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/