This is my final ENGL 301 blog post! The course has been very helpful in improving my proficiency and confidence as a technical writer.

I have learned that writing is a not an inherent skill in that some people excel. It is a skill that requires continual practice. I feel that ENGL 301 has provided me with significant practice in technical and professional writing. Throughout the numerous assignments and peer reviews, I feel that I have accomplished some of the goals I set. One of my goals was to develop concise writing. During the course, I learned how to eliminate extraneous words to increase clarity. The formal report assignment was a good example of concise writing. My original draft had 14 pages of written content! From extensive feedback in earlier units, I was able to condense my report to 11 pages.

I also noticed some weaknesses in my writing. As a science student, I was used to writing lengthy research papers. Oftentimes my writing would be too technical and lengthy for readers. I was able to see this in earlier assignments, and this is an area that I am actively working to improve. Another weakness would be my assumptions about my audience. I am accustomed to my audience as being fully knowledgeable about the material. This often resulted in vague peer reviews that lacked examples. The feedback from ENGL 301 has helped me undo this mindset. Additionally, I have taken more effort to explain concepts to my audience; this extends beyond my role as a peer reviewer.

I believe some of the skills I practiced during ENGL 301 apply to my future career. A relevant one is critical analysis, which is from my undergraduate background in science. Critical analysis was commonly practiced when reading assignment details. This was to ensure I followed guidelines correctly to avoid penalization. This will prove useful as I apply for graduate school. Oftentimes, schools will reject applications if they do not meet guidelines; thus, this is a very important skill. Some of my strengths that will help my future career are my work ethic and willingness to ask questions. Graduate school will be time consuming and have strict deadlines. It is then important to have a strong work ethic to meet guidelines and achieve success. I also believe a willingness to ask questions is important. Occasionally, there will be miscommunication on tasks and assignments. Thus, it is important to actively ask questions to minimize errors and help advance projects.

Overall, I am pleased with my improvement as a technical writer. I would like to thank Dr. Erika Paterson and Jasmine Spencer for their continual feedback and support. With their help, I was able to become a stronger and more confident writer.

The WebFolio design process was an interesting experience. I have prior experience in creating blogs in WordPress, so creating a WebFolio was fairly simple. My main focus in creating my WebFolio was to make it simple and easy to navigate. As this is a public interface to represent my work, I wanted to keep links and pages concise and readable. This is reflected in my choice of hyperlink titles and page titles. The content on each page also had to be concise. These considerations made self-editing a continuous process, in order to better appeal to my audience. Overall, I have a better understanding of the characteristics of a WebFolio or an online portfolio. Creating a successful WebFolio requires careful consideration to the audience and concision. The process was very fun and I believe I have addressed the goals of the WebFolio assignment.

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

This post is a reflection of Assignment 1:3, where students were asked to define a discipline-specific term for a non-technical audience. In choosing the term “polymerase chain reaction”, I wrote definitions in parenthetical, sentence, and expanded form. I reflect on the writing, peer review, and self-editing steps below.

It was challenging to write a definition for a non-technical audience. I am accustomed to writing for a technical audience, which usually understands terms like “nucleotide” and “reagents”. While writing, I had to take audience knowledge into consideration. This made writing difficult, as I had to carefully translate terms to not overwhelm the reader with information. Yet in being conscious of my audience, I was able to condense PCR into a short and informative definition. This was challenging, yet I learned how to eliminate unnecessary information. Overall, writing for a non-technical audience taught me how to explain jargon effectively and practice concision.

During the peer review, I practiced critical reading skills. When reviewing others’ work, I usually focus on organization, grammar, and tone. This assignment allowed me to practice skills, like assessing the purpose of the writing and style. I learnt which writing strategies were effective for a non-technical audience. These included visuals, question-style subheaders, and the parts of a process or item. Peer review was an informative process that improved my skills in critical analysis.

The self-editing step was another challenge. While my reviewer noted that I addressed the assignment goal, they felt my definition was still too technical. It was difficult to translate terms like “reagents” into non-technical versions, without being inaccurate. My reviewer also noted that my sentences could be more varied. I had trouble changing some sentences, because I was used to a short and oftentimes choppy structure. Regardless, I was able to incorporate conjuctions and complex sentences to add some variety to my writing.

In sum, Assignment 1:3 was a challenging but beneficial task. I learnt how to communicate to a non-technical audience, and improve on my writing skill set. I look forward to using these new skills in future modules.

Enclosure: Assignment 1:3 (Final) -Jennifer Luu

Peer review: http://engl301.arts.ubc.ca/2017/02/01/13-peer-review-for-jennifer-luu/

From: Jennifer Luu
To: Sara Nussle
Subject: English 301 Writing Team Invitation
Date: January 23, 2017

Hi Sara,

I am writing in response to your letter of application and I invite you to form a professional writing team.

Your professional experience as a Junior Analyst under Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada would greatly benefit  team members. Your position demonstrates strength in clear and concise writing. This skill is highly valuable in technical writing, and I welcome your expertise. In turn, I would assist you in strengthening your grammar and logical organization. Finally, our shared learning philosophy would enable us to thrive together because of our unique experiences.

I invite you to review my letter of application below. If you are interested, please send me an email at jenniferluu9@gmail.com. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Jennifer Luu

Enclosure – Jennifer Luu – Letter of Application

From: Jennifer Luu
To: Alina Aref’yeva
Subject: English 301 Writing Team Invitation
Date: January 23, 2017

Hi Alina,

I am writing in response to your letter of application and I invite you to form a professional writing team.

Your diverse writing experiences would be an asset to the writing team. The science and arts courses you completed demonstrate valuable skills, namely concision and critical thinking. You also exhibit strong audience awareness, in seamless switching between academic and creative writing. Your knowledge would help members develop audience-appropriate and concise writing. In turn, I would offer my expertise in logical organization and tone as a past marketing co-op assistant. Finally, your commitment to group success is one with I strongly agree. Our mutual collaboration would allow us to thrive during this course.

I invite you to review my letter of application below. If you are interested, please send me an email at jenniferluu9@gmail.com. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Jennifer Luu

Enclosure – Jennifer Luu – Letter of Application

From: Jennifer Luu
To: Christy Grenon
Subject: English 301 Writing Team Invitation
Date: January 20, 2017

Hi Christy,

I am writing in response to your letter of application and I invite you to form a professional writing team.

I am impressed by your extensive writing experience. In writing and editing research papers, you demonstrate strong critical thinking and grammatical precision. These skills are valuable, as they help establish clear and concise communication. I would appreciate your expertise in these areas. Having worked as a marketing co-op assistant, I would offer my skills in logical organization and audience-appropriate tone.

I invite you to review my application below. If you are interested, please send me an email at jenniferluu9@gmail.com. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Jennifer Luu

Enclosure – Jennifer Luu – Letter of Application

MEMORANDUM

To:            Erika Paterson, Sessional Lecturer

From:       Jennifer Luu

Date:        January 18, 2017

Subject:    Submission of Letter of Application

As per English 301 Unit 1:2 assignment guidelines, I have prepared a letter of application for prospective writing team members on my blog. You will find a summary of its contents and a copy below.

The letter of application includes

• My writing experience from past co-op placements and courses

• My writing strengths and weaknesses

• My learning philosophy

Please review the letter of application as necessary. If you require more information, please let let me know. I look forward to your response.

Enclosure: Letter of application (JenniferLuu-LetterofApplication)

January 15, 2017

789 Oak Boulevard

Vancouver, BC

English 301: Technical Writing

University of British Columbia

2329 West Mall

Vancouver BC

Dear classmates:

My name is Jennifer Luu. I seek to be a member of your professional writing team, as indicated on the English 301 course website. I am a fourth-year undergraduate in Biology, and intend to pursue a career either in science policy or science communication. To meet the demands of either career, I am taking English 301 to refine concise writing. I will outline relevant writing experiences, writing skills and work habits, and learning philosophy to aid your decision.

My writing experiences come from co-op work placements and coursework. As a Marketing Co-op Assistant for a biotechnology company, I wrote product and educational material for the company website. This required special attention to technical detail, grammar, and concision. I did the same in editing others’ material. I wrote regular technical laboratory reports for my laboratory courses. In such reports, I summarized key research findings and experimental rationale.

I have developed writing skills and work habits during my education. My writing strengths include attention to detail, logical organization, and tone. However, I would like to improve my concision and grammar. I am an involved student on-campus, and manage my time efficiently to finish assignments. My weakness is that I can fixate on small details, which occasionally delays coursework.

I believe that learning is meant to be engaging and collaborative. In this course, we can improve our writing as regular participants in assignments and other projects. Group work will bring together our respective strengths and help mitigate our difficulties.

Thank you for reviewing my application. You may contact me at jenniferluu9@gmail.com. I look forward to hearing from you and becoming your fellow team member.

Regards,

Jennifer Luu

JenniferLuu-LetterofApplication