In Unit 1, we set up our student blogs and learned more about our classmates through our bios and letters of application. It was interesting to see how many students come from a scientific background, and the collective breadth of academic and professional experience in the class. I enjoyed creating my personal blog and the process of reaching out and creating a team with my classmates. As we come to the end of Unit 1, here are some of my reflections regarding the latest pieces of work completed and lessons from each:
Definition writing: Having used the term ‘naloxone’ in a professional environment for quite some time, it was a helpful exercise to try to define it in such a way that anyone – regardless of academic background or public health knowledge – could understand. The majority of my work products have been for consumption by the research community, where some level of subject-specific knowledge is expected. The parenthetical definition in particular presented an important challenge of defining a new term in very few words and relying only on the context of the sentence to help the reader’s understanding, while the sentence definition offered some leeway in this regard. The expanded definition was a good exercise in including more information but knowing where to stop. Of course, any word or term could have pages-long expanded definitions, so I enjoyed the exercise of choosing what as most important or useful for the audience in the chosen situation.
Peer review process: After our definitions were posted, our team agreed that I would review Evan’s definition of ‘scaffolding’, while Mitchell would review my definition. I enjoyed reviewing Evan’s assignment, and felt that I learnt a lot from reading through his definitions. I found it challenging to put my recommendations in writing in such a way that would make it clear and easy to follow my recommendations. Often, I can read a sentence and while there is nothing particularly wrong with that sentence, I sometimes have the feeling that it sounds ‘awkward’. Through the peer-review exercise I discovered that these sorts of edits are related to ‘flow’. Overall, I found that I enjoyed the editing process, and found it helpful to go through each section and organise the review in the same way as the original assignment.
Editing process: Concurrently, Mitchell revised my definitions assignment and posted his review on our team forum. I always find it helpful to get a second pair of eyes on my work, and I enjoyed reading Mitchell’s revisions. It brought my attention to the fact that I tend to use some jargon in my writing, like the word ‘ampoule’ (another word for ‘vial’). Using these technical terms casually in my writing is a remnant of the scientific writing process that I am accustomed to, and it is helpful when someone outside of my field is able to spot these and bring them to my attention. After receiving the peer review, I went through my original definitions and applied the feedback provided. Mitchell organised his review in a way that was easy to follow and apply to my work, which I appreciated.
My original definition of naloxone for Assignment 1:3 can be found here.
Mitchell’s peer review of my definition can be found here.
The revised definition of naloxone, with Mitchell’s revisions incorporated, can be found here,
Looking forward to unit two!
Amina Moustaqim-Barrette