Unit 1 – An Introduction to Technical Writing
Original Writing
I chose to define “abstraction” because it is a concept that I did not fully comprehend when I took CPSC 210. I have always thought that the best way to learn is to teach and this was the perfect opportunity to challenge myself.
I learned that thinking about the intended audience is very important as it determines my style of writing. Since I decided on university students who are new to computer science, I wrote in a tone that was not overly formal, but not dumbed-down either. The textbook provided great guidance on how to write technically. I really had to work on cutting out unnecessary words and it was difficult for me to explain a technical term without using more jargon.
Peer Review Process
I was familiar with the process of giving positive and constructive feedback in terms of work performance. I was not, however, familiar with the peer review process in terms of technical writing. I simply went through Shannon’s document in order and made note of any grammar mistakes, what could be improved, and possible suggestions for improvement. I struggled with explaining the “why” behind my suggestions; it really exercised my critical thinking skills. Shannon did a great job in defining a term that was not in my field of study. Overall I found the process to be open-ended and I enjoyed learning about a new term.
Editing Process
I found it difficult to follow Shannon’s peer review for me because it jumped around a lot—her review was not based on the order of my document in the same way I did my peer review for her. Other than that, I found her feedback to be helpful. I learned what I should continue doing and what areas could be improved. The parts where Shannon thought needed more work were the same expanded definitions that I had problems in defining. She pointed out specific examples in my work and provided valuable suggestions which I implemented. I also learned that in-text citations should be inside the period rather than on the outside.