Writing the First Draft of the Technical Definition
For this assignment, we were tasked to write a technical definition of a term for a non-technical audience. My term ‘meiosis’ is a relatively simple term for undergraduates and experts in natural sciences, yet was challenging to convey to non-technical audiences without using too much jargon. Three types of definitions were composed: parenthetical, sentence, and expanded. Parenthetical definitions explain a term briefly in parentheses. I did not find this type of definition too challenging and learned to use them to convey jargon in my expanded definition. Sentence definitions explain a term within a sentence, providing slightly more information than a parenthetical definition. Expanded definitions are thorough explanations of a term using a variety of expansion strategies such as etymology and visuals. I enjoyed learning about the different expansion strategies and choosing which strategies would help a non-technical audience gain a better understanding of my chosen term. Since my term is a biological process that occurs in distinct steps, using the ‘Analysis of Parts’ strategy allowed for a clear breakdown of the major steps. Through this assignment I gained knowledge of different types of definitions and gained experience writing for non-technical audiences.
Peer Review Process
Through the peer review process I was able to review the draft of a team member (Dylan Flach) and receive a review of my own draft. Examining the work of my team member allowed me to recognize flaws in my own writing that could be improved upon. For example, I liked how Dylan used a subheading for each expansion strategy they used, and found that it increased the organization of the document. Giving constructive feedback gave me a better understanding of a non-technical audience, as I had trouble understanding some jargon in Dylan’s writing, which made me realize I needed to clarify more jargon in my writing. Receiving constructive feedback helped me understand what was lacking in my definitions, as I learned that my writing was too technical and not appropriate for the given audience. The peer review process allowed me to critically evaluate another’s work and receive feedback on my own work, helping to refine my writing skills.
Revision Process
After the peer review process, I was tasked with revising my definitions. I am grateful for my team member who provided many great suggestions that I had never noticed before, such as using the written form of numbers instead of the numerical form to increase the formality of the document. Since I received feedback that my writing was too technical, I edited my writing to contain less jargon and provide clear parenthetical definitions for the jargon I did use. This was a great learning experience as I realized certain jargon that were simple terms to me, such as ‘chromosome’ and ‘cell division’, were in reality technical terms that required more explanation for a non-technical audience. I also received feedback that I had a lot of unnecessary information for the given reading situation, especially in my compare and contrast section. I reduced this section and only kept the most important information, which helped to improve my conciseness and ability to write according to a reading situation. This writing process has helped me gain a new perspective about my writing, helping to both recognize flaws and ways to improve. I am excited for future assignments to learn more about technical writing and grow as a writer.