The following documents are assignments completed and revised according to peer/instructor feedback.

1. Revised Definition Assignment
   • Purpose & Achievement: The definition assignment was given as practice for explaining a relatively complicated term to non-technical readers. I explained what “Object Oriented Programming (OOP)” is using three types of definitions (parenthetical, sentence and expanded). The peer reviewer commented that the assignment gave enough context for non-technical readers to understand the concept, although a few changes were suggested to be made.
   • Changes made: A reading situation was added to the introduction to give more context to the definition of OOP. The revised version made sentences shorter and more concise. Citation errors were fixed.
2. Revised Peer Review of Definition Assignment
   • Purpose & Achievement: The first peer review assignment was given as practice for carefully reading another student’s work, analyzing its strengths and weaknesses and making suggestions for improvement as the intended audience. According to instructor feedback, the peer review was good but a little too concise.
   • Changes made: The revised version included more detailed sentences that include specific information from the assignment. The document was split into sub-sections including first impressions, organization, visuals, grammar & language and citation.
3. Revised Formal Report Proposal & Revised Progress Report
   • Purpose & Achievement: The assignment was given as a practice to make use of techniques for writing formal report outlines and progress reports. The formal report was approved to proceed by the instructor.
   • Changes made: According to peer feedback, grammar and typos were fixed. The intended audience was also added to avoid confusion.
4. Revised Proposal Memo
   • Purpose & Achievement: The memo summarizes the content of the proposal. Although most elements were included, the intended audience was missing from the original submission.
   • Changes made: The intended audience (Head of Seoul Public Bike App Operation Team, Yang Jae-young) was added to the memo.
5. Revised LinkedIn Best Practices Memo
   • Purpose & Achievement: The memo provided a summary of my research concerning the best practices for professional networking on LinkedIn. This assignment received full marks.
   • Changes made: According to instructor feedback, all imperative verbs were changed to “-ing” verbs.
6. Revised Memo to Evan Crisp
   • Purpose & Achievement: The assignment was given to practice writing techniques that make use of the “You Attitude”. The list of best practices included using formal tone and language, using a proper greeting and appropriate title, writing a subject line, etc. The memo did not include any imperative verbs.
   • Changes made: The assignment received full marks, so no specific changes were made.
7. Revised Complaint Letter and Revised Response Letter
   • Purpose & Achievement: The letters were written to practice writing business letters (one complaint letter and one bad news adjustment letter) that emphasize proper formatting, tone and language.
   • Changes made: The mark for the assignment was not available at the time the Web Folio was submitted, so no specific changes were made.
8. Revised Peer Review of a Formal Report
   • Purpose & Achievement: The last peer review was assigned before the final submission of the formal report. According to instructor feedback, some good advice was offered but the feedback was a bit too brief.
   • Changes made: The revised version includes a longer opening remark. The content sub-section adds more detail according to instructor feedback (e.g. naming all the six proposed initiatives and working definitions). More detailed explanations on why I made certain suggested were added.