Writing Process:
For the third week of the technical writing lesson, we were tasked to write three definitions for a complex term used in our professional lives. Furthermore, we were given a scenario to explain the term to an audience who had no prior knowledge of the term. During my professional experience, there were only a handful of times when I had to explain a complex term to an audience who had no background knowledge as I was usually situated in an environment where we all shared common interests. The three definitions exercise was an eye-opening moment where I suddenly understood the hardships of professors explaining advanced knowledge to their students. The term I chose was “power distance”. A term widely used in organizational behaviour courses to understand complexities in conducting business between different cultures and countries.
After having chosen the term, I had to conduct extensive research to fully communicate the complexities of the term using the three definitions – a parenthetical definition, a sentence definition, and an expanded definition. While writing the three definitions of “power distance”, I quickly came to realize the advantages and disadvantages. First and foremost, the parenthetical definition was the most succinct form of definition capped in parenthesis; however, it offered limited information to the readers, and I was almost certain that most individuals would have had to guess what the term meant with this form of definition. The sentence definition, in contrast, offered a more detailed and broader definition of the term but it did not capture important details of the term such as its history, its value, and its application. The most extensive form of definition, the sentence definition indeed was the most descriptive with all the details that the sentence form and parenthetical forms lack; however, as it is quite long with information, the readers could possibly quickly lose interest in the subject. Personally, I felt that the expanded definition was most suitable for the scenario that we were situated in. As the definitions were for an audience without any knowledge of the term, it is best suited in solving any questions by explaining the term in detail with even illustrations.
Peer Reviewing Process:
After writing the chosen the definitions for the chosen term, we were tasked to partner with one of the members of our group to edit their work. I worked with Leo and had an opportunity to read his explanation of Kepler’s Law of Planetary. During the process, I felt I was perfect as the audience for reviewing his definitions as I never had encountered this term before. I was the target audience his writing was intended for. My lack of knowledge of the term helped the editing process as I had encountered a few questions while I was reading the definitions. For example, while I was learning about the three laws that Kepler had presented, I realized that I did not understand mathematical variables such as G, his diagrams had. Therefore, I was able to suggest areas of improvement he could implement to perfect his definitions. While editing Leo’s definitions, I became aware of how helpful visuals are in understanding terms as Leo’s visuals definitely helped me realize the importance of abundance in images. The peer-reviewing process helped me gain insight into the strengths of Leo’s work, which helped me in transferring his strength to my own work.
Revision Step:
After reviewing Leo’s work, I have had an opportunity to receive feedback as well. I was always aware of the importance of reviewing each other’s work, but this exercise was another reminder that different views and perspectives and receiving feedback from them are imperative steps in improving one’s writing skills. One of the memorable points that Leo mentioned was that the situation could be better explained in the beginning to set the scene. I did not realize when submitting prior, but I noticed after Leo’s feedback how vague my introduction was. I was shocked that I have missed this flaw even though I had reviewed my work several times. Additionally, Leo pointed out that the explanations could be improved with more visuals and better formatting which I also wholeheartedly agreed with. It was awesome that Leo was able to point out a few weaknesses as I would not have realized them without his input.
Final Thoughts:
In conclusion, I had several takeaways after completing the first lesson. First of all, it helped me realize the importance of eliminating industry jargon when writing for an audience without background knowledge. I also reflected on how thankful we should be when professors help us understand complex professional terms in lectures. Lastly, this exercise was another reminder of the importance of a second eye when proofreading writings. I look forward to working with the team for the rest of the term to gain more knowledge from them and learn from my mistakes.