Writing the first draft of the technical definition

While completing the first draft of the technical definition, I was challenged with understanding and breaking down a complex term (Random Access Memory) into a simple explanation for a specific target audience that had limited knowledge in my field. The writing process prompted me to reflect on what it meant to be able to communicate clearly and concisely as it was easy for me to include a complicated term or jargon that I was familiar with and assume that everyone else would understand it easily. However, after reading through the assignment criteria as well as the textbook, I gained insight on applying the three different types of definitions (parenthetical, sentence, and expanded) to my technical definition in a form that was accessible and engaging. Additionally, I was able to explore and learn more about the different methods of expanded definitions, which was something that I previously had no experience with. I was able to use new methods, such as etymology, and establish an organized definition of Random Access Memory (RAM) for a more general audience.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process of the assignment included providing a team member (Sangita Dutta) with a document outlining a review of the definition as well as suggestions to improve. Reviewing Sangita’s assignment served as a great opportunity to explore different use of methods and writing techniques as well as expand my vocabulary through different terms and phrases. Completing the peer review was also insightful as it encouraged critical examination in the perspective of a new reader with limited knowledge on the term being defined (Object Oriented Programming). Moreover, by critiquing and providing constructive feedback on her definition, I was able to further develop skills in assessment and critical thinking. This collaborative component of the assignment offered a valuable chance to self-assess my own definition. For example, the organization and layout of Sangita’s definition had inspired me to reevaluate the structure of my definition to ensure that it was similarly easy to follow.

Revision Process

Reading through the peer review of my technical definition provided new perspectives and insights that I hadn’t considered while completing the first draft. Sangita’s feedback for my definition was both valuable and engaging as she was able to identify and clearly express how my assignment could be improved. One of her suggestions included expanding the audience in my reading scenario as it started quite niche and was therefore restrictive. Taking in that feedback, I recognized how having a more general audience would have been more beneficial in formulating my assignment as it would have helped in further simplifying any inaccessible terms or complex information. By receiving feedback in a supportive and precise manner, I was able to effectively revise my definition and explore different approaches to making my assignment more accessible and understanding. Overall, creating a technical definition and participating in a peer review and revision process helped further develop my learning and understanding on defining technical terms to a non-technical audience.

Revised definition of RAM: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30199c2022w2/2023/02/16/revised-definition-random-access-memory/

Peer review of RAM definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30199c2022w2/2023/02/14/peer-review-random-access-memory-ram/