The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality Hui-Tzu Min * Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan Abstract This preliminary classroom study aims to examine the impact of trained responders’ feedback on EFL college students’ revisions, both in terms of revision types and quality. After a 4-hour in-class demonstration and a 1-hour after-class reviewer-teacher conference with each student (n = 18), the instructor/researcher collected students’ first drafts and revisions, as well as reviewers’ written feedback, and compared them with those produced prior to training. Results show that students incorporated a significantly higher number of reviewers’ comments into revisions post peer review training. The number of peer-triggered revisions comprised 90% of the total revisions, and the number of revisions with enhanced quality was significantly higher than that before peer review training. The researcher concludes that with extensive training inside and outside of class, trained peer review feedback can positively impact EFL students’ revision types and quality of texts directly. # 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Peer review training; Revision quality; Revision types; EFL writing; Taiwan 1. Introduction The practice of peer response/review has been burgeoning in both L1 and ESL/EFL writing classes since last decade, given its strong support from social learning (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) and rhetorical theories (Berlin, 1987; Bruffee, 1993; Harris, 1990). Proponents of peer response/review have made a plethora of claims about its cognitive, affective, social, and linguistic benefits, most of which have been substantiated by extant empirical evidence. Peer response/review has been found to help both college (de Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996) and secondary (Peterson, 2003; Tsui & Ng, 2000) students obtain more insight into Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141 * Tel.: +886 6 263 6497; fax: +886 6 263 6497. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
24
Embed
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students ...epi.sc.edu/ar/AS_4_files/Min 2006.pdfHui-Tzu Min* Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’
revision types and writing quality
Hui-Tzu Min *
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University,
1 University Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
Abstract
This preliminary classroom study aims to examine the impact of trained responders’ feedback on EFL
college students’ revisions, both in terms of revision types and quality. After a 4-hour in-class demonstration
and a 1-hour after-class reviewer-teacher conference with each student (n = 18), the instructor/researcher
collected students’ first drafts and revisions, as well as reviewers’ written feedback, and compared them with
those produced prior to training. Results show that students incorporated a significantly higher number of
reviewers’ comments into revisions post peer review training. The number of peer-triggered revisions
comprised 90% of the total revisions, and the number of revisions with enhanced quality was significantly
higher than that before peer review training. The researcher concludes that with extensive training inside and
outside of class, trained peer review feedback can positively impact EFL students’ revision types and quality
Used feedback1/used feedback2b �5.277 2.1366 0.5036 �10.480 17 .000**
a Feedback 1 refers to the total number of peer comments before training, whereas feedback 2 refers to that after
training.b Used feedback 1 refers to the number of peer comments incorporated into revisions before training, whereas used
feedback 2 refers to that after training.c The negative means and t values indicate that the numbers of feedback 1 and used feedback 1 are smaller than those of
feedback 2 and used feedback 2.* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
numbers of comments writers incorporated in revision before and after training. As clearly
demonstrated, the numbers of total comments produced and those incorporated into revision after
peer review training were significantly higher than those before training (for the number of
comments, t = �2.741, p < .05; for the number of incorporated comments, t = �10.480, p < .01).
5.12. Proportions of peer-influenced revisions in total revisions
Despite the fact that students incorporated a significantly higher number of peer review
comments into their revisions after peer review training, this only shows that trained peer review
exerted a significantly greater influence on writers’ revisions than the untrained one. It does not
assure that these peer-triggered revisions take up most of the changes writers made in their
revisions. The exact strength of this trained peer review feedback on writers’ revisions is still
unanswered. In order to better understand the strength of the effect of this peer review training on
revision, it is important to examine the extent to which revisions were a result of peer feedback,
both prior to and post peer review training.
An examination of the revisions made by the writers revealed that there were 80 revisions prior
to peer review training and 165 revisions post training. Of the 80 revisions made before training,
54 were in response to untrained peer feedback. Of the 165 revisions made after training, 149
were in response to trained peer review feedback. The revisions in response to peer feedback
were 68% (54/80) before training and 90% (149/165) after training. Table 2 shows that there was
a significant difference between the total revisions writers made before and after peer review
training (t = �12.806, p < .05). There was also a significant difference in the revisions as a result
of peer feedback before and after peer review training (t = �3.778, p < .05). The latter finding
showed that trained peer feedback did have a significantly higher impact on students’ revisions
after peer review training.
5.13. Revision quality
Given that 68% of the revisions were made in response to peer comments before peer review
training and 90% of them were a result of peer comments after training, one cannot help but
wonder about the quality of such revisions. The raters deemed approximately 13% of the
revisions prior to training as better, 9% of the revisions inferior to the original, and 78%
unchanged. In contrast, they considered approximately 72% of the revisions superior, 19% of the
revisions poorer, and 9% unchanged. These results show that trained peer review did enhance the
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141 129
Table 2
A comparison of the total revisions and revisions in response to peer feedback (RPF) before and after peer review training
Difference Mean deviation Std. Mean S.E. t Sig. (two-tailed)
Total revision 1/total revision 2a �4.7222c 1.5645 0.3687 �12.806 .000**
RPF1/RPF2b �1.250 1.4037 0.3308 �3.778 .002**
*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.
a Total Revision 1 means the total revisions made before peer review training, and total revision 2 means those made
after peer review training.b RPF 1 means the proportion of peer-triggered revisions before peer review training, and RPF 2 refers to those after
training.c The negative means and t values indicate that the numbers of total revisions and peer-triggered revisions before peer
review training were smaller than those after pee review training.
quality of students’ revisions, given that 90% of their revisions were based on trained peer review
feedback. Table 3 indicates how the three independent raters evaluated the texts produced before
and after peer review training. Most of the first drafts prior to and post training, according to the
raters, lacked explicit positions, developed ideas, logic, and good organization. The revisions
produced prior to peer review training, similar to those found in Sengupta’s (1998) study, were
mainly at the word level that did not effect any ‘‘sweeping alterations’’ of propositions (p. 121).
By contrast, most of the revisions post peer review training were improved in terms of idea
development, unity, and organization. Thus, the overall quality was enhanced.
5.14. Type of changes in revisions
5.14.1. Revision types
The fourth research question concerns the kinds of revisions writers made in response to peer
feedback in revision. A tally of revision types revealed that substitution (20%), permutation
(19%), and reordering (18%), especially at the micro-text-based level, ranked as the highest
three. These findings partially corroborated previous studies that have investigated revision
(Sato, 1991; Sengupta, 1998). Both Sato’s Japanese college students and Sengupta’s Hong Kong
secondary students also used substitution most frequently, but at the surface level. Table 4 shows
the percentages of the types of feedback triggering revisions for the student writers in this study.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141130
Table 3
Revision quality before and after peer review training
Rater Revised version ‘‘better’’ Original ‘‘better’’ No change
Celce-Muricia, M. (1992). Formal grammar instruction: An educator comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 406–409.
Chou, M. C. (1999). How peer negotiations shape revisions. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the
Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349–359). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, context, and
individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180.
Coulthard, M. (1994). On analysing and evaluating written texts. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis
(pp. 1–11). London: Routledge.
de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (1994). Social cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern
Language Journal, 78(4), 484–496.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–415.
Falvey, P. (1993). Towards a description of corporate revision. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. UK: University of Birmingham.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose process and practice (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L. (1984). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. In S. McKay (Ed.), Writing in a second
language (pp. 16–42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141136
Flynn, E. (1982, November). Effects of peer critiquing and model analysis on the quality of biology student laboratory
reports. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Washington, DC.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 234 403).
George, D. (1984). Writing with peer groups in composition. College Composition and Communication, 35, 320–336.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991b). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language
writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harris, M. (1990). Teacher/student talk: The collaborative conference. In S. Hynds, & D. Rubin (Eds.), Perspective on talk
and learning (pp. 149–161). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–17.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17–29.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language
Learning, 45, 605–655.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. Johnson, & D. Roen
(Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134–135). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1, 235–254.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction.
TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27(3), 85–103.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen
(Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219). New York: Longman.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness of peer response groups. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts?
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–142.
Nold, E. (1981). Revising. In C. H. Frederiksen, & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of
written communication (pp. 67–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of research on intensive peer review in
expository writing instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), The structure of written
communication. New York: Academic Press Inc. pp. 179–211.
Nystrand, M., Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from? Written Communication,
10(3), 267–333.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3),
265–289.
Peterson, S. (2003). Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language
and Literature, 3, 239–272.
Sato, T., (1991). Revising strategies Japanese students’ writing in English as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Scollon, R., (1991). Eight legs and one elbow. Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions. Paper presented at
International Reading Association, Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Banff.
Sengupta, S. (1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school composition. RELC Journal,
29(1), 110–137.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and
Communication, 31, 78–88.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217–
233.
Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 20–38.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(2), 147–170.
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the second language classroom: Social cognitive activities,
mediating strategies and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 51–75.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141 137
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving
student performance (2nd rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiener, H. (1986). Collaborative learning in the classroom: A guide to evaluation. College English, 48, 52–61.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication,
1(4), 492–528.
Appendix A
A.1. Guidance sheet for reviewing Multiple-paragraph essays
1. Read the introductory paragraph. Is there a thesis statement toward the end of the introduction?
Does the thesis statement contain main ideas? How many main ideas are there? Please
underline the thesis statement and mark 1, 2, or 3 on each main idea. Are these main ideas at
the same level of generality? Are they sequenced in accordance with importance? If you
cannot find a thesis statement, drawing on what you have read so far, what do you expect to
read in the following paragraphs? Summarize it in one sentence and show it to your partner.
2. Now read the first few sentences in the second paragraph. Did the writer write according to
your expectation(s)? If not, what did the writer write instead? Do you think that writer was
sidetracked? Go back to the thesis statement to make sure that you understand the main ideas.
Did the author talk about the first main idea in the thesis statement? If not, remind him/her that
he/she should. Are there any concrete examples or explanation in this paragraph to support the
main idea? Are they well balanced (in terms of sentence length and depth of discussion)? Are
they relevant and sequenced properly? Is there any direct quotation or paraphrased information
in this paragraph? Is the quotation supporting the argument the writer has made? Check the
original source if your partner wrote a paraphrase to make sure that the paraphrase reflects
accurate information.
3. Read the first sentence of the third paragraph. Did your partner use any transitions to connect
this paragraph with the previous one? If not, can you suggest one? Is there a topic sentence that
corresponds to the second main idea in the thesis statement? Make a suggestion if there is not.
Are there any concrete examples or explanation in this paragraph to support the main idea of
this paragraph? Are they well balanced (in terms of sentence length and depth of discussion)?
Are they relevant and sequenced properly? Is there any direct quotation or paraphrased
information in this paragraph? Is the quotation supporting the argument the writer has made?
Check the original source if your partner wrote a paraphrase to make sure that the paraphrase
reflects accurate information.
4. Read the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Does this paragraph connect well to the
previous one? If not, can you suggest a sentence connector? Is there a topic sentence that
corresponds to the third main idea in the thesis statement? Make a suggestion if there is not.
Are there any concrete examples or explanation in this paragraph to support the main idea of
this paragraph? Are they relevant and sequenced properly? Did your partner use pronouns and
paraphrase to avoid repetition? Is there any direct quotation or paraphrased information in this
paragraph? Is the quotation supporting the argument the writer has made? Check the original
source if your partner wrote a paraphrase to make sure that the paraphrase reflects accurate
information.
5. Read the conclusion. Does it begin with a restatement (but different wording) of the thesis
statement? If not, suggest one. Does the conclusion move to more general statements on the
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141138
topic as a whole? Does the conclusion contain too much irrelevant information to the thesis
statement? If yes, make a suggestion.
6. What did you learn from reading this essay, either in language use or content? Is there anything
nice you want to say about this essay? Are there any grammatical errors or inappropriate word
usage?
Appendix B
B.1. Types of revision
Type Example (changes in boldface)
Addition: reviser
adds information
First draft: GM foods can increase harvest.Feedback: There seems to be a logic problem.
GM foods do not help increase harvest. It is the use of genetic
engineering technique that leads to an increase on harvest.
Second draft: Planting GM foods can help farmers increase harvest.
Deletion: reviser
deletes information
First draft: In today’s society, GM food is becoming increasingly
trendy. That is GM food is a must.Feedback: A trendy thing does not mean that it is a must.
Second draft: In today’s society, GM food is becoming increasingly trendy.
Substitution: reviser
substitutes information
First draft: Today, GM food has tremendously
benefited farmers around the world,. . .Feedback: I suggest that you change farmers into people.
Second draft: Today, GM food has tremendously benefited
people around the world,. . .
Permutation: reviser
rephrases information
First draft: Cell phones are not just chic gadgets,
but with them we can talk to anyone on theplanet from just about everywhere.Feedback: Can you use a noun phrase to make
the structure more parallel. For example, ‘‘. . .but communication
devices that can. . .’’
Second draft: Cell phones are not just chic gadgets,
but communication devices that can bring people together.Distribution: reviser
re-writes same information
in larger chunks
First draft: Fifty years ago, people were threatened by poverty and starvation.
My grandma described it a world riddled with suffering and numerouspeople were as poor as church mice.Feedback: It looks like the starvation is because of poverty, not lacking of food.
Second draft: Fifty years ago, people were threatened by poverty
and starvation. My grandma described it a world riddled with suffering.
Indeed, without harvests, lots of people were as poor as church mice.Consolidation: reviser puts
separate information together
First draft: Cell phones with attachable cameras or cameras
embedded in them have become ubiquitous that they might
be a potential for intruding people’s privacy. Gym lockers, for example,where photography is greatly discouraged since long time ago.Feedback: The second sentence is not a full sentence.
You might want to combine it with the first one.
Second draft: The ubiquity of cell phones with attachable
or built-in cameras might be intruding people’s privacy,especially in private places such as gym lockers, wherephotography has long been discouraged.
Re-order: reviser
moves information
First draft: GM Food nearly can be seen everywhere you can reach.
Feedback: ‘‘Nearly can be seen’’ means people do not see it. They ‘‘nearly’’ see it.
Second draft: GM Food can be seen nearly everywhere you can reach.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141 139
Appendix C
C.1. Size of revision
Size Example (Changes in bold)
Symbol etc. First draft: Nowadays there have been many farmers growing GM plants.
Feedback: You do not start a line with a period.
Second draft: Nowadays there have been many farmers growing GM plants.
Word First draft: Through the networks of tower transmitters and even satellites,
cell phones can help us talk to anyone from anywhere in anytime.
Feedback: It is ‘‘at’’ anytime, not ‘‘in’’ anytime.
Second draft: Through the networks of tower transmitters and even satellites,
cell phones can help us talk to anyone from anywhere at anytime.
Phrase First draft: The incredible gadgets, cell phones enrich our lives so much
and undoubtedly they are necessaries machines for most people nowadays.
Feedback: Do you mean indispensable devices? The size of a machine seems to be larger
than that of a cell phone.
Second draft: The incredible gadgets, cell phones enrich our lives so much
and undoubtedly they are indispensable devices for most people nowadays.
Clause First draft: Those people who feel its danger believe that cell phones will
do harm to our health.
Feedback: It reads like Chinese English. You can say people who are aware of its danger
or who feel that it is dangerous.
Second draft: Those people who are aware of its danger believe that cell phones will
do harm to our health.
Sentence First draft: A great deal of research proved that transgenic crops will
transfer the characteristics to their relatives. If genes that have the function
to resist insect attack are introduced into plants, the establishment of resistant
populations of pests will increase soon. And that will cause the loss of biology balance.
Feedback: You need to explain why it will cause biological imbalance.
First draft: A great deal of research proved that transgenic crops will transfer
the characteristics to their relatives, such as the ability of herbicide or insects-resistance.
Then the insects will also grow stronger and be able to eat that kind of plants.
As a result, the population of pests will increase soon. And under the circle,
it will cause the loss of biology balance.
Paragraph First draft: Professor Chung-Shau Gim said that some people like to put their
cell phones in the pockets of their shirts or pants and this might have bad effects to their
hearts and organs in abdomens. He also stated that there were 500 medical
research studies pointing out that if human bodies are exposed to EMF,
it will decrease our immunocompetence and make the medicines for
mastocarcinoma lose its efficacy.
Feedback: In the third paragraph, you can add some examples to the 3rd paragraph about
how cell phones damage our health.
Second draft: Chung-Shau Gim, an associate professor in the physiology research institute of
National Defense Medical College, said that, according to 500 medical reports, our
immunocompetence would be decreasing and the medicines for mastocarcinoma
would lost its efficacy if we are exposed EFFs for a long time.
ES, electromagnetic sensitivity syndrome, is a kind of disorder with neurologicaland allergic-type symptoms. When we are exposed to a new EMF, such as a newcomputer or new cell phone, we might get ES. The symptoms of ES includeheadache, eye irritation, dizziness, nausea, skin rash, fatigue, and etc.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141140
Appendix D
D.1. Function of revision
Function Example (Changes in bold)
Grammatical: to make the text
grammatically correct
First draft: Through the networks of tower transmitters and even satellites,
cell phones can help us talk to anyone from anywhere in anytime.
Feedback: It is ‘‘at’’ anytime, not ‘‘in’’ anytime.
Second draft: Through the networks of tower transmitters and even
satellites, cell phones can help us talk to anyone from anywhere at anytime.
Cosmetic: a change which
makes the text look better
First draft: The incredible gadgets, cell phones enrich our lives so much
and undoubtedly they are necessary machines for most people nowadays.
Feedback: Do you mean indispensable devices? The size of a machine
seems to be larger than that of a cell phone.
Second draft draft: The incredible gadgets, cell phones enrich our lives
so much and undoubtedly they are indispensable devices for
most people nowadays.
Texture: To make the text
more cohesive and coherent
First draft: Those people who are aware of its believe that
cell phones will do harm to our health
Feedback: You use ‘‘those people’’ at the beginning of this sentence
but ‘‘our’’ at the end. You might want to stick to the same personal
perspective by using ‘‘their’’.
Second draft draft: Those people who are aware of its danger believe
that cell phones will do harm to their health.
Unnecessary expression:to take away unnecessary
information
First draft: Mary comes from America, and of course,
she has no idea about Chinese lucky money.
Feedback: The use ‘‘of course’’ is unnecessary.
Second draft draft: Mary comes from America,
and has no idea about Chinese lucky money.
Explicature: to make the
information in the text
more explicit
First draft: A great deal of research proved that transgenic crops
will transfer the characteristics to their relatives. If genes that have the
function to resist insect attack are introduced into plants, the establishment of
resistant populations of pests will increase soon. And that will cause
the loss of biology balance.
Feedback: You need to explain why it will cause biological imbalance.
Second draft draft: A great deal of research proved that transgenic crops
will transfer the characteristics to their relatives, such as the ability of herbicide
or insects-resistance. Then the insects will also grow stronger andbe able to eat that kind of plants. As a result, the population of pests will
increase soon. And under the circle, it will cause the loss of biology balance.
Hui-Tzu Min is an associate professor currently teaching in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at
National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Her areas of interest include children’s and adults’ second language acquisition
and ESL/EFL literacy.
H.-T. Min / Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118–141 141