WRITING PRACTICE
BENIFITS/DRAWBACKS OF BUYING PRODUCT DIRECTLY FROM LOCAL FARMERS
From a Chinese perspective, buying products directly from local farmers has both benefits and challenges.
On the positive side, many Chinese consumers are increasingly concerned about food safety, and purchasing directly from farmers can give them greater confidence in knowing where their food comes from. Fresh vegetables, fruits,meats often taste better and have fewer chemical additives compared to mass-produced supermarket goods. In addition, supporting local farmers is a way to preserve traditional agriculture, which is important in many rural areas like Shanghai which facing rapid urbanization.
However, there are also drawbacks. In large Chinese cities, farmers’ markets or direct supply channels are not always easy to access, busy urban residents often prefer the convenience of supermarkets or online platforms such as “MEITUAN”(a delivery platform), that deliver food to their doorstep. Moreover, without strict regulation, some small farmers may not meet the same quality or standards as larger suppliers. In conclusion, while buying directly from local farmers in China can provide healthier food and support rural communities, it is not always the most convenient or reliable choice for people living in modern cites.
DIFFERENCES/SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TEACHERS IN MY NATIVE COUNTRY TO NEW LECTURERS
Having just completed my first week on the International Foundation Programme, I have already noticed some important differences as well as similarities between the expectations of my lecturers here and those of my teachers back home.
The first and most obvious difference is the language. During IFP program,every class is conducted in English, which is quite different from my previous experience. While it sometimes makes learning more challenging, it also provides me with valuable opportunities to improve my communication skills in an international setting. A second difference is the teaching approach. Lecturers here often encourage group work, which requires me to collaborate with classmates from different cultural and educational backgrounds. This helps me to develop teamwork skills and broaden my perspectives. A third difference is the emphasis on independent thinking. Rather than simply giving us direct answers, lecturers prefer to guide us and leave more space for us to reflect, analyse, and solve problems ourselves.
Despite these differences, I have also found some similarities. Both in my home country and IFP, teachers aim to create a relaxed classroom atmosphere. They are friendly, approachable, and often use humour, which makes learning more enjoyable and less stressful.
Overall, I really appreciate my lecturers in IFP. Their supportive and open style of teaching makes me feel welcome, and I am excited to continue studying in this environment.
PEER FEEDBACK
Before the peer-review session, I felt a bit nervous and defensive since I had never done this kind of activity at school before. I felt like all of my classmates were so good at languages, and I was worried that they would focus on what was “wrong” with my writing, which might make me feel embarrassed. At the same time, I was also curious to see how others approached the same task and hoped to pick up some new ideas.
During the process, the Ladder of Feedback structure (clarify, value, concerns, suggestions) actually made me feel much safer. My partner first asked clarifying questions and pointed out what was working well in my draft, which helped me relax and recognize my strengths more clearly. When we moved to “concerns” and “suggestions,” the comments felt more objective and constructive rather than personal criticism.
Afterwards, I felt more confident and motivated to revise. The experience was much more positive than I had expected; instead of feeling judged, I felt supported. I realized that my classmates noticed issues — for example, unclear topic sentences and weak transitions — that I had stopped seeing in my own writing.
For instance, Aziz suggested deleting some repetitive or unnecessary sentences in my paragraphs and also evaluated the credibility of my sources. After applying his feedback, my paragraph became more concise and logically structured. Ece gave me a very helpful reminder — she pointed out that I should include examples and a brief explanation of what “organoid technology” actually means, along with some background information. Her comment helped me make my writing clearer and more informative.
Overall, this peer review made me feel more engaged with my annotated bibliography. Hearing others’ perspectives on the same sources made me realize how differently people can interpret them. It turned the process from something mechanical into something more meaningful, and I’d definitely like to use this approach again next time.
WEEK 8 LEARNING JOURNAL
In my first class test in EAP, I feel that my overall performance was quite good. For the source evaluation section, I prepared by searching for different online articles and analysing them using the criteria of currency, relevance, accuracy, authority, purpose and academic conventions. I also tried to imagine whether I would use these sources in an actual essay, which helped me think more critically.
However, the vocabulary part on Sublist 1 and 2 did not fully meet my expectations. I made two mistakes on word meanings that I should not have missed. After the test, I reviewed these words carefully and made sure I fully understood their correct usage. In the sentence-building section, I realised that my grammar tends to slip when the sentences get longer. Fortunately, these are errors I can fix by checking more carefully, so next time I will leave a few minutes to review my answers.
Overall, I believe my preparation methods and time management were effective, and I hope to maintain this approach in future tests.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY REFLECTION
Before starting this task, I did not expect the annotated bibliography to be so time-consuming. I assumed it would mainly involve summarising sources, but I quickly realised that it required much more careful thinking, especially when deciding how each source would actually be used in my essay. Working on the annotated bibliography for my organoid technology topic helped me slow down and really read the sources instead of skimming them.
The most stressful part of the process was definitely the formatting. Following APA7 style felt overwhelming at times, particularly when dealing with details such as italics, punctuation, and different reference formats for articles, books and videos. I often found myself spending a lot of time on small details, which was frustrating and sometimes exhausting. However, although the formatting almost drove me crazy, I gradually understood why it matters. It forces you to be precise and careful, and it makes your work look more credible and organised.
Despite the frustration, the annotated bibliography ended up being genuinely helpful. By the time I finished it, I had a much clearer idea of my essay structure and which sources would support each section. I also became more confident in evaluating the quality and usefulness of academic sources. Overall, even though the process was challenging and sometimes stressful, I now see the annotated bibliography as a valuable step in academic writing rather than just an unnecessary task.