To: Catherine Yu, Student ENGL301 Technical Writing UBC
From: Dave Borrel, Student ENGL301 Technical Writing UBC
Date: October 5th 2021
Subject: Review of Your Assignment: 1.3 Definition of Immune Imprinting.
Definition under review: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2021wa/2021/09/30/definition-of-immune-imprinting/
Thank you for sharing your definition of Immune Imprinting. This is an interesting topic that many other students in the class will enjoy reading more about. Below contains my thoughts while reading your definitions along with suggestions for improvement.
Initial Impressions: This definition meets all the requirements listed in the assignment. The expanded definition was detailed and became most clear once the comparison and contrast was used. The examples mentioned help to show how immune imprinting is studied in the real world for pandemic response.
Situation and Jargon: The purpose of the assignment is well written and succinct. Although the situation assumes that the student has a background in immunology, it may be worth directing the content to a more non-technical audience. Terms like “antigenically-similar” and “hemagglutination” could be accompanied with a short description.
Definitions: The sentence definition was only clear after a few re-reads, perhaps reducing the number of times “immune” is mentioned in the introductory paragraph may increase clarity. The parenthetical definition is well done, and could potentially be used as a guide to make the sentence definition more clear.
Expansion Strategies Used: The Etymolygy of the term was helpful to see how the words related to the phenomenon itself. Learning about the history of immune imprinting highlights the progress made in this field. The comparison and contrast section used lay language to help paint a clear picture of what immune imprinting means. This section is very strong and clearly illustrates how this process works. The examples help to further convince the reader that this is an important term to know about. Overall, these strategies are laid out in a clear and concise manner, meeting the requirements for the assignment.
Visuals: The diagram included at the end of the document clearly demonstrated the body’s immune response to viruses. One suggestion would be to make the image slightly larger, or make the graph larger to make the x and y axis more clear.
Language: The document is well written, along with varied sentence structure. There are little to no technical errors that I could find.
Strengths: The most effective portion of this document was the comparison and contrast, and the real life applications of where this concept can be used, namely vaccine research. The connection that “immune imprinting” has with the ongoing pandemic points to the importance of this topic and keeps it engaging. As a reader, I came away with a better understanding of immune imprinting and how it can be used to advance Medical Science.
Suggestions for Improvement: One element I suggest making a change to, is the assumed level of technical knowledge that the reader has. Although a new co-op student may not have the same technical knowledge as the clinician, this student could still fall under a technical audience. There may be some room to make the document even more readable for a non-technical audience outside the field of immunology. As I mentioned above, a few minor changes to the sentence definition and reducing the use of jargon would be helpful to increase clarity as well.
It was a pleasure to read through your document, and I hope my suggestions are useful as you continue to work on this project. Please let me know if you have any other questions about my review.
Leave a Reply