Unit Three Reflection

Formal Report Draft

In Unit Three, we conducted the research necessary to write the draft of the formal report, based on the proposal and outline written in Unit Two.

Conducting the research was straightforward, as it consisted of sending out the surveys and conducting the interview using the questions already approved. In my experience, setting firm deadlines for responses dependent on other people greatly help with turnaround time. This proved to be true as I was able to collect most responses within two days of the survey being sent out. Upon reviewing the survey results, I learned that questions which allow for custom user input should be used carefully. For one of my survey questions related to optimal hours worked per week, I allowed for a user to enter their own response if it was not part of the pre-listed options. Some survey respondents opted to use the ‘Other’ category for that question to send short answers instead simply defining an hour per week. This made it more difficult to interpret the data. In the future, for this type of question, it would be more efficient to remove the ‘Other’ section and make respondents pick the best answer for them.

The process of drafting the report took longer than expected. This was mainly due to determining how best to keep the report focused on actionable recommendations for the employee (the reader), as opposed to the organization itself. In addition, in my outline from Unit Two, I had planned on exploring more topics than I could reasonably discuss in the formal report while maintaining a narrow enough focus. As a result, I had to deviate from the planned outline, and create simpler one that focused primarily on the survey and interview results and their interpretation. As I prepare for the final draft, I am still striving towards rewriting for conciseness.

Peer Review of Formal Report

In the peer review, I took the very standard approach of organizing my review by the sections used by the reviewee. This enabled me to take a very structured approach in providing feedback on specific sections.

During this review, I found myself relating back to my own report draft quite often. In comparing what was does the same versus what was done differently, this gave me a basis on which I could form my feedback. I noticed the reviewee had made more use of 3rd party research to back up his claims. In forming my final draft, I will likely look at incorporating more 3rd party research, but not to the point of distracting from the original research conducted on my own.

Lastly, the peer review of the formal report helped cement the concept of writing for conciseness and maintaining a YOU attitude in any circumstance. As I was able to identify some potential areas for correction for my reviewee, I am optimistic that this will aid me in revising my own work for the final draft.

Formal Report Draft

Unit Two Reflection

In Unit Two, we were introduced to process of creating a formal report and proposal. As this is one of the major focuses in ENGL301, learning to lay a solid foundation for the report was essential. We were also tasked with creating a professional LinkedIn profile to expand our online presence in the job search process.

Formal Report & Proposal Writing

For my formal report, I chose a topic that challenged me throughout my professional career before deciding to return for a second degree. That topic is work-life balance in the context of professional service firms. I felt that as this was something I personally experienced, I would have a good deal of insight to offer. While that may be true, I faced some difficulty in deciding who my intended audience would be as that dictates the entirety of the report. When deciding between making PwC (my chosen organization) or its employees the intended audience, I had to consider to what degree of authority each audience had to make changes. Based on that authority, the range of possible solutions I can suggest in my final report naturally follows. This was a point that was covered in my partner’s peer review, where he suggested that perhaps it would be more optimal to implement the solution of communication at an organizational level. As a result of that suggestion, I have expanded the scope of my report proposal to include that interplay between employee level vs. organizational level implementation.

There were some other recommendations in the peer review related to personality research that is based on my partner’s background. As he has a background in psychology, his opinion of how my report on work-life balance can be augmented is certainly welcome. However, as I lack the necessary background in psychology, I don’t feel that is within my expertise to conduct research relating to ‘Big-Five-Personality factors’, or interpret the results of that research in included in my data collection. As a result, I am faced with what to do in the situation you disagree with one of your peer reviewer’s recommendations. On one hand I believe that a peer reviewer’s recommendations are not absolute, as misinterpretations can arise, and the reviewer may not have total insight in what you are trying to accomplish. However, you must also consider whether there was anything in your writing that could have resulted in that misinterpretation. In this particular case, I believe my partner was trying to offer a different perspective I could approach my report with, and so while I did not make any modifications to the report proposal as a result, it is a consideration I will have for my final report.

In turn, I also conducted a peer review of my partner’s proposal. Similarly, I faced the issue of getting situated within the context of my partner’s proposal so that I could provide valid criticism. Through the process of reading it once for content, and giving it multiple passes for the details, I was able to focus more on the conceptual issues without getting lost in the minor writing details. This practice allowed me to provide a clear recommendation regarding the honing of my partner’s topic, which I believe has resulted in his reconsideration of said topic. In this peer review, one of my primary focuses was to keep each point concise, as I learned from feedback on my previous first peer review. I believe this time I succeed in doing that, while delivering the main message.

LinkedIn Profile

With respect to the LinkedIn assignment, I had leveraged the use of an existing LinkedIn profile to implement the tips gathered in our research of best practices. While there were certain tips that I would have considered obvious, such as having a professional photo, there were others that I did not previously consider. One such example is the concept of building your own ‘Board of Advisor’s’ using LinkedIn’s alumni tool. While I have yet to put that tip into practice, I can see the practically of its application.

In my peer review of my partner’s LinkedIn profile, It was interesting to see that while we had implemented many of the same best practice tips, suggesting that these tips are largely universal despite the difference in our educational and professional backgrounds. Upon the reading of my partner’s peer review of my own profile, I believe we came to a similar conclusion on how best practice tips should be implemented.

Final reflections

In summary, in Unit Two I learned the important of considering your audience, and the difficulty in trying to maintain that focus on the specified audience. I also learn that while you should give serious consideration to all the points recommended by your peer reviewer, you should also take a step back and consider whether those changes would be optimal. Through the process of peer review, I have grown to appreciate the value immersing yourself in the context of the peer-reviewee, to produce more meaningful recommendations.

Link to peer review received: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2020wa/2020/10/20/peer-review-of-formal-report-proposal-richard-chen/

Link to revised proposal: 301 Richard Chen Formal Report Proposal – Revised

Unit One Reflection

Unit One Reflection

When I started this blog one month ago, I wrote on my home page that I was looking to create a robust strategy I could use to approach formal communications in an almost formulaic way. I believe through the writing exercises involving the technical definitions, peer review, and revision process, I have taken my first step along that path.

During the definition process, I initially found myself with all sorts of concerns regarding assumed base level of knowledge the common person would have about my term, and even field in general. However, after I consulted the course text on the expanded definition techniques I became more sure of the route I was going to take. With techniques ranging from historical analysis, compare and contrast, and examples, it is almost a guarantee that the majority of your audience will be able to find at least one part of your writing relatable to them. In particular, compare and contrast and examples stand out to me, as I am more of the visual and kinesthetic – ‘work through it yourself’ type of learner.

Luckily, it seemed that the techniques I employed mostly worked for Elton Kok as well. Although he had some issues understanding my term from the sentence definition and some aspects of my writing raised unresolved questions, he was able to understand ‘Accrual Accounting’ in the context of my defined situation. In particular, he mentioned that the visual I provided and comparison were useful in clearing up some of the questions he had. Similarly, as I peer reviewed Elton’s work, it was insightful to see how similar expansion techniques could be applied to a term from a completely different field. Although he had chosen some different techniques, the diversity allowed a non-natural science reader like myself to understand the term with little difficulty. I believe these are good examples of how employing multiple expansion techniques ensures the greatest chance of successfully delivering your message to your audience.

In revising my work based on Elton’s feedback, I was able to specifically identify blind spots I initially missed from the perspective of the non-technical audience. Areas that I thought I had initially covered, including questions raised from the compare and contrast, were revisited to emphasis the benefits of using ‘Accrual Accounting’ versus ‘Cash Accounting’. While the comparison was made as an aid to relate the more familiar topic to readers (cash accounting), I learned that any aid employed should not raise more questions than it answers. In balancing explanations that are brief, I must also ensure that they are comprehensive enough to leave curious readers satisfied of any anticipated questions.

Thanks for reading,

Richard

Revised Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2020wa/2020/10/06/assignment-13-revised-definition-of-accrual-accounting/

Peer review by Elton Kok: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2020wa/2020/10/04/assignment-13-peer-review-of-definition-of-a-accrual-accounting/

 

 

Acceptance of Professional Writing Team Invitations

To: Aleem Tariq, aleemtariq19@gmail.com 
From: Richard Chen, rchen2@student.ubc.ca 
Date: September 22, 2020
Subject: RE: ENGL 301 Writing Team Invitation

Hello Aleem,

Thank you for your email inviting me to the professional writing team. I am always happy to connect with another Bachelor of Computer Science student given the variety in backgrounds that we come from. While reviewing your biography and qualifications, I could not help but relate to your motivation to pursue computing science in order to explore the possibilities in our respective former degree. I believe having that mutual understanding will enable us to work well together, and your analytical approach to writing will certainly be an asset to the team.

I also appreciate that you acknowledge your weakness in writing, and have taken steps to address that by enrolling into this class. Having that self-awareness will surely benefit the team when the course reaches the stage of peer-review.

With that said, I happily accept your invitation to join the ENGL 301 professional writing team, and hope to work together soon.

Thank you,
Richard Chen
301 Richard Chen Application letter
To: Syed Ahmed, syedw@student.ubc.ca
From: Richard Chen, rchen2@student.ubc.ca 
Date: September 22, 2020
Subject: RE: ENGL 301 Writing Team Invitation

Hello Syed,

Thank you for your email inviting me to the professional writing team. On my review of your background, I was really impressed by the magnitude, and number of your achievements directly attributed to writing. I have no doubt in my mind that a published author of scientific articles, as well as theses, would make you a leading asset in the team. Combined with your healthy appreciation of criticism and self-review, I am grateful that a well-balanced individual such as yourself has extended me this offer.

As such, I happily accept your invitation to join the ENGL 301 professional writing team, and hope to work together soon.

Thank you,
Richard Chen
301 Richard Chen Application letter
To: Elton Kok, kokelton@student.ubc.ca 
From: Richard Chen, rchen2@student.ubc.ca 
Date: September 22, 2020
Subject: RE: ENGL 301 Writing Team Invitation

Hello Elton,

Thank you for your email inviting me to the professional writing team. I certainly agree that the alignment in our background as Bachelor of Computer Science students would contribute towards a strong basis for team dynamic in our writing team. I greatly appreciate your detail in the review of my application letter, as well as your kind words.

Likewise, I find your experience in writing scientific reports to be a valuable asset, and your willingness to be versatile despite the situation will surely complement our team well.

As such, I happily accept your invitation to join the ENGL 301 professional writing team, and hope to work together soon.

Thank you,
Richard Chen
301 Richard Chen Application letter

 

Email Memorandum

To: Dr. Erika Paterson, Erika.Paterson@ubc.ca
From: Richard Chen, rchen2@student.ubc.ca
Date: September 17, 2020

Subject: Letter of Application

Greetings Dr. Paterson,

My name is Richard Chen, I am a student in your ENGL 301 class for the Winter 2020 Term 1 semester. This emails serves to inform you that I have posted my letter of application for a professional writing team on my blog. I have also attached my letter in Microsoft Word format to this email for your convenience, and provided a brief summary below.

Key points:
• I am an Accounting graduate from the University of Alberta, and currently a Bachelors of Computer Science student at the University of British Columbia
• My writing experience stems from the legal and accounting industry 
• I enjoy working within a team, and I am used to meeting deadlines under pressure
• I strive to provide constructive and actionable feedback, and I reflect critically on the feedback received in return

If you would like to discuss my letter of application in detail, please feel free to contact me in response to this email.

Thank you,

Richard Chen

301 Richard Chen Application letter

Letter of Application

6911 Number 3 Rd
Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1

September 17, 2020

Course colleagues
2329 West Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Greetings course colleagues,

My name is Richard Chen, I am writing to establish myself as a potential candidate for your professional writing team this semester. Beginning with my background, I am a graduate of the University of Alberta with a Bachelors of Commerce (Accounting). Subsequent to my graduation in 2018, I went on to work for two professional firms, Parlee McLaws LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. In early 2020, I was accepted into the Bachelors of Computer Science program at the University of British Columbia, where I aim to graduate into a software engineering position in the technology industry.

I am a promising choice for your writing team because of the following three reasons:

1. I have extensive experience writing in the legal and accounting industry with respected professionals as my audience.
2. I am used to working within a team to meet deadlines under pressure.
3. I am experienced in reviewing work and providing feedback for junior and senior colleagues.

During my time at Parlee McLaws, I was entrusted with conducting case law research and writing concise briefs as a result of my research to inform my supervising lawyer and associated firm partners. At PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, I underwent formal training to write professional analyses of accounting issues in accordance with the standards set by various accounting governing bodies. These professional briefs and analyses have been incorporated into the end product of court trials, and audit opinions issued by the respective professional firms.

At PwC, many stages of work go into delivering a product to the client. Having been part of teams ranging from two to twenty, each person is responsible for delivering a part of the deliverable that goes to the client. In many circumstances, one individual’s work will become the basis for another colleague’s work. During my time at PwC, I have consistently delivered my work on time, and assisted my colleagues wherever I could. As a testament to my reliability, in the reference letters required for admission to the Bachelor of Computer Science program, one of my managers has been quoted to say that I have a “positive attitude and natural inclination to teamwork … result[ing] in strong team cohesion and synergies”. I can assure you that as part of a team, I will commit to completing my deliverables on time and communicate effectively with my team around any issues that may arise.

As part of the teamwork mentioned, I am also experienced in providing feedback tailored to the individuals I am working with. In providing feedback, I take into account the experience level of the individual I am reviewing related to the task at hand, and try to incorporate two positives and a specific, actionable piece of advice the individual can use in the future. In receiving feedback, I keep an open mind of what I can change. I believe that regardless of who is offering the critique, there is always something to be learned. With respect to writing, I recognize that I tend to use a passive voice rather than an active one, and I am striving to be more conscious of self-improvement in that regard.

In closing, I would like to thank you for your consideration, and I hope to find teammates with diverse experience that can help each other grow as professional writers. If you would like to reach out to me, please feel free to contact me by email: rchen2@student.ubc.ca.

Warm regards,

Richard Chen

301 Richard Chen Application letter

Spam prevention powered by Akismet