Original writing process

I struggled at the beginning of writing the definition. I had not written this kind of writings which explains a term in my profession to non-technical readers. Most of the previous reports targeted people with a prior background or in the same field; thus, my writing often omitted the definition of the term or background explanation. The methods in the textbook helped me organize the structure of the text. I learned how to expand a technical term in three different levels of detail in the definition for non-technical readers. The term I would expand on should be something that the audience is likely to have been exposed to only about basic concepts, but not in detail. For example, the term RISC(Reduced instruction set computer) is not appropriate for this assignment since it requires a prior understanding of CPU instructions. Using this strategy, I chose CPU (Central Processing Unit) and set a scope of my level of detail in each level of definitions. 

Peer Review Process

The peer review process required me a better understanding of the assignment and the content of the lesson. As a non-technical reader, I suggested Ryan adjust the scope of detail where I did not understand his term, “HACCP,” thoroughly. I realized that my writing would not be easily understandable even though it targets non-technical readers. What I assumed they would know might not be the case. Other than that, I could not find any issue in his writing because it was well written and met all requirements. I had to review the textbook to provide constructive feedback on his work. In this process, I found minor issues with his writing as well as with my work. For instance, effective design of the structure and the use of visuals.  

Editing Process

Ryan’s feedback was very constructive and gently delivered with a friendly tone without insulting my work. I could improve my definition from his suggestion. He pointed out the content in the History of CPU could be elaborated upon more. I thought this section could give too much information for non-technical readers who might not have interested in how CPUs have evolved. However, taking his suggestion, I rewrote this part, giving the audience the essential information but not too stretched information. He also suggested that an example of specific program instruction would improve my definition; however, I think a specific instruction can be too technical and requires other terms to be explained beforehand. It can go beyond the scope of the detail. Thus, instead of having a specific example, I added an image of a general instruction to provide readers a better understanding of the term. Including the two suggestions, I re-structured my writing to have emphasized headings and a better separation and corrected grammar and typo errors.

Links

revised definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/06/assignment-13-three-definitions-jieun-kim-revised/

peer’s review: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/04/assignment-13-peer-review-for-ryans-definition-for-haccp/

reflection blog: https://blogs.ubc.ca/jieunk/2021/06/09/unit-one-reflection-blog/