1. The report being subdivided into 4 parts is an understandable method for those who look for specific part of the report, especially those who cannot fully understand analyses that are somewhat mixed in discussion of the results and the methods used. My analysis does not agree with this format because I have incorporated/integrated the parts in the body of the paper.
2. The next to the last sentence in paragraph 1 is in the past perfect tense because the author is pertaining to a previously done study (Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency) to be compared as a review of related literature to the more recent one that is done by the students from the Iowa State University.
3. I think to be more understandable, one could make it in a bulleted form so that each part, which happens to be long statements, could be isolated and be read more easily.
4. The in-text citation is evidence that Tesdell has read the articles made by Chedru and Gerschwind. In-text citations are put into the text to say that the writer has a reference where he got the idea he included in the text.
1. It is true that the Iowa State University is not a typical institution, and we cannot say that we can rely on the sample students they have because they are just concentrated on them and many factors might affect their English language proficiency. An R for this.
2. I also give an R for this, since as mentioned in number one; we can not rely just on their students. Increasing the number of samples may help in addressing to this problem. Fifty-six is not that enough for a stratified sample of a really diverse study like this.
3. This one is reasonable for me also (R) because this will ensure that no bias on the analysis shall take place. Also, this will make the results approach accuracy and precision.
4. This is reasonable (R). For example, an institution is known for their advanced academic programs in languages. The students in that university generally might have thought first if they are going to that university especially if they come from a country that is not that influenced by other languages like English. In this case there is a possibility that the results in this university are more agreeable than the others. Also, there might be English major students coming to the study, and there are going to be extreme values in this case.
5. This is unreasonable. We can avoid the habitual errors by other means. I am giving a U.
6. This should be supported by statistical calculations to know if there are significant differences in the results. But then, the difference of 0.03 is almost negligible.
I feel that Jo-Ching Chen, who is a minor in editing, is a major in Statistics. The terms she used in her hypotheses are convincing and I know some of those, that is why I find the three hypotheses reasonable. An R for Chen.
Task 7: My Own Critique about Tesdell
The method seemed to be designed on a manner that will avoid biases, where the respondents were subjected to proper investigations and data gathering procedures. It is also good that the experimenter interviewed the 10 highest and the 9 lowest achievers. But then it is possible that the respondent might have questioned why they were interviewed among all the respondents, and probably the author cannot just articulate the true reason for this. But then it is of utmost importance that the students would have a say on what they feel about the academic learning they experience on that school, because with this several suggestion and comments can arise to improve the teaching techniques that that school may improve so that their curriculum may become more applicable to everyone.
There seemed to be good statistical design, which correlates the factors considered by the author. The numerical measures of the factors will make it easily understandable. The interview can support the substantiation of the results, as well as it can be an opening to comments and suggestions that will improve the teaching strategies of the school.
Task 8: Functional Strategies
1. Thinking in English.
2. Participating actively in activities with group oral communication.
3. Speaking English with others.
4. Reading extensively out of class.
5. Talking to oneself and memorizing a list of words.
2. Especially interesting are these viruses disrupt the functionality of the computer applications
3. Much less expected is that the viruses are common everywhere.
4. Rather more significant is even the cell phones we use can be infected by these viruses.
5. Especially noteworthy is that it can affect the global economy if a virus is hard to eliminate.
6. Of greater concern is that viruses are being made by companies making anti-viruses themselves.
Task nine: Critique of the report by Huang
Paragraph 1: Huang gave nice introduction. It gives a nice way of making the readers interested in the topic. This study is relevant since there is a growing notion that the Chinese people find it hard to learn the English language, although spoken very rampantly all over the world. This study will aid in the understanding of the learning hardships of the target samples, if there are any, and be able to find some solutions to the problems.
The evaluation strategies presented by Huang are organized, with almost all the aspects being looked at. Even more emphasized id that the author has anticipated possible flaws by even conducting an interview to the respondents, for a better evaluation results.
The results of the tests are very easy to understand, and the study can be understood even by the respondents, especially those with difficulty in English. However, there could be not just one comparison of other related studies. It would be much better if many literatures concerning other nationalities be understood also, with respect to this brief report and summary only. The differences and similarities may be cited to have other references appreciated, and that the study can be supported by other statistical data.
Task 10: About the reaction to Kobayashi
The Japanese student who made a reaction paper about Kobayashi included in the paper the following personal expressions: (1) it is my opinion; and (3) I think.
– She mentioned that Kobayashi has carried out a useful piece of research.
– She thought that the finding of the research may be useful in helping the American English teachers understand Japanese students more
– She questioned the correctness of the results obtained in the study.
– She had a question pertaining to the dignity of the major stand of Kobayashi, which dealt with cultural differences. She threw a question at the send of the paragraph.
– She mentioned a part of the paper she thinks that the author claimed about the existence of the cultural preferences for certain rhetorical patterns.
– She mentioned about what she knew about how the Americans are taught for the rhetorical patterns to follow, the same way with how the Japanese deal with their academic papers.
Effective use of experience
The Japanese student who made a reaction to Kobayashi’s findings applied her knowledge on her own definition of culture. Her experience suggests a claim that education is the main factor to affect the rhetorical patterns both countries follow. She said that it is not a matter of culture. She personally concludes that techniques in writing are not culturally influenced.
Asian students tend to do this maybe because they want the readers to think critically of the point of the author. They do this sometimes on their own personal works to encourage the reader to venture on the topic. Maybe the two sentences could be joined together and be rephrased by saying asking, “What factor affects the rhetorical pattern used by the students from different countries? Education or culture?”
Task 11: Own reaction
For me, the design of the methods utilized by Huang was effective in attacking the problem in the study. As she mentioned, her study is more complex than that of Tesdell’s, and I think her approach served the complexity of the study. I admire the creativity of the author, and the portion wherein the respondents were interviewed for their idea of the educational system there has been in their university unique. The paper did a lot of purpose, a two-way purpose that connected the students and the University for them to understand the needs of each other as students wanting to learn and as an academic institution serving the learning needs.
The portion discussing the differences in learning strategies is valuable because it suggests keys in order for students to be motivated in studying English language. The difficulties encountered by students were understood by the study, thus giving the paper due relevance.
Task 13: A Letter to Dr. Kobayashi
A pleasant day to you.
I, together with Professor Ann Jones reviewed your report entitled Rhetorical Patterns in English and Japanese. Based on our evaluation procedures we find your paper of nice structure publishable in TESOL Quarterly.
We would like your paper to be included in our journal, since your paper displays competitiveness in concept. However, we find some parts which we would like to modify:
– The title is very broad, considering that you only have a very limited number of respondents in your study. We would like to modify the title of your report subject to your approval.
– Also included in the modification are the legends (JJJ) because we find them confusing.
Your positive response will be highly appreciated. We look forward to having your paper published with us.
Thank you so much.
All the best,
The TESOL Quarterly