To: Yifan Wang, Technical Writing 301 Student
From: Samantha Lee, Technical Writing 301 Student
Date: October 17, 2021
Subject: Peer Review for Research Proposal
The proposal, “Prepare UBC CS students for job market better by extending the current functionalities of CSSS” is informative, well-organized and a pleasure to read. Below are some suggestions for improvement:
First Impressions:
Upon first reading, the proposal is:
- Well-organized with clear layout and appropriate subheadings.
- Informative, providing detailed content on the problem, potential solution and scope.
Organization:
- Layout is clean and well-organized; good use of bold subheadings and spacing between paragraphs.
- Topic sentences clearly forecast the main ideas of paragraphs.
- Proposal is well-narrated; ideas are logically ordered and connected with smooth transition sentences between paragraphs.
Expression:
- Overall, the proposal maintains a professional tone.
- Some sentences can be more concise, improving the reader’s comprehension and engagement. For example:
- “As a research university, UBC focuses more on theoretical Computer Science and teaches Computer Science fundamentals, and this is totally understandable.”
- The above statement can be changed to “As a research university, UBC focuses on theoretical computer science, teaching computer science fundamentals.”
Content:
- The proposal addresses all assignment requirements with the following subheadings:
- Introduction – pros and cons of UBC’s computer science program
- Statement of Problem – consequences of UBC’s inability to prepare students for the job market
- Potential Solution – suggestions for improving Computer Science Student Society (CSSS)
- Scope – intended topics for formal report
- Methods – primary sources, including surveys and interviews
- Qualifications – computer science education, two co-op terms and experience with pursuing a career
- Conclusion – restatement of the problem, asserting its severity and a potential solution
- Intended reader of the report is clearly stated as the president of CSSS.
- Methods should include secondary sources to demonstrate a more diverse research.
Statement of Problem:
- Non-technical readers might not understand the technical term “frameworks.” Consider using a parenthetical definition.
- The paragraph is long, making it difficult for readers to understand; dividing the text into smaller paragraphs will improve readability.
Proposed Solution:
- Helpful recommendations for improving CSSS functionalities: workshops, Q&A sessions and in-person mock interviews.
- Consider moving background information on CSSS to the introduction so that the reader understands the term at the very beginning.
Grammar and Typos:
There are some technical errors:
- Revise the document for subject-verb disagreements. For instance:
- In “a lot of students lacks,” the verb “lacks” should be plural.
- In “The service it provides include hosting technical career fair, place for tutors to advertiser themselves,” “service” should be plural and “advertise” is misspelled as “advertiser.”
- In the Scope section, some questions are missing punctuation.
- The subheading “Qualification” should be plural because this section has multiple credentials.
Concluding Comments:
The proposal demonstrates the importance of improving CSSS functionalities to prepare UBC CS students for the job market. With the following improvements, this will be a clear and convincing proposal:
- Removing words that do not contribute to detail or meaning will improve conciseness.
- Adding secondary sources to the proposed methods.
- Using a parenthetical definition to define “frameworks.”
- Breaking the problem explanation into smaller paragraphs for an easier read.
- Moving background information on CSSS to the introduction.
- Revising the document for technical errors mentioned above.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2021wa/2021/10/11/assignment-21-formal-report-proposal/
Leave a Reply