I have been using LinkedIn as a professional tool for several years now. I fixed a few things in my profile as a result of this assignment. I found a lot of the tips resourceful in improving my profile. I’ve used LinkedIn when applying for jobs and also when reaching out to other professionals. It’s proven to be a valuable tool.

Brainstorming for the proposal was difficult. I tried my best to think of an idea that relates to my work. I came up with something I felt passionate about but over the past week I’ve been thinking if I’ve chosen the wrong topic. The topic I’ve chosen does not seem like a glaring problem and may be difficult to write an entire report about. The peer review helped a lot. Steven’s suggestions help me think about my idea from different perspectives. My goal in this report is to be fully passionate about my topic.

The peer review process is very useful for critiquing your writing style. You get a good idea of how others receive the information you are trying to convey. Giving a peer review is also helpful. You have a chance to think critically about your own writing style. You compare ways that you write with techniques of your partner’s. Overall, the review process has been a helpful source of constructive criticism.

Revised proposal: revised_formal_report_proposal_ajaybrach

URL for peer review: http://engl301.arts.ubc.ca/2016/10/10/peer-review-of-ajays-formal-report-proposal/

Dear team,

This is a re-posting of my reflections from unit one. The original post was posted September 30th and can be viewed through this link: Reflections on Unit One

Reflections on Unit One

This week’s assignments involved a lot of reflecting over different writing styles. We chose a topic that is relevant to our particular field of study and created definitions. We then read our group member’s definitions and gave constructive feedback.

First draft

The definitions that I created were describing confirmation bias. I chose this topic because I personally enjoy thinking about how confirmation bias applies to society. This made writing the definitions a smooth process. We were to write our definitions for an audience of “non-technical” readers. While I was writing I made sure not to introduce content that would confuse the reader. I made sure to included examples that the reader would be able to relate to. Giving the reader a good overview of what confirmation bias is followed with distinct examples was the strategy I used while writing my initial draft.

Peer review

Reviewing Jade’s definitions on operant conditioning gave me insight to a different approach. The structure of our parenthetical and sentence definitions were similar; however Jade took a different approach in her expanded definition. Jade focused on giving the reader a better idea of how operant conditioning was discovered. She focused on detailing the experiments that helped form the idea. This was different from my approach as I focused more on how my confirmation bias relates to people shown through examples.

Self Editing

After creating my first draft and then peer reviewing Jade’s first draft, I had varying perspectives when editing the final draft. Jade pointed out that I should elaborate more on the history of confirmation bias. I also fixed grammatical errors and gave better context for the image in my expanded definition.

Having Jade’s input helped me view my writing style from another person’s perspective. After reading the review of my definitions it was clear that there were some areas that I could make stronger.

I’ve attached my rewritten definition in this link: 301-ajay-brach-definitions

Hyperlink of my Peer Review from Jade: Peer Review for Assignment 1:3