Hello Classmates,

After a short break, I’m happy to have the chance to write on my blog again. The work for the last assignment, in which we explored definition writing, was located mainly on the team forum. This class has been in session for less than one month and I have already learned how to navigate two discussion websites that were completely new to me. I am feeling more and more computer-savvy with each passing unit.

The assignment began with textbook examples and instructions on how to develop definitions. Specific guidelines were introduced concerning how we should carefully select terminology that matches the reader’s level of understanding. After going back and forth a bit, I finally settled on periodontitis as the term I would introduce to my audience. While writing, I tried to follow textbook lessons on conciseness, active voice, clarity, wordiness, and redundancy. I ran into a little confusion along the way regarding how my document should be presented. I had developed all of the different types of definitions, but then wondered if I should use them to create a document that the audience would actually read. The problem with this formula was that I could not name the types of expansions in the expanded section or identify the particular sentence that I wanted to considered as the sentence definition. I did my best to make it clear without sacrificing the authenticity of my periodontal information pamphlet.

The second step was peer review. My partner had written about an urban planning term, which was slightly familiar to me because my sister is an urban planner. My partner had put together a great document. I used the peer review form to guide me in providing feedback. It was an interesting process because as I was evaluating my teammate’s work, I realized ways in which my own document could be improved. It also gave me some perspective on how professors evaluate students’ work.

My partner provided me with some helpful feedback. She addressed specific details and how the document worked as a whole. For example: did it meet it’s goal of educating the reader in an undemanding manner. As it turns out, my concerns about my document’s form were not unfounded; my partner was also somewhat confused about which definition was which. She also noted that my work lacked flow. I think this happened because I was trying to do too much at the same time: make my definitions obvious and still create a plausible reading situation. I was also very focused on choosing the right words and didn’t pay enough attention to whether one thought transitioned smoothly to the next.

I decided to take a couple of days to digest the feedback and to decide whether I should abandon the patient document idea. I find that taking a step back helps me to gain perspective and inspiration. I figured out a way to be specific without having to dispose of my original idea completely. In my revised version, I listed the definitions and then included the periodontal information/welcome sheet separately. By doing this, I was able to be clear in identifying the different forms of definitions as well as achieve better flow in the patient’s document. I eliminated some repetition and corrected some errors I had made in APA in-text citation. I feel much more confident about my final product.

I learned that I need to keep things simple if I want to be clear. I also realize that I should pause periodically while working on a piece of writing to allow for fresh ideas. My partner’s suggestions were constructive and honest, but maintained a professional tone. I am grateful for her insight and I hope that I was helpful in her writing process as well.

Revised definitions document: Periodontitis definitions

Peer review report:

Peer Review for Christina Hruby