Three Definitions
After creating a technical writing blog, practicing techniques for writing professional documents, and forming writing teams with our peers, Unit 1 introduced our first major assignment- Three Definitions. The objective of this assignment was to write three definitions, a parenthetical definition, a sentence definition, and an expanded definition on a particular technical term related to our discipline and crafting the definition for a non-technical audience. The assignment was followed by an opportunity for team members to peer-review each others’ assignments, allowing students to gather direct feedback on their writing skills and to practice giving constructive feedback. The peer review process was beneficial for students to examine their work from a different perspective and utilize the constructive feedback to hone their writing abilities.
Peer Review
The process of defining ‘Immune Imprinting’ clearly and concisely for a non-technical audience was more challenging than I initially expected. I tried to limit my use of technical jargon but Dave brought to my attention that certain terms such as ‘antigenically-similar’ and ‘hemagglutination’ may confuse readers without an immunology background and suggested including a short description of the terms. As an immunology student, these terms were second nature to me. Through the peer review process, I learned that I should be more conscientious of the audience’s unfamiliarity with the subject. Thanks to Dave’s feedback I was able to revise my work and edit my situation and my definitions to communicate more clearly to a non-technical audience.
Writing a peer review for Dave’s definition of ‘Machine Learning’ was a highly informative process. Upon initial read, I truly enjoyed Dave’s definition and had trouble identifying any glaring errors in his assignment. It took several reads to critically analyze each component of the definition and note specific highlights and weaknesses and find areas of improvement. It was also challenging as critiquing the work of others is never easy to do. Similar to myself, I noticed that Dave also used technical jargon that would be familiar to readers in a different discipline. I realized that many of us faced similar challenges as the terms we’ve selected are likely commonly used in our respective fields. As both Dave and I appreciated the others’ visual components, I realized that visuals are an incredibly useful vessel of communication. This makes sense as it is commonly known that pictures are worth a thousand words.
Overall, this assignment was very helpful for learning how to write for non-technical audiences. The peer review process was very helpful to identify weaknesses in our writing and highlighted the importance of word choice and visual components when it comes to effective technical communication.