One of the most underrated skills working professionals have is the ability to explain complex terms in a digestible manner to individuals who are not familiar with them. Breaking down complex words can be very challenging; not only does it require sophistication, patience, and expertise, but communicating effectively and in writing plays crucial roles in explaining complex terms to non-technical readers.
What I learned from my original writing of my complex term, opportunity cost, was the urge not to use similar words adjacent to my complex term. I found this problematic since “opportunity cost” is not the most intuitive term to read. With my background in economics and finance, the concept of opportunity cost was one of the more complicated terms to learn and apply, and it took years of learning the core principles of behavioral economics to grasp my complex term fully. I believe that this is where I could have improved. My goal should have been more focused on scoping down the complex term and using simpler words that don’t lead the reader to more questions. Furthermore, I should have also put myself in the shoes of a non-technical person seeing “opportunity cost” for the first time. This alternative method might have put me in a better mindset to use more regulatory words and leverage my expertise in explaining it.
As a peer reviewer, my approach to reviewing Miranda’s complex term was going in with an open mind and excitement to learn something new. While editing Miranda’s complex word, “The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions,” I learned the multi-faceted levels of emotions and their flows and cycles relating to appraisals, environment, and goals. I found it interesting to see how my classmates took their approach to define complex terms. Miranda seems to be an expert in this field and within the topic of emotions, as Miranda’s description was easily digestible, simple, and precise. Reading Miranda’s definition inspires me to explain complex problems more straightforwardly rather than overcomplicate the issue. For example, asking myself, “is this going to make sense when they read this even if they don’t have any prior knowledge?” or “is the person reading going to understand the main idea quickly, or is it going to be too difficult?”. These are the questions I want to ask myself, as this will help me provide the best feedback possible.
From my previous experience, making it perfect on the first try is very difficult. However, with my peers’ help, I received constructive feedback on improving my definition further. The central aspect I learned from the editing process was the importance of having another eye and perspective reading my work. Despite going through the editing phase, I was bound to miss a mistake. As a result, having a peer review my work with a fresh eye, the chances of catching a mistake, changing the writing flow, or implementing value-added additions can drastically improve the quality of my work, and learn from their suggestions. The feedback helped clarify my thought process as I feel more confident making changes that reflect a more concrete and precise definition. The editing process is an opportunity to learn, an experience I am grateful for and will leverage as I grow my technical writing skills.
With technical writing integrated with almost all aspects of a professional setting, clearly defining complex definitions, peer reviewing, and reflecting on the experiences are vital to improving as a professional. These skills will always be prevalent in everyday life, so developing these skills was valuable. In the future, I am confident that I will use what I learned from this lesson and become the best technical writer I can be.
Here below is the revised definition: