Peer Review of Assignment 1.3 Write Three Definitions (Frontotemporal Dementia)

To: Brionne McWilliams

From: Tamar Tucker-Harrison

Subject: Peer Review of Assignment 1.3 Write Three Definitions (Frontotemporal Dementia)

Questions I had reading the definition:

1. How does the development of this illness affect the patient’s daily life going forward?
2. Are there any underlying reasons for the development of frontotemporal dementia?
3. Does this illness put the patient at further risk for any other conditions?

I fully understood the term that was being defined in this definition. Sufficient information was supplied to support the definition. However, if I were the writer’s supervisor or editor, I would ask for revisions concerning organisation of the methods of expanding the definition.

The purpose of the definition is clearly defined, a well-written reading situation explains clearly the context for the definition. However, the portion concerning the operating principle does not explain how the illness operates, it instead discusses technologies and methods used to diagnose the illness and its symptoms. This section should instead be used to chronologically explain the biological progression of the illness’ development, or in the words of the Technical Communications textbook on page 401, “How does (frontotemporal dementia) work/operate?”

The information provided in the operating principle section might be redundant information to the intended audience, as the addressee (a patient awaiting test results) would have recently taken an MRI and CT scan and have a reasonable understanding and prior explanation of the reasons for doing so. Regardless, this would still be useful to clarify, yet this information would still be better categorized as a different method for expanding definitions, such as Examples or History.

The language used is an ideal reading level for both myself and the intended audience, I was not confused by any discipline specific terms nor jargon.

As for methods of expanding definitions, use of Operating Principle, Compare and Contrast, Visual and Analysis of Parts are organised well for the situation, given the context and order that this information is being provided in. Compare and Contrast could arguably be classified as a Negation section, given that it is clarifying what illness frontotemporal dementia is not. But given that this section is expanding upon the patients pre-existing knowledge, I think Compare and Contrast is arguably the better term. If Negation was being used, I think its best application would be purely clarifying which symptoms and effects would not be of concern. I think, however, that in these circumstances, the differences would be trivial and the section should be left unaltered.

The Analysis of Parts is used very effectively to break down the various effect groupings of frontotemporal dementia. I am unsure if the final paragraph concerning treatment is an extension of the analysis of parts, or whether it is a separate conclusion. Its inclusion is certainly warranted considering the proposed reading situation and I see no real offense to including it here. I am unsure whether like the diagnosis information in the operating principle section, this could be relegated to a different method of expanding the definition, such as Examples.

The Visual section is properly labelled and sourced, all its elements are explained, and its composition is not convoluted.

I suggested earlier major revisions on the basis that an entire section (Operating Principle) needed re-organising, however the solution could be as simple as changing the title of the method to a different one and adding some supplementary information. The other methods of expanding definition are a strong point in this piece and create a strong understanding for both the intended audience and a completely uninformed one such as myself.