Monthly Archives: October 2016

Unit 2 was an important unit because it involved the brainstorming and planning of a major component of the course ( formal report) and learning how to network using LinkedIn. I found the LinkedIn section of the unit extremely useful. This past summer, before the course began, I set up a LinkedIn profile. I found the summary section the most difficult to write, as it is important to keep it succinct while including enough important professional and personal information to entice the reader to view the rest of your profile. At the time, I thought my profile was sufficient. But through the peer review and best practices exercises in this course,  I learned many ways to improve my profile. Essentially, a LinkedIn profile should contain the same amount of information as a resume, except you have the opportunity to make it  more powerful than a resume (for example, being endorsed or adding media). I am now confident in my ability to effectively network using LinkedIn.

Brainstorming a topic and creating an outline for my formal report was a lengthy process. I found it difficult to meet the criteria of finding a topic that applied to my recent experience while not being too large or too small to be covered in a 12-15 page report. Eventually, I arrived at the topic of reducing unnecessary wait times at UBC’s Birdcoop Fitness Center. In writing my proposal, I found it helpful to make sure that everything I included was appropriate for the audience and that it related to the problem. I am confident that if I stick to my writing schedule my investigation will develop into a report that outlines the causes of the long wait times and proposes solutions on how to reduce them.

I learned a lot through the formal report peer review process. Carefully evaluating another persons work  with the intention of providing useful suggestions for improvement is an important skill, and something that I have not done much of in the past. I was impressed with my partner Nicolas’s proposal. In particular, I was impressed with how intimately his scope was related to his proposed solution. This made me realize that I needed to improve my scope, and in fact Nicolas pointed this out in his review of my proposal.

Reading my teams forum allows me to study the specifics of other people’s writing. I find the quality of writing impressive, however this does not surprise me for an upper level technical writing class. The concise language my teammates use to deliver their point impresses me, and I am working on improving this is my own writing. In addition, I have discovered that I sometimes incorrectly use nouns and verbs, so studying my teammates use of these has helped me be more conscious of getting nouns and verbs correct.

Enclosure:

301 Ian Betts Report Proposal-October 28,2016

Ian Betts Report Review for Nicolas Peressin- October 28,2016

Nicolas Peressin Report Review for Ian Betts- October 28,2016

The most recent assignment in English 301 involved writing three definitions (parenthetical, sentence, and expanded) for a relatively complex term within our profession or field of study. The assignment also involved peer reviewing the work of a member from our writing team. Overall I enjoyed the process; I enjoyed defining a term with the goal of making it understandable for someone with no knowledge of my field of study, and I enjoyed reading not only the work of the person I was reviewing, but the work of others in the class who come from a variety of fields of study.

The original writing was more challenging and time consuming than I thought. First off, picking a term was harder than expected. It was important to find a term that was both not too basic so that it was hard to expand on and not too complex so that it was difficult to define without using other technical language. Even though I found a term (block caving) that fit these criteria, I still found myself initially writing as if the audience had some knowledge of geologic jargon. I had to go back and simplify my document.

The peer review process was helpful in two ways. Firstly, it allowed me to get better at providing constructive feedback for others work, something I have not done much of in the past. Secondly, it taught me a lot about my own writing. When editing my definitions I took most of Gustavo’s suggestions (improving formatting, noting which expansion strategy my figure relates to, and changing my “Analysis of Parts” heading to “Operating Principle”, which is more appropriate. The only suggestion I did not take is that I should make the history section more interesting. The reasoning behind this is that I do believe I outlined the importance of block caving in the past and present, and that this is all that is necessary for the sake of a definition.

One aspect of Gustavo’s definition that impresses me is how concise his writing is. Conciseness is something I hope to improve upon in the units to come.

Gustavo’s Review of My Definition

IanBettsdefinitionsoctober2,2016