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.