Writing the first draft of the technical definition
For the first unit of English 301, we were tasked to write a technical definition of a term within our discipline or specialization to a non-technical audience. It was an interesting challenge for me as I didn’t have this type of opportunity in my past writing experiences. The assignment requires us to provide parenthetical, sentence and expanded definitions for the established audience. The term I used was “Brutalism”, an architectural design term for my previous field. Upon doing what is assigned for us, I noticed the increase in detail as I finished through parenthetical to sentence definition. As I started the expanded definitions I learned the importance of breaking down the term into its core components and arranging them in a way where the flow creates a process of making the specified audience gradually understand the technical term I have introduced. At first, I got paralyzed in choosing what strategies I should use to strategically explain what the term was. In the end, I chose to use the following strategies by order: etymology, history, the core features of the architectural design, and comparing and contrasting it with a different style. This made the flow of information not only fully define what the term is, but also emphasize its importance engagingly to the audience. It was interesting that by doing this, I was also learning how to feed information on a complex term and present it in a way that was accessible and appealing.
Peer Review Process
The peer review process included one of our group members, Aman Johal, partnering up with me so he could evaluate the appropriateness of my definitions for the intended audience and vice versa. Reviewing Aman’s work was a great learning experience as it was impressively easy to understand considering it was a term (bioequivalent medication) I have never heard or used before, he also concluded it nicely by providing examples of the term on how it is being used today. The process ended with both of us reviewing our definitions constructively, while also highlighting the strengths and potential improvements of our work. In the end, it was one of the most productive parts of the assignment as we both learned valuable insights on how we can provide information better to different audiences and readers as we revise our work.
Revision Process
Upon finishing the peer review, I was inspired to mostly recreate one of my expanded definitions to make the process of providing information better to a non-technical audience. The main revision I wrote is my peer’s main issue from my work. Aman highlighted that while the flow was created nicely, I presented another complex term (minimalism) as part of my definition, he noted that my audience has a high probability that they would not have any knowledge of the term I used. Because of this, I recreated one of my expanded definitions, rather than using a comparison to another architectural design style (minimalism), I used examples and visuals to provide my audience with an understanding of what “brutalism” actually looks like. I also fixed the format of my references to provide cleaner work. In conclusion, writing definitions and engaging in a peer review process helped enhance my comprehension and proficiency in defining complex terms for non-technical audiences in an engaging and accessible process.
Revised Definition of Brutalism: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30199c2022w2/2023/02/16/revised-definition-brutalism/
Peer Review of Brutalism Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30199c2022w2/2023/02/13/peer-review-brutalism/