Writing the first draft of the Technical definition
In the first unit of the ENGL301 course, we were tasked to write a definition of a technical term for a non-technical audience. Having no experience writing definitions for a non-technical audience, I found this task was challenging but ultimately, helped me improve my writing ability. My term Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) is from the natural sciences field so I had to learn to minimize the jargon and cater my writing towards a specific type of audience. I also learned how to write three different types of definitions: parenthetical, sentence, and expanded definition. Each type of definition has their own use, for example, parenthetical is a short type of definition which is used to help clarify a term in parentheses. Sentence definition is a short sentence which states the term and describes its distinguishing features. Lastly, the expanded definition provides an in-depth look at the term through various methods such as comparing and contrasting. I learned that there are many methods that can be used for the expanded definition however, some might be better than others depending on the term. For example, my term qPCR, is an analytical technique so using the method of Operating Principle is a great way for a non-technical reader to understand it. Through the writing process, I was able to learn different ways of defining a term and challenging myself to make it understandable to a non-technical audience.
Peer Review Process
In this stage of the assignment, I was given a chance to review a team member’s (Richard Chen) draft and given criticism on my work. Reading my team member’s assignment gave me much needed insight to improve my own work. I was able to see writing techniques that worked well in his assignment and mirror that in my own writing. For example, I liked how his use of a picture was straightforward and he had a paragraph explaining the picture. I was also able to provide constructive feedback in how he could improve his own work. Doing so gave me the perspective of the reader which allowed me to see how a reader could view my writing. My team member also provided me with very helpful constructive feedback such as helping me relate my definition back to the given situation I set forth. Overall, the peer review process was extremely helpful to receive feedback on my work and being able to review another’s work with a critical lens.
Revision Process
After the peer review, I was given criticism on my work and also understood the perspective of an audience member reading a technical definition. I am lucky to have great team members and their criticism was very helpful and straightforward. I was able to find parts of my writing that were unnecessary and could be omitted, leading to a more concise definition. I was also able to solve some ambiguity in my writing such as where I used the term “it” but from the reader’s perspective it was unclear what “it” was referring to. My team member also gave me positive comments such as how I minimized the use of jargon which is helpful for a non-technical audience. Overall, the peer review process opened my eyes to improvements in my writing that I would not be able to see otherwise. I believe this assignment has furthered my technical writing skills and I look forward to the future assignments for more opportunities to improve my writing.
Link to my revised definition: 301 Assignment 1:3 qPCR Revised Definition
Link to Richard Chen’s review: 301 Assignment 1:3 Richard Chen’s Review on qPCR