The Writing Process
In unit 1 of ENGL 301, we were tasked to write a technical definition of a complex term targeted toward a non-technical audience. We then got it peer-reviewed, reviewed a partner’s definition, and provided feedback.
I chose the term, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) from the medical field. Having honed the skills of articulating complex concepts into layman’s terms I assumed that writing a technical definition would have been easy. I was surprised to learn it was more challenging than anticipated, specifically, writing without using jargon or overcomplicating the explanation. I learned that there were three types of definitions. The first two definitions were the easiest to write. Firstly, parenthetical definitions are the shortest and use parenthesis to quickly expand or clarify terms. Secondly, sentence definitions are slightly longer than parenthetical sentences and are used to describe expressions. Lastly, expanded definitions use diverse methods to illustrate the term’s meaning.
I used the four methods in my expanded definition, which I thought would be most educational. The method of Required Conditions describes what an fMRI does. Visuals illustrated the machine and the images it produces. The Operating Principle explained how the machine works, and finally, the method of Negation demonstrated what an fMRI does not do. The most challenging to write was the Operating Condition method. It conventionally includes large amounts of jargon. It also required that I research precisely how an fMRI machine works and break down each step into comprehensive concepts. I struggled to write the least complicated explanation, and it took several attempts and revisions before getting it right. I chose to let a family member (who had no expertise in this field) read it before publishing it to gauge my success.
Peer Review Process
After our team had completed their definitions, I partnered with Michael Ly. We reviewed each other’s writing, and each provided feedback about the style and content. I admired the conciseness of my peer’s definitions and tried to apply that to my assignment. His formatting techniques (bolding instead of italicizing every subheader under the Expanded Definition) made the reading process undemanding and inspired me to see how I could improve my blog layout. I suggested making his Compare and Contrast method more coherent, which would help the audience envisage a clearer picture of Akathisia. My partner provided valuable feedback, especially regarding the Operating Principle section. He pointed out that hemoglobin was jargon and encouraged me to rewrite it differently. He recommended formatting tips and suggested some introductory/transitionary sentences to improve flow. Overall, I appreciated the peer review process. It gave me a new perspective and shined a spotlight on my blind spots (like too much jargon). Admittedly I found providing balanced (positive and critical) feedback challenging; I valued the tone of Michael’s review.
Revision Process
After the peer review, I received feedback to implement. My partner provided clear suggestions, and they were straightforward to execute. Michael had suggested advising the reader why an fMRI scanner is loud and small, which forced me to spend some time researching the answers to provide a correct definition. I successfully removed the jargon, namely the word hemoglobin, and simplified the concepts. I also reformatted my document with bold headings and rearrangement of the images, which improved visual appeal. My writing was clearer and easier to read post the revisions. I am grateful for the feedback and see the value of peer reviews. It was an enjoyable challenge to undertake.