Unit 1 Reflection Blog
Writing the first draft of the Technical Definition
In the first unit of ENGL 301 we were presented with the challenge of writing a definition for a technical term for a non-technical audience. While I have experience preparing materials for a technical audience (members in my field of study) I seldom have the opportunity to present to a non-technical audience. My term of choice was “Bioequivalent Medication” stemming from my background of being a pharmacist. Part of this assignment was to write three different types of definitions; parenthetical, sentence, and expanded. Each definition increases in the breadth and detail of the definition. The expanded definition is the most robust definition and within it there are several methods to help explain a topic including the history of the term and the etymology. It was interesting to see how only some of the expanded methods were appropriate to my term of choice. Explaining the history behind bioequivalent medications and the stepwise process of how bioequivalence is achieved allowed me to explain more technical terms without the needless jargon. A few challenges that I faced during the assignment was filtering out technical terms which I used to support my definition. Furthermore, using appropriate expansion methods took some time, as I was focussed on picking the clearest methods for my non-technical audience. Overall, this was a challenging assignment, but in completing it I found that this is a pivotal skill to have moving forward.
Peer Review Process
For this part of the assignment, I was partnered with a member of my team (James Edralin) and tasked with reviewing his technical definition, while he reviewed mine. This was an extremely helpful portion of the assignment, as I was able to compare my techniques to James’. Being a member of the non-technical audience reading about a new term provides excellent perspective for writing techniques that made it helpful for me to understand. For example, James’ followed a nice chronological expansion in his expanded definition. He went over the etymology, the history, how it’s made and tied it together nicely with a picture. As part of the review process, I was able to provide James with some constructive feedback and James was able to do the same to mine. James was able to highlight some areas that still had too much jargon, areas that as a non-audience member I had missed, and he pointed out some grammatical errors. I am grateful for the opportunity to receive feedback as well as being able to analyze a peer’s work.
Revision Process
After the peer review, I had gathered great feedback on the pitfalls of my definition, and I had gained valuable perspective of being an audience member. My team member provided excellent feedback and suggestions on how to implement some changes. Through this I was able to edit my definition to remove some jargon and expand on terms in a more digestible manner. Moreover, I was able to clean up my grammatical errors and change some sentence structures. Now my revised definition is more easily read and understood by a non-technical audience.
In conclusion, this was a methodical assignment where each step provided valuable knowledge towards developing a critical skill. I have a deeper appreciation for the value of learning a new skill, offering and receiving constructive feedback, and applying changes to revise and improve.
Link to Peer Review of my Definition: James Edralin Peer Review of Bioequivalent Medication
Link to Revised Definition: Bioequivalent Medication – Revised Definition