The First Draft of the Definitions
Our first official assignment for our ENGL 301 course was to write three definitions of a technical term intended for an audience without specialized knowledge. I approached the task by first referencing course materials and the textbook to ensure I understood the requirements and applications. I chose the term Panopticism because it is related to my previous degree and I consider it still relevant to my current studies in computer science. I believe it is of interest to a wide audience which gave me the motivation to write a clear and concise definition without jargon. The course content described the relevant types of definition and I practiced writing these forms by applying them to my term. I personally found the parenthetical definition to be particularly challenging in this context. It stipulates that the term should be quickly and clearly explained by a few words wrapped in parentheses immediately after introducing the term. Panopticism has a lot of context and potentially requires some reflection to truly understand, which isn’t well suited to a parenthetical definition. I addressed this by giving the reader the minimum information needed to understand the sentence without the burden of delivering a full understanding. While writing the expanded definition, I found that some types were not appropriate for the term. For example, Analysis of Parts seemed less useful to a reader for delivering a definition of a theoretical concept than providing an Example. I learned that the term should stipulate the tools used to define it. Through this process I learned the technical requirements of various types of definition and practiced applying them to a complex term that challenged me.
Peer Review Process
As part of the peer review process, I learned about Classical Conditioning in Carman Chu’s definition. Reading another student’s work was not only interesting, but gave me insight into aspects of the assignment I may have overlooked. For example, their parenthetical definition utilized a synonym rather than a short description. I hadn’t previously considered the benefit of that approach and appreciated being exposed to that technique. I learned to use a critical eye to identify errors and used the opportunity to affirm my own understanding of the principles instilled in this course. For example, I was able to identify full sentences that did not add any content or value to the document and advised they be removed. Carman also provided me with helpful advice to improve my definition. I was surprised to see a few grammatical and sentence structure errors that were so obvious after they were pointed out. I learned that despite my proof-reading, there is no comparison to having an external source of feedback. The peer review process was helpful in both giving and receiving feedback to my definitions and overall writing skills.
Revision Process
Once I received feedback on my definitions, I had the opportunity to apply them to my work and publish a revised version of the document. The feedback I was given was polite, well formatted, and helpful. The most useful piece was the comments on unnecessary words in long sentences. I reread the entire document with a critical eye and surprised myself with how much I could remove while still communicating the same information. Carman was specific while pointing out where there were grammatical errors which was helpful and efficient for me to apply in the revision process. I also appreciated her ability to point out what was working well, so I knew to avoid changing those sections. Reading the document over, I’m impressed at the improvement and quality of my work. I learned that the process of writing, self-reviewing, peer-reviewing, and then applying feedback results in high quality work.