For the definition assignment for ENGL 301 students were required to pick an audience of “non-technical readers” and choose a relatively complex term to define for the target audience. The term was to be defined using three different types of definitions: parenthetical, sentence, and expansion. Next, students were required to have one of their writing team members peer review their definition assignment. It was encouraged that students critically analyze their partner’s work and give constructive feedback in order to help their partner improve their assignment. Below are my thoughts on the original writing, peer review, and editing process.
Original Writing:
Having gone through the process of writing my definition assignment on mitochondria, I can confidently say that I appreciate the importance and the role of definitions in technical writing. One of the parts of the assignment that I found very challenging was keeping in mind the purpose and the audience. At times, I would use words that seem quite simple and easy in my mind, but after reading over my writing I would notice that I was using quite a bit of science jargon. Thus, I had to go back and revise my assignment multiple times using simpler words but there were some words I had a hard time trying to get rid of. However, things became much simpler when I reflected on the purpose of the assignment and what I have learned throughout the process. After a bit of reflection, I found this assignment to be quite rewarding in many ways. For instance, even though the requirements of this assignment were to write one parenthetical definitions, I actually wrote four. Three of the parenthetical definitions I used made it easier for me to keep three of my science jargons by briefly explaining them. This made the process much easier for me while transforming my writing into a piece that is easily understood by those who are new to the mitochondria world. Furthermore, I am glad to know that my technical writing skills are already improving and that I have gained the natural instinct to use the techniques I have learned throughout this assignment. It is very rewarding being able to produce and differentiate between the levels of detail in the different types of definitions.
Peer Review Process:
I have never written a peer review before, so after reviewing Manraj Athwal’s definition assignment and writing a peer review on it, I definitely understand the importance of a peer review and how helpful it could be. The peer review was a very simple, yet formal way for my writing team member partner and I to give constructive feedback to one another. Going through Manraj’s assignment, there were certain things I noticed that I wish I had noticed on my own assignment when writing it. I was easily able to break my suggestions down into organized categories to provide the best type of support. Manraj has a great writing style and I really liked the expansion expansion strategies he used. Furthermore, even though there was one unexplained science jargon in Manraj’s assignment, one of my favorite parts of his assignment was that he continued to stay with his target audience. He was able to commit to the basic purpose of the assignment and to explain his definitions using words and phrases that would not trouble new learners on the topic of mitosis. This is certainly something I have taken into account as I start to edit my own definition assignment. Overall, this peer review process was very rewarding, as I had chance to help improve my classmate’s assignment while learning about how I can improve my own assignment and technical writing as a whole. Lastly, I should mention that the textbook we have for this course is very useful, as it is very clear regarding the guidelines required for the different types of technical communications such as peer reviews.
The Editing Process:
I found the editing part of this assignment very useful. Manraj Athwal’s peer review of my assignment was very well structured, which made his suggestions very easy for me to follow and understand. Manraj suggested that some of the science jargon I used should be eliminated if I plan on getting my point across to my target audience. For this reason, I eliminated most of the complex science words I used; however for those that I thought I should keep, I added a parenthetical definition to help my audience follow along and understand everything. Another suggestion that was very useful from the peer review of my assignment was regarding the in-text citations of my references. Revisions were made to address these minor issues. The editing process taught me that technical writing does not come easily. Sometimes it takes some editing to be able to create a technical piece of writing with as little flaws as possible. For now, with the help of our technical writing team, these peer review activities are designed to help us improve our technical writing assignments, however, in the near future we must become more comfortable and skilled in reviewing and editing our own pieces of writing, as we work towards becoming better technical writers.
Overall, through the first unit of this course, I have definitely improved my writing techniques in order to write professional letters of application, memos, emails, definitions and peer reviews. This has been a great start to the course. I am very excited for what lies ahead and I hope to continue to improve my technical writing skills through the rest of the course.
Edited Definitions Assignment: definition-assignment
My Peer’s Review of the Assignment: Peer Review by Manraj