Unit One gave me a taste of what technical writing is about and how applicable it can be for my professional future. Using effective means of communication with peers was a big part of that process. Throughout this unit I gained an understanding of how to format professional emails, memorandums and letters. The end of the unit focused on taking a word I am familiar with and explaining the definition to a less-knowledgeable audience. However, perhaps the most important portion of the end of the unit was being involved in a peer review process.
I originally came in with the expectation that the definitions assignment would be fairly simple. To an extent this was true, however, trying to explain a familiar word can be difficult without practice. To provide an analogy, this is like when an athlete is asked to break down their mechanics of how they do something. For some, the process can be extremely difficult to try and explain because they are used to “just doing it” without understanding the process or needing to explain to someone who does not “just know”. This is how I felt in this situation. I chose “cognitive dissonance” as I found this term may be a relatable feeling that many of my peers have encountered but are not be familiar with. As I wrote this definition out, I felt as though I was repeating myself, explaining the same thing over and over again.
I found the peer review process to be difficult but enjoyable. Having an outsider’s perspective who can critique my writing is valuable. Occasionally, when I have a close friend peer review my work they get worried to give honest criticism because they think this could come off as offensive. Not that I would be offended at all, but providing any kind of criticism can be considered an uncomfortable situation. This is how I feel in peer review processes at times. You really have to throw your pride aside and accept the help. At the same time, I enjoyed reading Hilton’s definition and seeing ways that his term “post-activation potentiation” could improve. At one point I questioned my own abilities about whether or not I would give effective suggestions that he could use, but I also got excited that over this course I will improve and become more knowledgeable with providing suggestions. Having a class dedicated to writing and working among a group is a new experience for me. I was not sure how much information to provide in terms of giving him suggestions to change, but I found his definition solid overall.
When I received my feedback I was not surprised with the opinion that I include some redundant words. I am really trying to cut back on that. I feel as though I try to add unnecessary words to sound “smarter” or “fancier” in my assignments. However, I understand that in these situations, clear and concise is the stronger statement. I appreciated my peers feedback and believe that his suggestions have led to a better and more put together definition than before. His remarks were informative and specific about where I could improve and I enjoyed getting the chance to improve my assignment.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
Claire
Click the following link to see my revised definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2020wa/2020/10/07/revised-definition-5/
Click the following link to see my peer’s review of my definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2020wa/2020/10/05/74218/