In the second unit, we got started on two major components of the course. Even though the first few tasks did not involve an extensive amount of writing, they were important in helping us create a strong foundation to work from. The first component of this unit involves the creation of our application package. I was required to create a LinkedIn profile complete with my skills and experiences. Because I have never used LinkedIn before, I had to learn how to navigate through the site and use certain features, such as the “people who viewed your profile” feature. I also researched the best practices in LinkedIn so I know what areas to focus on and how to make my profile more attractive to potential employers. Lastly, I reviewed and provided feedback to my teammate, Shih-Chun Huang, so that she could also improve her profile.

Through these tasks, I learned about proper networking strategies and what a powerful tool LinkedIn is, especially for people seeking connections in the business sector. However, I feel that employers of the life sciences industry do not pay as much attention to LinkedIn profiles as private companies do. The reason for this is because life sciences employees usually actively seek out work positions, rather than wait for potential employers to contact them. Nonetheless, I was able to practice writing professionally and building a strong resume on LinkedIn. By reviewing my teammate’s LinkedIn profile, I was able to think in the perspective of a potential employer. This helped me realize what viewers actually look for when scrolling through different profiles, and what catches their attention. By peer reviewing her profile, not only was I able to provide her feedback for areas of improvement, but I also found ways that I could improve my own profile.

For the second component, we brainstormed possible topics that are worthy of primary and secondary research in order to get started on our formal report. The first assignment for this component was to write a formal report proposal to showcase our ideas and research goals for the specific topic we decide on. After having our ideas reviewed by our peers and Dr. Paterson, we went ahead and developed an outline showing what our tentative formal report may look like. Lastly, we developed a progress report in the form of a memo to notify Dr. Paterson about what we have already done and how we plan to proceed with our report to ensure that we will complete it by the deadline.

The most difficult part of this unit was trying to come up with a viable topic to write my report on. Because I am currently only involved in two different organizations, both of which are related to healthcare, I found difficulty in coming up with topics I could research about without running into ethical issues regarding participant confidentiality. However, once I came up with a topic I am interested in pursuing, the planning component was not too difficult. The guidelines provided by the course textbook helped a lot in my report planning. I also really appreciate the time my teammate, Stephen Lee, put in reviewing my report proposal. Not only was his feedback (please see hyperlink at the end of this post) clear and concise, but he also pointed out specific things I could do to improve my proposal and make it sound more convincing. In my peer review of his report, I found myself seeking for specific details and examples that would support his ideas. This made me realize that I could potentially do the same for my own proposal in order to strengthen it. When writing assignments, I generally pay a lot of attention to my organization and grammar. Even though I am careful in my writing, I sometimes oversee minor errors. Thankfully, Stephen caught these errors in his review of my proposal. After taking into consideration his advice, I revised my formal report proposal, which I have attached to the end of this post. By having much of my planning and brainstorming completed through this unit, I feel much more comfortable in proceeding with piecing together my formal report.

From time to time, I would browse over my classmates’ work through the writing team forum in order to seek ideas and ways to improve my own work after completing a draft. This is especially beneficial because everyone has their own unique writing style, and one person’s way of writing may be better than another’s under certain situations. Many times, I would find myself going back and changing things in my work after coming across an impressive piece presented by my peers. I think that the writing team forum is beneficial for all the students, as we are able to analyze each other’s work, which can give us a better idea of our own strengths and weaknesses relative to others.

To see Stephen’s peer review of my Formal Report Proposal, please click here.

To download a copy of my revised Formal Report Proposal, please click here.

The first three weeks of English 301 has been a nice introduction to the course. We started off by composing specific documents such as letters, memos, and emails. Before this course, I rarely paid attention to the wording and organization of such documents. Being expected to meet certain criteria required me to write more critically.

Personally, the most challenging assignment this unit is the Definitions Assignment, where we had to define a technical term using different methods. In my writing of the definition for Parkinson’s disease, I found myself struggling to compose explanations using simplified scientific terms. At times, I would be unsure about whether or not my definition is too technical for readers with no background knowledge of the topic to understand.

Despite the challenge of the assignment, Hendson’s peer review of my work provided me with valuable feedback for areas of improvement. Because he was unfamiliar with the topic, he was able to comment on the technicality of my writing. For example, because “down-regulation” was a self-explanatory term in my field, I did not put much thought into using the term to explain the concept of the disorder. However, Hendson pointed out that the term does not provide sufficient context to unfamiliar readers.

With Hendson’s helpful suggestions, I was able to revisit and improve my assignment. Because his feedback was clear and concise, I was able to edit my assignment without any difficulties. Instead of using “down-regulation” as an explanatory term, I instead used the phrase “decrease in the number”, which would make more sense to non-technical readers. If I had not received Hendson’s peer review, I would have stayed oblivious to my errors.

Overall, unit one has prepared me to write professionally and critically. Knowing that my work is available on the web for public viewing encourages me to put in extra effort to ensure that my assignments are of acceptable quality. I am happy to be a part of this course, and look forward to improving my writing through different challenges in the next few months.

To see Hendson’s peer review of my Definitions Assignment, please click here.

To download a copy of my revised Definitions Assignment, please click here.