Alex's UBC Blog

Introduction

Over the course of Unit 2, several assignments have been prepared and submitted.  A proposal and progress report for a Formal Report was written, a survey to conduct primary data collection was created, and a memorandum providing tips on creating an effective LinkedIn profile was drafted. Each of these assignments provided me with an opportunity to improve my writing abilities.

LinkedIn Profile Tips

Conducting research to identify tips for creating an effective LinkedIn profile was an enlightening experience. I have had a LinkedIn profile for several years, however I had never taken the time to learn how to make the profile as effective as it could be. There were several tips that I uncovered that I could use myself. The first is to add detailed descriptions to my work history. Currently, I have only listed out the position titles and dates. Another tip that I uncovered was to create an intriguing headline. This is one of the first details that profile viewers will see, and so it acts as a good way to capture their attention. I haven’t yet written a headline, so this will be another good improvement that I can make to my profile. The third most impactful improvement I found I could make to my profile is to increase the number of connections that I have. It seems that somewhere between 150 to 400 connections indicates to recruiters and potential employers that one is well versed at professional networking. I have fewer connections than the lower limit, so I could spend more time being active on the site and connecting with past co-workers and my current colleagues. I am excited to have identified areas for improvement within my LinkedIn profile, and am curious to see what opportunities will come about as a result of addressing them!

Report Proposal and Outline

Several of the assignments that were submitted during this unit revolved around the Formal Report for the course. The first of these assignments was to create a proposal for the report, the second was to create an outline for it, and the third was to create a peer-review for a partner’s report proposal.

Brainstorming the initial idea for my own report was a bit challenging for me. The guidelines for the assignment indicated that we should look for ideas focusing on some improvement that could be made within our workplace, or within an organization we are involved with. I am not currently working or involved with any organizations, so this presented a bit of a challenge. In the weeks prior to the assignment being due, the University of British Columbia had transitioned from online course delivery to in-person delivery. Shortly after this change occurred, it seemed to me that my workload had become significantly heavier. I realized after a week that it wasn’t that I had more work to do, it was just that I was now spending 10 hours per week commuting where this was free time before. I spoke with a few other students and they felt the same way. Commuting was also impacting the amount of time that they had to study and work on school assignments. From here, my topic for the report was clear. I wanted to investigate the feasibility of making Computer Science courses available both online and in-person so that students with long commutes could save time by staying at home several days per week. I included the focus on Computer Science courses, as in my experience, most labs, lectures, and tutorials could be successfully facilitated in an online and in-person setting.

After I had the idea, the details of the report proposal came fairly naturally. To investigate the feasibility of switching to this hybrid course delivery model, I figured I would need to determine student interest in the idea, as well as identify challenges in setting up this model from course instructors. It seemed like surveying the student population and interviewing several instructors would be the best method to collect the required information.

Drafting the report outline provided a great step at organizing the contents of the report. I found this helpful in determining which aspects of the report I will be able to write first, and which will need to be completed after the primary and secondary research are completed. From here, it helped to plan out the timeline for completion of the research and the various sections of the report. I was initially hesitant about the amount of time that was available to complete the first draft of the Formal Report, but with the outline and timeline in place, I have gained more confidence that this can be done. The outline also helped to narrow down the secondary research topics that would be required to flush out all aspects of the investigation.

Peer Review Process

After submitting the proposal for the Formal Report, I had the opportunity to conduct a peer review for a partner’s proposal. I reviewed Trisha Bhamra’s Proposal for Improving Environmental Practices at Flagship Dental to Reduce its Carbon Footprint. I learned quite a bit in reading the proposal and in providing feedback. In reading the proposal, I became aware of the extent of waste generated from dental practices. A significant portion of this waste comes about as a result of sanitization practices. I also became aware of the fact that there are green alternatives for sanitization products. I had assumed that in order to keep dental practices sanitary, the use of single-use plastics was inevitable. However, it appears as though green alternatives for several products do exist. I am interested in reading the completed Formal Report to learn about the feasibility of adopting green alternatives in favour of single-use plastics. From a writing standpoint, I found that acronyms that may seem familiar within an industry context are not necessarily clear to those outside of the industry. For example, there was mention of “CDAs”, which was an acronym I was not familiar with. This was a point that I asked for clarification on. I also learned about the importance of providing several different examples of the problem at hand. In Trisha’s proposal, there was one example of a single use product that was mentioned in several locations. This left the impression that this was the only single use product that could be replaced with a green alternative. I left a comment about this in the peer review. It signaled to me that in my own writing, I should take care to provide multiple examples where possible to effectively communicate the scope of the issue at hand.

The peer review process has been very helpful for improving my writing as well. It was made clear to me in the review I received for the report proposal that I had made claims that were not substantiated, or had written about topics without providing proper context. In one area of my proposal it was pointed out to me that I claimed I could create a series of survey and interview questions without bias, however I had not backed this up. I had also written about the hybrid, in-person, and online course delivery models without providing sufficient background information. This indicates to me that I need to continue to work on reviewing my own writing from an external perspective. Having the issues pointed out by a peer helps to identify the weak areas in my writing and self-review process, which I can aim to improve going forward.

Reading other work provided by team members in my writing group has also helped to identify areas for improvement in my writing, primarily in reading peer reviews of others’ work. For example, my group member Kashish reviewed the proposal of another team member and provided some suggestions to improve wordy sentences and tone in certain areas. These are suggestions that I can also keep in mind going forward, to maintain a positive tone and brevity in my work.

Conclusion

Unit 2 in ENGL 301 has proven to be fantastic for learning about the writing process for formal reports, and for developing an understanding of how to set up an effective professional networking profile on LinkedIn. I am looking forward to further assignments in the course as opportunities to develop my writing abilities.

Revised Report Proposal URL: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99c-2021wc/2022/02/15/88129/

Received Peer Review URL: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99c-2021wc/2022/02/18/peer-review-for-research-proposal-by-alexander-clements/

The following questions are planned to be used for interviews with Computer Science department staff. The intention is to collect information from the department’s perspective on the benefits and challenges of running courses online vs. in-person. This will lead to several questions about running Computer Science courses in the hybrid online/in-person format.

 

Questions

1. Can you describe the benefits of delivering a course online that are not present in in-person course delivery?
2. Can you describe any benefits of delivering a course in person that are not present in online course delivery?
3. Is there a format of course delivery that you prefer?
4. In general, does the online method of course delivery introduce any challenges? Any additional costs?
5. Based on your experience, do you imagine it would be feasible to deliver courses both online and in-person simultaneously? Why or why not?
6. If it is not feasible to deliver every Computer Science course in the hybrid format, are there specific courses that would be feasible?

Writing Process

In the first unit of ENGL 301, we were each tasked with writing three definitions for a technical term relating to our program discipline. We were also asked to provide an introduction to the assignment, which included a scenario describing a situation in which one may provide a definition of the technical term. The term I chose was “cloud architecture”. The “cloud” is a term that is often thrown around in various capacities when discussing modern software. While I originally wanted to write about this term, it is very broad. I decided that “cloud architecture”, which focuses on the specifics of how cloud services are set up, was better suited to this assignment.

With a term in mind, we wrote three separate definitions – a parenthetical definition, a sentence definition, and an expanded definition. A parenthetical definition is one that can be used to briefly explain a term within a sentence. This is typically just a few words. The sentence definition is typically one to two sentences long and provides the writer with an additional opportunity to explain the concepts surrounding the chosen term. The expanded definition is a multi-faceted approach in explaining a term. The writer has the opportunity to write on the operating principle, provide visuals, or even elaborate on the etymology of the term. In my case, for a non-technical audience, I chose to write on the operating principle, display a visual, break down the term into different parts for explanation, and then compare the term with another, more familiar term. I found that it was actually quite difficult to write an expanded definition, as it required a deep understanding of the subject matter – certainly more research was required than expected. I also found the parenthetical definition to be difficult. It required careful word selection to maintain brevity and clarity. Providing an introduction to the assignment was a good exercise as well, to reinforce the fact that the target was a non-technical audience and that there will be cases where these types of definitions are required (especially in cases of client-facing documentation).

Peer Review Process

After writing the three definitions for our chosen term, we were provided with the opportunity to provide a peer review for one of our writing teammates. My teammate’s chosen term was “gingivitis”. While this was a term that I was vaguely familiar with, I did learn quite a bit by reading more into the symptoms of gingivitis, and the etymology of the word. Throughout this portion of the assignment, I learned how to be more methodical in performing a peer review. Dr. Paterson provided guidelines that were very helpful in learning how to properly structure a review of this nature. When conducting peer reviews in the past, I mostly reviewed for grammar and general legibility. Since this was grouped into one section of this peer review, it forced me to think about the remainder of the content more critically. Most importantly, this peer review helped to organize my thoughts around suggestions for improvement in my partner’s work.

Self-Editing / Revision Process

The final portion of the assignment was to perform a self-edit and revision of the original work. Reading comments from my peer review partner, I found it interesting to note the perspective of those outside of the tech field. Having studied and worked in technology for the better part of five years, it is easy to forget that terms which seem commonplace in industry can be completely foreign to those outside the field. For example, in my expanded definition of “cloud architecture”, I had used the terms “end user”, “front end” and “back end”. These had become so embedded in my own vocabulary that I hadn’t realized to a non-technical audience, they required their own explanation. I found that this causes one to think critically about the inclusion of industry jargon when defining other terms – are they required? Do they add anything? Is there an alternative phrasing that could be used? Ultimately it was decided that the terms “front-end” and “back-end” did not add anything to the definition of “cloud architecture” for a non-technical audience, and were therefore removed. The term “end user” was replaced with “software application user” as this was felt to be more descriptive for a broader audience.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I learned quite a bit in completing this assignment. I learned of the different types of definitions that can be required of a technical term, how to effectively write and structure these definitions, and how to properly structure a peer review to provide the most impactful suggestions for improvement. Most importantly, I learned to think more critically about my own writing by considering various perspectives. I’m certainly looking forward to the next assignments in the course as further opportunities to improve my writing!

To: varneega.theva10@gmail.com

From: clements.alexander@outlook.com

Date: January 24, 2022

Subject: ENGL 301 Team Invitation

 

Dear Varneega,

I would like to invite you to join a writing team for the ENGL 301 class this semester. After reading your Bio and Application Letter posted on your UBC blog, I believe that we would make an excellent team. I thought it was interesting to see that we are both in the Bachelor of Computer Science program!

I have several years of professional experience in software consulting, where I developed time management, organization, and communication skills. I have had the opportunity to work extensively on technical documentation as well. I think this will compliment your attention to detail, creativity, and team collaboration skills that you’ve outlined in your Application Letter. As I come from an Engineering background and yourself a Bio / Psychology background, I imagine that we would benefit from sharing different perspectives when preparing writing assignments. I have attached my own application letter below, for your review.

Please consider my invitation and let me know if you have any questions, or if you would like to accept my invitation.

Thank you,

Alex

Enclosure: 301 Alexander Clements Application Letter

To: hansol94@student.ubc.ca

From: clements.alexander@outlook.com

Date: January 24, 2021

Subject: ENGL 301 Team Invitation

 

Dear Hansol,

I would like to invite you to join a writing team for the ENGL 301 class this semester. After reading your Bio and Application Letter posted on your UBC blog, I believe that we would make an excellent team – especially since we are both studying computer science!

Similar to yourself, I have several years of professional experience. My experience is in software consulting, where I developed time management, organization, and communication skills. I have had the opportunity to work extensively on technical documentation as well. I think this will complement your analysis skills, and experience outlined in your Application Letter. As I come from an Engineering background and yourself a Marketing background, I imagine that we would benefit from sharing different perspectives when preparing writing assignments. I have attached my own application letter to this email, for your review.

Please consider my invitation and let me know if you have any questions, or if you would like to accept my invitation.

Thank you,

Alex

Enclosure: 301 Alexander Clements Application Letter

To: katherine.chan@ubc.ca

From: clements.alexander@outlook.com

Date: January 24, 2022

Subject: ENGL 301 Team Invitation

 

Dear Katherine,

I would like to invite you to join a writing team for the ENGL 301 class this semester. After reading your Bio and Application Letter posted on your UBC blog, I believe that we would make an excellent team. I thought it was interesting to see that we are both in the Bachelor of Computer Science program!

I have several years of professional experience. My experience is in software consulting, where I developed time management, organization, and communication skills. I have had the opportunity to work extensively on technical documentation as well. I think this will complement your strong work ethic, adaptability, and collaboration skills outlined in your Application Letter. As I come from an Engineering background and yourself a Behavioural Neuroscience background, I imagine that we would benefit from sharing different perspectives when preparing writing assignments. I have attached my own application letter below, for your review.

Please consider my invitation and let me know if you have any questions, or if you would like to accept my invitation.

Thank you,

Alex

Enclosure: 301 Alexander Clements Application Letter

To: Dr. Erika Paterson

From: Alexander Clements, ENGL 301 Student

Date: January 19, 2021

Subject: Application Letter Posted to Blog

Please note that, as required in the ENGL 301 course schedule, I have posted the enclosed application letter to my UBC blog. This letter summarizes:

• My search for a writing team for the semester
• An overview of my professional experience and academic achievements
• A summary of my strengths and weaknesses with respect to my work ethic and writing ability

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks.

Enclosure: 301 Alexander Clements Application Letter

2970 E 6 Ave

Vancouver, BC

V5M 1S1

 

January 19, 2021

 

ENGL 301

The University of British Columbia

2329 West Mall

Vancouver, BC

V6T 1Z4

 

Subject: Writing Assignment Group

Dear ENGL 301 Classmates:

Please consider my application for entry to your ENGL 301 writing team. I believe that my work ethic and experience make me an excellent addition to your group.

I am currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Computer Science program, which is my second degree.  I completed my first degree in Petroleum Engineering at the University of Alberta, where I graduated with First Class Standing. Following this, I worked for four years as a consultant for a software company called Copperleaf Technologies. In this role, I was responsible for conducting requirements gathering workshop sessions, writing software specifications, and coordinating development, testing, and deployment activities. I managed multiple concurrent projects, managing the cost, scope, and schedule for each.  Despite this background, my professional interests have turned toward software development.

My experience at Copperleaf Technologies provided me with several competencies that will be valuable in this course: an ability to manage projects, and strong attention to detail. Below, I’ve included a list of my strengths and weaknesses regarding my work ethic and writing ability:

Strengths:

• Very driven and will not settle for low-quality work.
• Work well in team settings.
• Can effectively manage time.

Weaknesses:

• Writing can lack conciseness.
• Occasionally have difficulties linking ideas in writing.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my application. If you believe that I would make a good fit for your team, please reach out to me at clements.alexander@outlook.com. I look forward to speaking with you further.

Regards,

Alexander Clements

301 Alexander Clements Application Letter