As Unit One of distanced English 301 comes to a close, I have learned a great deal consisting of techniques in the formulation of professional letters, emails, memos and definitions. During this period of time, I have started a blog, formed a team of talented writers and peer reviewed my first document in this course. The following reflection will outline and discuss my experience with the original writing assignment, the peer review process, and the editing process afterwards.
The definitions assignment made me pay attention to the clarity, purpose and efficiency of my writing. Normally, I am surrounded with individuals who are adept in the same knowledge that I am, which causes me to speak in a way that may seem jargon to others who are a non-technical audience. Thus, I found it frustrating in having to repeat information that is considered common knowledge for individuals in my field. After hours of rewriting, I felt defeated and tried to communicate my ideas using as few technical words so that those without prior knowledge on the subject could comprehend the document. The assignment repeatedly reminded me to write clear and concisely. With much time, I was eventually able to form a concise and simple document for the definition of deixis.
I greatly enjoyed the peer review process as I am often tasked with reviewing papers for both friends and peers. It is always enlightening and interesting to compare and contrast the different writing styles, and learn from others where I find interest. In my process, I followed the peer review templated and created a detailed document outlining the issues and strengths in Cathy’s paper. As I have taken multiple psychology courses in the past, I am somewhat experienced in the jargon and background knowledge relating to the field. In Cathy’s document, she focused on its context, such as its history and applications, providing a great example for the reader to understand the definition. However, I found that Cathy could have created a more solid situation to ground her definition. It was helpful to practice identifying specific problem areas in writing and learning how to convey constructive criticism in a professional tone and friendly manner.
Lastly, the self-editing process was relatively easy with. I greatly appreciate Cathy’s feedback as it was specific and identified areas that required more work. Through following her suggestion, I added the visual aspect of my document and provided more elaboration on areas that seemed vague, such as lines where I used “something.” Additionally, I realized that I had falsely assumed interlocutors as a common term. Following Cathy’s suggestion, I replaced interlocutors with simply speakers to provide enough information without over-simplifying the definition. Overall, the task was difficult but rewarding; I found that it takes much deliberation when carefully plucking words or phrases to a non-technical environment. This experience greatly differs from my experience with children. I look forward to the upcoming assignments and the opportunities to improve my writing even more.