank you for pointing out my language problem. I have some difficulty to write formal English since I always write down what I want to say. This problem is also difficult for me to overcome because of my limited vocabulary. I do not know which word is more suitable to replace current word. However, I will try to make my sentence more formal by rereading it.
Last but not least, thank you for pointing out the unclear sentences. I have worked on it and written a clearer one in my WA2.
First, thank you Xueyuan for your inspiring message!
Secondly, thank you for your careful checking. I oversaw the format of essay. I have changed the word font from Arial Unicode MS to Arial so that it is more formal. I have also changed my spacing to 1.5.
Thirdly, thank you for pointing out my language problem. I have some difficulty to write formal English since I always write down what I want to say. This problem is also difficult for me to overcome because of my limited vocabulary. I do not know which word is more suitable to replace current word. However, I will try to make my sentence more formal by rereading it.
Last but not least, thank you for pointing out the unclear sentences. I have worked on it and written a clearer one in my WA2.
11.10.2009
Reply to Alfred's review on my WA2
Published by Liu Yangfan
First of all, thank you for your time and advice. I have read your review and found it really helpful to improve my writing skills.
As you said, I need to pay more attention to the structure of the whole essay. As an academic argumentative essay, it should follow either point-to-point structure or block-to-block structure. Otherwise, it will make the readers confused about what I really want to say. Besides, in individual paragraph, I also need to focus on the main idea of this certain paragraph rather than talking about something else. In addition to the mistakes on constructing the structure of the whole essay and the individual paragraphs, I also need to try to avoid common mistakes such as spilling errors and grammar errors. And you are really right that I need to spend time on building my vocabulary. It is true that I always cannot find some appropriate words to express my idea when I am writing an essay. This always makes my essay readable but not formal. Also, I need to improve the structure construction of my sentences in order not to confuse my readers. My so called APA style of my reference also needs to be corrected.
Overall, I got a lot from your review. Thank you and regards.
First of all, thank you for your time and advice. I have read your review and found it really helpful to improve my writing skills.
As you said, I need to pay more attention to the structure of the whole essay. As an academic argumentative essay, it should follow either point-to-point structure or block-to-block structure. Otherwise, it will make the readers confused about what I really want to say. Besides, in individual paragraph, I also need to focus on the main idea of this certain paragraph rather than talking about something else. In addition to the mistakes on constructing the structure of the whole essay and the individual paragraphs, I also need to try to avoid common mistakes such as spilling errors and grammar errors. And you are really right that I need to spend time on building my vocabulary. It is true that I always cannot find some appropriate words to express my idea when I am writing an essay. This always makes my essay readable but not formal. Also, I need to improve the structure construction of my sentences in order not to confuse my readers. My so called APA style of my reference also needs to be corrected.
Overall, I got a lot from your review. Thank you and regards.
A Respond to my peer review
by Alfred
In respond to the peer review comments by Yangfan, it was more or less the general mistakes I have made and I agree to your comments. This is especially true for the grammatical errors and typo that I have. That are some of the mistakes that I will make when I am writing, I should have read it first to correct those mistakes. But, due to time constraint I was not able to do so. However, I personally do not find it to be a good argumentative essay. For example my paragraph 4 (argument 3) was not a fully developed argument. After I have read the essay again I find that para 4 could have been better by having a stronger argument. Besides, I also find that my intro was a bit too long and some parts were unnecessary (after reading it again). As for the reference list, I tried to put it in the APA style, but failed due to the MS word 2007 default setting. It was not entirely my fault, so that cannot be considered as a mistake (haha).
Some points are clear but others are not so I would not say that my essay in general is clear. I know that there are room for improvements, I will continue to so. Thanks….
In respond to the peer review comments by Yangfan, it was more or less the general mistakes I have made and I agree to your comments. This is especially true for the grammatical errors and typo that I have. That are some of the mistakes that I will make when I am writing, I should have read it first to correct those mistakes. But, due to time constraint I was not able to do so. However, I personally do not find it to be a good argumentative essay. For example my paragraph 4 (argument 3) was not a fully developed argument. After I have read the essay again I find that para 4 could have been better by having a stronger argument. Besides, I also find that my intro was a bit too long and some parts were unnecessary (after reading it again). As for the reference list, I tried to put it in the APA style, but failed due to the MS word 2007 default setting. It was not entirely my fault, so that cannot be considered as a mistake (haha).
Some points are clear but others are not so I would not say that my essay in general is clear. I know that there are room for improvements, I will continue to so. Thanks….
WA2 Peer Rev4 Shen Xijiao by Xue Yuan
Your WA2 essay is excellent from my point of view. You not only did a good job on finding out the facts related to your topic but also organized well. To tell you the truth, your essay is absolutely fantastic.
Although you did an excellent job in writing the WA2 essay, there are still some thing you can do improve your essay and thus makes it a more fantastic one.
The first thing is not concerned about the content. Remember our tutor told us to use TNR font? I think you use the wrong font. I think you use the Arial Unicode MS instead of TNR. What’s more, the line space is not 1.5.
Secondly, you wrote this sentence in your essay:”It means that the success of development of Generation IV reactors means a great improvement of living environment for human beings in the future.” It seems confusing for me. I did not understand it fully. I think if you can rewrite this sentence and make it more simple, it would be easier for the readers to read.
Apart from the above things, there are some other small things you can do to improve your essay. One is concerned about word choice and the other is about sentence structure.
Although you did an excellent job in writing the WA2 essay, there are still some thing you can do improve your essay and thus makes it a more fantastic one.
The first thing is not concerned about the content. Remember our tutor told us to use TNR font? I think you use the wrong font. I think you use the Arial Unicode MS instead of TNR. What’s more, the line space is not 1.5.
Secondly, you wrote this sentence in your essay:”It means that the success of development of Generation IV reactors means a great improvement of living environment for human beings in the future.” It seems confusing for me. I did not understand it fully. I think if you can rewrite this sentence and make it more simple, it would be easier for the readers to read.
Apart from the above things, there are some other small things you can do to improve your essay. One is concerned about word choice and the other is about sentence structure.
A peer review on my classmate essay
By Alfred
I did a peer review on Yangfan’s WA2. It was an essay on should there be R&D funding for generation IV reactors. In general there were attempts to follow the structure of an argumentative essay. He does have the general outline of an argumentative essay, though in certain paragraph it was not properly structured. There were a few grammatical errors here and there but not much of a problem. I find that his conclusion is good as it did briefly summarise the arguments mentioned earlier in the essay. There is flow in the essay. However, there were times whereby I have tough time trying to follow what he is trying to say. In the essay, within the same paragraph, his argument could be moving in different directions. There were times whereby he was not clear in his explanation about his arguments. he has a few sentence structure error in a few occasion which made it tough for me to understand what is the point he was trying to bring across. Furthermore, his reference list was not in the APA style. Overall, the essay was understandable and addressed the issue that he had identified.
I did a peer review on Yangfan’s WA2. It was an essay on should there be R&D funding for generation IV reactors. In general there were attempts to follow the structure of an argumentative essay. He does have the general outline of an argumentative essay, though in certain paragraph it was not properly structured. There were a few grammatical errors here and there but not much of a problem. I find that his conclusion is good as it did briefly summarise the arguments mentioned earlier in the essay. There is flow in the essay. However, there were times whereby I have tough time trying to follow what he is trying to say. In the essay, within the same paragraph, his argument could be moving in different directions. There were times whereby he was not clear in his explanation about his arguments. he has a few sentence structure error in a few occasion which made it tough for me to understand what is the point he was trying to bring across. Furthermore, his reference list was not in the APA style. Overall, the essay was understandable and addressed the issue that he had identified.
PeerRev4_Xueyuan_byShenXijiao
I am Shen Xijiao, Xueyuan’s classmate. I am going to write my review on Xuanyuan’s WA2 draft.
A message to Xueyuan,
First, the structure of the essay makes the your argument a bit confusing. I suggest you to restructure your essay. Currently you are writing the benefit of Generation IV reactors at the beginning of each paragraph and you rebut the point from the second sentence. Since you oppose to give R&D funding for Generation IV reactors, I suggest you to put your topic sentence which list the disadvantage of Generation IV reactors at the beginning of each paragraph and explain it a bit. The benefits of Generation IV reactors may come in as a counter argument which helps to balance your essay. After that, you may write a rebut to the counter argument so as to make your stand stronger.
Secondly, some sentences in your essay are too assertive. For example, you have write, “Building generation IV reactors will leave us in nuclear-weapon-danger and terrorism-danger.” There is no support for your view and your judgement is so absolute that others can rebut your view easily.
Last but not least, the meaning of some sentences is not very clear. Thus, you may want to restructure it. Your references should be in APA style.
(Haha, I know my comments are very hush, but I hope they help! Good luck for your EG1471 exam and all other exams!)
Cheers,
Xijiao
A message to Xueyuan,
First, the structure of the essay makes the your argument a bit confusing. I suggest you to restructure your essay. Currently you are writing the benefit of Generation IV reactors at the beginning of each paragraph and you rebut the point from the second sentence. Since you oppose to give R&D funding for Generation IV reactors, I suggest you to put your topic sentence which list the disadvantage of Generation IV reactors at the beginning of each paragraph and explain it a bit. The benefits of Generation IV reactors may come in as a counter argument which helps to balance your essay. After that, you may write a rebut to the counter argument so as to make your stand stronger.
Secondly, some sentences in your essay are too assertive. For example, you have write, “Building generation IV reactors will leave us in nuclear-weapon-danger and terrorism-danger.” There is no support for your view and your judgement is so absolute that others can rebut your view easily.
Last but not least, the meaning of some sentences is not very clear. Thus, you may want to restructure it. Your references should be in APA style.
(Haha, I know my comments are very hush, but I hope they help! Good luck for your EG1471 exam and all other exams!)
Cheers,
Xijiao
Review on the Feedback of my roundtable discussion
My reviewer said I was not keeping eye contact with the listeners. I remember that, on that day, when I do the roundtable discussion, I was not nervous at all and I feel energetic and are in high spirit. So, what my reviewer said should not be a result of nervousness. In my opinion, the reason why I did not keep eye contact with the listeners is that I was looking at my opponents.
However, I think I did a poor work on generating my ideas and post them out. I really got a lot of materials and figures that can reenforce my arguements. When it is my turn to speak, I always got excited and speak on one thing for a long time. After that, I did not have time to deliver my other facts that can reenforce myself.
For the whole roundtable disscussion, I think what I did is not so good. I think I can do better next time if I can make myself more organized. Anyway, this roundtable disscussion is useful for my WA2 wrinting I think, and it did improve myself.
However, I think I did a poor work on generating my ideas and post them out. I really got a lot of materials and figures that can reenforce my arguements. When it is my turn to speak, I always got excited and speak on one thing for a long time. After that, I did not have time to deliver my other facts that can reenforce myself.
For the whole roundtable disscussion, I think what I did is not so good. I think I can do better next time if I can make myself more organized. Anyway, this roundtable disscussion is useful for my WA2 wrinting I think, and it did improve myself.
My review for Alfred's WA2
Pbulished by Liu Yangfan
I am a classmate of Alfred’s and I have read his WA2 essay. Now I am going to make a peer review about this essay.
Generally speaking, this is a good argumentive essay with a clear point-to-point structure. The language is fluent and the choice of word is correct. Besides, the structures of sentence are various and the author’s points are very clear with a lot of powerful supporting.
However, there still exist some little mistakes such as wrong spellings. And there are a lot of sentences which are so long that I become a little confused. For instance, I really cannot figure it out that what is the “they” in the first sentence of the second paragraph referring to. Besides, there are also a lot of noun and verb agreement mistakes such as the “produce” in the second sentence of the third paragraph should be “produces”. In addition, because of the carelessness of the author, some sentences are not complete ones such as the first and the third ones in the third paragraph. Moreover, the style of intext credits is also not correct. The full stop should be behind the parentheses which are used to make an intext credit. At last, the APA style of the references is also not correct.
In a nutshell, this is an essay with a clear point and a clear structure. Nevertheless, there is still some space to be improved.
I am a classmate of Alfred’s and I have read his WA2 essay. Now I am going to make a peer review about this essay.
Generally speaking, this is a good argumentive essay with a clear point-to-point structure. The language is fluent and the choice of word is correct. Besides, the structures of sentence are various and the author’s points are very clear with a lot of powerful supporting.
However, there still exist some little mistakes such as wrong spellings. And there are a lot of sentences which are so long that I become a little confused. For instance, I really cannot figure it out that what is the “they” in the first sentence of the second paragraph referring to. Besides, there are also a lot of noun and verb agreement mistakes such as the “produce” in the second sentence of the third paragraph should be “produces”. In addition, because of the carelessness of the author, some sentences are not complete ones such as the first and the third ones in the third paragraph. Moreover, the style of intext credits is also not correct. The full stop should be behind the parentheses which are used to make an intext credit. At last, the APA style of the references is also not correct.
In a nutshell, this is an essay with a clear point and a clear structure. Nevertheless, there is still some space to be improved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
