Monthly Archives: October 2016

Reflections on Unit Two

Posted on by
Reply

My personal goals for Unit two were: to update my LinkedIn profile so I could use professionally, develop my peer review feedback, work on team communication, get a head start on my formal report, and gain a better understanding of my writing style and ability.

I struggled with assignment 2.1. Having just had a baby, I am basically at home all day long and I found it very difficult to find a topic for my research proposal that fit all the report requirements. After much deliberation and many conversations with my husband I decided on bicycle safety, as that was an issue that is still very relevant to my daily life. Once I picked the topic I became quite excited about it and began immediately to research to see what information about bicycle safety in Vancouver was already available. After doing a bit of research, I was quite inspired and the proposal became quite easy to write.

Assignment 2.2 was not only a great opportunity for me to fine tune my LinkedIn profile, but it also provided me with incentive to research and discover some very useful information on LinkedIn best practices. Researching LinkedIn best practices along with the peer review of my profile, presented me with a great deal of insightful and helpful information and feedback that allowed me to create a profile I am satisfied with. I am very excited that I have updated and improved my LinkedIn profile, and am looking forward to using it to better establish my online presence.

Creating the outline for my formal report in assignment 2.3 was a great help on getting my closer to my goal of getting a head start on my formal report. I feel that with the outline and a schedule for my primary research I will be in a very good position when it comes time to begin drafting my report.

As I mentioned in my last reflection blog I find that the peer review process really helps me to analyze and critique my own work from another perspective. The feedback from the peer review on my proposal allowed me to edit my proposal and make it stronger and more understandable. Also, I find the more I am involved in the peer review process the more confident I am in my assessment and suggestions for my teammates work. I feel that through Unit 2 I have become a lot more comfortable with the peer review process and have greatly improved my capability to conduct a peer review.

I have really enjoyed this Unit and the amount of team work that has been involved in the assignments. My writing teammates have been so help in providing me with plenty of constructive feedback and many great examples of different styles of writing. And again, the peer review process has helped me better my work so much by providing me with useful critiques, as well as a more detached perspective for evaluating my own work. Overall, I am feeling very pleased with the completion of my personal goals for Unit 2.

To View:

My Feedback from Peer Review.

My revised proposal – report-proposal-hwagner-revised

 

Reflections on Unit One

Posted on by
Reply

Unit One Peer Review Process

For the definitions assignment I tried to choose a term that I remembered being confounded by the first time I heard it. That is why I chose to write about corpus analysis. I thought that having memory of being confused by the term would help me to write a definition that would be easily understood by a non-technical audience.

Having a peer review my work was a great way to see if I had succeeded in my endeavor to simplify the term. Overall, Polina was able to understand the process of corpus analysis fairly well. However, my definition used terms that required prior knowledge of discussed subject. This issue would definitely hinder an audience with no technical knowledge. Through Polina’s feedback I have learned that I need to be extra cautious when defining a term that I am familiar with. Because it seems that when I have information on a subject I tend to make assumptions about my audience’s comprehension based on my knowledge.

The feedback also showed me that the content organization in my expanded definition was not the most effective. I had separated ideas and examples that if put together would do better to further my audiences understanding. I realize that I should be more thoughtful in my organization and structure. I find that creating an outline works well to help me arrange my thoughts and ideas better; I will have to remember to do it before I start writing. Also, the types of errors Polina pointed out made me see the importance of always doing a final edit where I read the text aloud. I notice that my work tends to flow better and be less encumbered by errors when I remember to do this.

Reviewing Polina’s definition was very valuable way for me to practice providing constructive feedback, while also bettering my own work. Polina’s assignment was an excellent example of an effective layout and good content organization. It also provided me with the chance to view a definition from the audience perspective. This new perspective gave me insight into what my own work was lacking.

I often find that teaching is one of the best ways to learn something, and peer review definitely seems to apply this concept. Through studying and critiquing the work of someone else I have learned quite a bit about my own writing and the deficiencies of my own work. After the peer review I was able to use Polina’s feedback, and the perspective I gained from the process, to edit and correct my original definition. I think this process absolutely helped to make my definition more coherent and easier for a non-technical audience to understand.

View my:

Original Definition here. 

Peer Review Feedback here.

Edited Definition here.