Drafting Definitions for Submission
The main goal of this unit was to examine different forms of professional communication. We developed professional communication skills by drafting application letters, emails, and memoranda for our peers as we geared up for the main assignment. The task for the main assignment was to investigate various types of definitions. We were instructed to use these definitions to familiarise an audience with a complex term. There were three types of definitions we had to use to define the complex term: parenthetical definition, sentence definition, and expanded definition. This assignment led me to take a moment to reflect and assess how the terminology that I often use in academia might be difficult for the average reader that have no background in linguistics. So, for this assignment, I decided to focus on the flow of my writing and how it came together to form a cohesive picture of the complex term I chose.
Peer Review with Byung-Sun
While I have experience with peer-reviewing, it has always been challenging for me as it is important to be considerate yet encouraging when giving feedback. Byung-Sun was my peer-review partner in our writing group for this assignment. He chose “automated testing,” a complex term often used when talking about software programming. I found it difficult to be critical of his writing as the errors he made were negligible at best. His assignment illustrated how he had a clear idea of how to write for his target audience. Moreover, he was clear and concise in changing each definition’s level of detail and mindful of the reading scenario he chose. However, I did suggest how to improve the flow of his writing. A few sentences needed re-working to give his audience a better experience when reading.
Revising Definitions for Submission
Byung-Sun gave me great feedback on my writing. He was thoughtful and succinct with the suggestions he made to help improve the quality of my assignment. While he found minimal grammatical errors. He did point out that I kept making the mistake of using personal pronouns throughout my writing. When he provided alternatives like using “audience” or “readers” instead of using “we,” which was a personal pronoun that was reoccurring in my writing. What became clear is how the assignment’s tone could have been interpreted as less professional.
Interestingly enough, I observed during editing that I made a few grammar mistakes that were the peer-review suggestions for Byung-Sun to fix in his assignment—for example, being careful with hyphenating words or what tense to use for verbs. It was a pleasure to read the thoughtful, constructive feedback he made. Moreover, it will enable me to be mindful when writing for future assignments in the course.
Concluding Thoughts on Unit 1
Overall, I found this process to be valuable. Reading my peer-review partner’s writing and his critique was refreshing. This assignment was an excellent opportunity to learn from another group member and apply what I learned from the first unit. I’m looking forward to collaborating on future assignments with everyone.