Throughout this unit, I learned how difficult it can be to write to a more non-technical audience. The disparity in the level of knowledge between individuals can vary so much and it is up to the writer to communicate this information effectively. Additionally, the peer review process made it apparent that more often than not, it is better to assume that the audience may not know a specific term. In the following blog, there will be more detail about what I learned writing the definitions, doing a peer review and then subsequently editing my own work.
Although I have done extensive writing in the past, there were still new lessons to glean from this assignment. When there is enough time to make multiple rounds of drafts to edit and review, I can produce my best work. Before writing any definitions, I typed down all the ideas that came to mind without thinking of syntax or style. The next step involved making sure that the definitions were easy enough to understand. One technique that helped was to walk away from the document and then read it out loud. Before submitting, I did one final round to improve the flow between sentences and make them as succinct as possible. My writing style relies on the integration of time-management as well in order to give myself the best timeline to produce acceptable results.
During the peer review process, I learned that having a multi-phase approach to editing can also be helpful. After reading my partner’s document, I was unsure where to begin providing suggestions or feedback. I was immediately impressed by the attention to detail that Catherine displays in her work. There were almost no grammatical errors, and I find that to be a weakness in my own writing. When I review another person’s document, I try to take some time to read it out loud and pay close attention to when I am confused or having trouble understanding the meaning of a sentence. After reading through the document, these sentences are revisited and I meticulously figure out how these sentences could be improved for clarity. Reading through the document with a specific purpose in mind for each iteration, helped me come up with feedback over time.
While editing my own work, it became apparent that my assumptions were incorrect in terms of what the average university student may know about Artificial Intelligence. There are easy corrections that can sometimes be missed. Whereas other readers could see and provide feedback. It is always insightful to see how different individuals provide feedback for my work. Each writer has different strengths and I aim to integrate aspects I learn from my peers into my own work. For this assignment, I reviewed Catherine’s peer review and then compiled the suggestion into a list. One by one, I edited the definitions page and did one more read through out loud.
Please find my revised definitions page and peer’s edit attached below.
https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2021wa/2021/10/04/peer-review-of-definition-for-machine-learning/