In the migration of my personal writing blog’s reflection posts to this webfolio site, I landed on the original home page which outlined my course expectations. In that, I said I was hoping to create a “formulaic checklist” that enables me to respond to my audience’s expectations.

Having completed the course now, I do not believe I accomplished that goal. Rather, I have developed an intuitive sense for writing with ‘YOU-attitude’. In my writing, I now take into consideration the little details such as beginning suggestions with ‘ing’ words and avoiding pronoun usage wherever possible. Prior to the course and that lesson, I did not realize that using those two constructs could come across as accusatory. As simple as it may be, I believe this was one of the most valuable lessons I learned in the course, as it was used in peer reviews, some email memorandums, as well as the formal report.

An area of improvement I still need to practice is using an active voice. While I have tried to cut down on the use of passive voice, when caught in a ‘writing flow’ it seems that is the natural way my mind expresses itself. However, as we have learned throughout the course, while perfection is a lofty goal, with every revision you can get ever closer.

Another area I initially struggled in was writing scientific styled reports. I am referring to the formal report, where we were tasked with conducting primary research. To be quite honest, at first I did not understand the value of gathering primary data for an English class. However, in reaching out to survey people and conducting interviews, I realized that this too was an extension of the technical communication goals set out in the course objectives.

While I believe I have sufficient communication skills from a business perspective given my background and experience, now that I am pivoting towards the field of Computing Science, this course has provided a foundation I can build upon. For instance, there are roles in the Computing Science industry that relies on presenting data as to why one algorithm or approach is more suitable than another. Although it may not call for a report on the same level as the formal report delivered in this class, I now have a better idea of how that data can be communicated in an effective manner.

In the creation of my webfolio, I had the chance to revisit several of my older assignments from the beginning of the course. This forced me to confront my former style of writing, which I had not expected to change in the way it did since I began the course – this I go into more detail in my self-assessment reflection.

The most amazing part of this last assignment was realizing how an entire semester of smaller works has added up to an amount that could even be compiled into a portfolio. Looking at it now, I believe that if I were asked to replicate the webfolio with all my chosen works, I would say it was not possible. However, it clearly was possible as you can see from each section of the webfolio in the navigation bar at the top.

The reflection blogs, including the one I am currently writing, are a valuable way to look back and acknowledge my own self-growth. It is important to realize the new skills gained at the end of each set of lessons, so that you can continue to draw on them in the future.

The LinkedIn section is a constant reminder that although we may be students now, one day that will end and you will need to market yourself to employers. Networking and cultivating an online presence is an important determinant in landing a job. In researching best practices for LinkedIn, I feel well prepared to maintain and grow my network.

The importance of job search preparation is further underlined in the online resume and application package sections. The online resume provides a searchable and convenient compilation of your educational history and existing job experience. It was a challenge to reformat my existing resume to be suitable for an online version, but I believe it maintains the same level of professionalism and showcases my talents effectively. Likewise, the application package was a good exercise in showcasing the most relevant parts of your skillset for specific job postings. While I have had success in my cover letter and resumes in the past, the requests for reference letters was an excellent exercise in approaching past acquaintances from a position of humility.

Lastly, each of the works chosen and showcased in the ‘Best Work’ section has been polished to the best of my abilities. I can proudly say that section houses the accumulation of a semester worth of effort.

I am glad this course does not have a final. Not because I would mind writing one, but because the webfolio is a much more comprehensive learning experience than can be represented in a two hour exam. After all, none of the work created took a mere two hours, but is the result of many self-review and peer review sessions.

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 3^rd party research to back up his claims. In forming my final draft, I will likely look at incorporating more 3^rd 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

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

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/