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:
Edited Definition here.