The first unit of the Technical Writing course provided learners with the task of defining relatively complex terms within their respective professions to members of their team. Students then completed peer reviews of each other’s work, which has since been updated to reflect constructive comments received. This assignment had multiple layers to it that allowed students to work in stages, with active participation from their peers. The peer review process helped to enrichen each other’s definitions by clarifying what was and was not understood from an outside perspective.
I enjoyed this introductory writing exercise as the instructions were straightforward and allowed work to be completed in steps. My partner for the peer review process was Tamara, who provided many positive comments about my original work. She stated that she was able to understand what an oral and maxillofacial surgeon was after reading my blog post, and would recommend only minor revisions before posting my final draft. She noted that I switched verb tenses throughout the writing and advised of how this may be confusing to the reader. I was able to make relevant changes for a more coherent writing style throughout.
When reviewing Tamara’s definition of the term real property, I offered some critiques that pointed out grammatical errors and missing pieces to the format of her post. By making small clarifications to her definitions, any confusion I had during my first read through was cleared up. I appreciate that she fully processed my feedback and saw the benefit in updating her work to reflect my suggestions. I found her final draft absolutely easy to comprehend. Overall, I feel this was a successful writing experience. I have a new understanding of the challenges faced when defining new terms to a broad audience. I feel more confident in my peer reviewing abilities since practicing giving constructive feedback, as well as acknowledging and adapting to the feedback I received.
