Introduction
The Three Definitions assignment allowed us to explore the different ways we can define terms and when we should use each definition. It also gave us the experience of writing peer reviews and editing our own work. Throughout this assignment, I learned a lot about the process of writing a decent piece of work as well as the importance of collaboration during this process.
Initial Approach to the Three Definitions Assignment
When I initially wrote my three definitions on the term, “neuroplasticity”, I found it difficult to explain a term that I studied in-depth with simple, lay-terms. At first, I tried to make my expanded definition as detailed as possible to grasp the whole concept, but then I realized that the intended audience did not need a complete understanding of the term. As a result, I changed my definition for simplicity rather than detail. It was difficult to know exactly what questions people would be asking, especially from the perspective of someone knowing the term. So, I used more anecdotal and broader descriptions of the term, as I thought about it in the view of the audience who only wants to know the general idea of “neuroplasticity”.
Peer Review Process
For the peer review, the team partnered up depending level of knowledge for each term, based on lack of knowledge. Initially, I went through the expanded definition in the perspective of my peer’s intended audience. I found this particularly useful in suggesting any additions or improvements to the definition. From my experience of writing an expanded definition, I suggested specific aspects I had that my partner missed. This process also opened me to different ways of defining something, such as providing multiple examples. Overall, the peer review process allowed me to identify things that I was missing in my definition as well as share my ideas from a different perspective.
Editing Process
In the editing process of my definition, I took all of the suggestions in the peer-review as I thought they were valid points that I had missed in my original writing. For instance, the organization of the origin and development of the word made a lot more sense, in terms of flow and readability, when it was put before the “What is Neuroplasticity?” paragraph. I also took my peer’s advice of breaking down my sentences. Additionally, I took the ideas from my review of my peer’s definition, and added it to my own. For instance, I created a description for my image and provided more examples in the definition.
Conclusion
Generally, I thought the whole process was very useful and important in creating good writing. It helped me gain a lot of different perspectives by reading someone else’s work as well as knowing what others thought of mine. Thus, I was able to approach my original writing with a fresh mind, given a different perspective. The textbook reading on editing also helped a lot when providing suggestions to my peers as well as editing my own work. I also learned that people have various ways of approaching a writing prompt. Having that collaboration aspect and revisiting the same piece is very important, especially when you are writing for a specific target audience.
301-Definitions-Peer-Review-Jonathan-Ho
301 Ashley Yuan Revised Three Definitions
Image Source: https://www.planeta.com/tourism-definitions/