Writing the Definition
I found the process of writing the definitions pretty straight forward. It was a matter of reading the assignment requirements and structuring my writing to meet those specifications. Since I already have adequate knowledge on the term, I brainstormed the information I needed to put in the definition and used research to fill out any missing information I had. Using my prior experience as a quality control supervisor who had to train new employees, I tried as best I could to make sure the information I put down was intuitive and easy to follow for readers who are not familiar with the topic. I placed myself in a new employee’s shoes and began to write my definition based on that. Then, filling in the definition was straight forward since I had the information as well as the frame of reference.
The Peer Review Process
After having read my partner’s definition, I found it interesting to witness the differences in writing style and thinking process compared to mine. For example, she organized her definition in equally important sub parts, while I structured mine more like a paragraphed web article. Reading through it, I found aspects that made me raise my brow, but there was technically nothing wrong with it, which made me realize that my own writing style and thinking processes was injecting a bit of bias. I also assumed she, too, wrote her definition as someone knowledgeable on the term trying to place themselves in the shoes of people who are unfamiliar. And as someone reading it in the perspective of someone unfamiliar, I found a few passages that confused me, which was both a good opportunity to provide recommendation as well as a reflection that my own definition might confuse others the same way. While reviewing, I also found aspects of her paper that could benefit my own definition, such as better organizational headings and more details on the specific components of the term.
The Revision Process
After having read my partner’s peer review, I realized this was written from the perspective of someone who actually isn’t familiar with the subject, and not just from the perspective of an imaginary person I made up. Some descriptions that I wrote that I felt was intuitive to myself turned out not to be intuitive for my partner, and needed to be explained in further detail to clear the confusion. She pointed out that there was no explanation for each letter in the term HACCP. At first, that statement confused me; because to me, it was pretty straight forward. But I looked into it, and realized that her confusion was completely justified. I did not mention anywhere about the meaning of the terms within the term. And so, I improved my definition by taking her recommendation into account and adding more clarification on the inner terms. The set of fresh eyes from someone with a completely different writing style was very beneficial, as they can see the faults that my adjusted eyes self-corrected for. Similar to painting art, the faults of the painting are not apparent when they appear gradually, but when someone is seeing the painting for the first time all at once, all the faults are very obvious.
Links
Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/01/ryan-tso-assignment-1-3/
Peer Review: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/04/assignment-13-peer-review-for-ryans-definition-for-haccp/
Revised Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/06/ryan-tso-assignment-1-3-three-definitions-revised/