Unit Three marked an intensive period dedicated to researching, organizing, and writing formal report drafts. Since the timeline was tight, I found this unit especially challenging.

In terms of research, neither primary nor secondary research were challenging. While gender equity in intercollegiate debate is fairly niche topic, I did not have difficulty finding sources to supplement my primary research. Conducting survey and interviews were not difficult either.

Organization of the draft proved to be more difficult. There was a large amount of information that had to be removed to accommodate the draft. As I am still developing concision skills, I had difficulty eliminated some of the analysis. Fortunately, I found the act of reading my draft aloud helpful in eliminating unnecessary information.

Writing the draft took more time than expected. I spent some time deciding the best formats to showcase data. In doing so, I learned which formats were most effective for my survey data. Like the organization component, I spent a large amount of time self-editing to exclude unnecessary information. During this step, I further practiced concision and writing logically.

I have not reviewed my partner’s project yet, but I anticipate I will learn how to better express ideas when editing.

Overall, Unit Three was very challenging. Despite that, I am proud to have completed a large document in short time period. I look forward to completing the final version!

Unit Two marked the start of two major assignments, our formal report and our application package. Below, you will find my revised formal report proposal and a hyperlink to my peer review. I felt Unit Two was more rigorous than Unit One for a few reasons. I found the preparation of my formal report proposal significantly challenging. While I knew that I wanted to investigate an issue in the UBC Debate Society, I was unsure which analysis type was feasible. Given that continual female membership was a semi-regular discussion topic among executive members, I decided to address it. I devised a feasibility report proposal to assess if increasing the presence of “Equity Officers”, members that monitor inappropriate behaviour and debate topics, would increase female membership. I then realized that this report was unfeasible. As “Equity Officers” are a novel concept in intercollegiate debate, there was minimal literature available for secondary research. Upon consultation with a fellow club member, I decided that a causal analysis of low female retention rate would be more feasible. While I had to rewrite my proposal, I gained more practice in preparing a formal report proposal.

The formal report outline was additionally difficult. While the document was short, it required careful consideration towards research foci, methods, and data. I knew which foci and research methods I would use, yet I was unsure what data I wanted to collect. This made survey and interview question preparation especially challenging. Yet in analogizing the process to a biology experiment, I felt that the process was not as challenging. I am unsure how much data I can collect in the period before the draft deadline, but the outline process was a good research exercise. I now have a strong idea of how to proceed and form a coherent formal report.

The peer review process was less difficult. My partner’s proposal was written excellently, so I suggested minor revisions. In reviewing her proposal, I saw how each section of the proposal was logically connected. I had written my initial proposal as if they were independent sections, so I was able to see immediate areas of improvement. Additionally, I relearned the importance of succinct writing. My partner’s proposal was short yet informative; in reviewing it, I saw areas where I could shorten in my own proposal. While I had to rewrite my proposal, I felt that I learned two things from the peer review of my initial proposal. Firstly, I should avoid making assumptions about my audience’s knowledge. While the formal report proposal is targeted to the UBC DS executive team, a thorough explanation of terms would make reading easier. More importantly, I saw areas which could be condensed in my proposal. This was also a recurring observation in reviewing my writing team forum. Overall, I believe that peer review was a valuable experience to improve my writing.

Unlike the formal report assignments, I found the process more intuitive and less research-oriented. While LinkedIn , in my opinion, seems less oriented towards life sciences careers, I was thrilled to develop my professional social network. The summary was the most difficult step; I found that a professional, yet personal tone was hard to achieve on my first submission. Fortunately, the best practices assignment and peer review helped me develop a better summary. I also benefitted from the valuable tips of the best practices assignment, like creating a custom URL and action verbs for achievements and experience. Overall, the process was insightful and enjoyable.

In sum, Unit Two was more challenging. Regardless, I have a strong idea of how my formal report and professional networking site should look.

Enclosure:

ENGL 301 Revised Formal Report Proposal (Jennifer Luu)

ENGL 301 Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal