Unit 3 Reflection

Researching and Organizing the Report

As part of Unit 3 we were tasked with researching and planning for the upcoming formal report assignment. For the topic of graph visualization, I found that conducting the necessary research was not challenging. Indeed, the subject matter of graph visualizations for knowledge bases is relatively novel and allows for creative input rather than dependence on existing research.  What was challenging is designing and conducting polling with the target audience. Since the questions required producing visuals and were targeted at measuring various aspects of perception, designing the questionnaire was a difficult and frankly a procrastination-inducing process. This, coupled with low turn-out of responses, taught me a few things about designing such polls. First, the questions need to be as simple and clear as possible, and it is not a trivial thing to do. Most of the people who completed the questionnaire and whom I know noted the difficulty of my questions. Second, questions really need to be designed carefully since the data from the answers is the only data that will be available and rerunning an updated poll would be difficult. On the other hand, analyzing data and subsequently structuring my report by writing a detailed outline was enjoyable and exciting. The data produced enough of interesting insight to incite my curiosity and motivation.

Writing the Draft

As a logical consequence of planning and gathering data, the next assignment of Unit 3 was to complete an initial draft of the formal report. Out of all challenges, the most difficult thing about writing was battling against procrastination and adhering to a pre-defined schedule. Seeing an empty skeleton of the formal report was the hardest moment to push through. However, having a schedule as well as a detailed outline allowed to eventually get unstuck and get to work. With the outline and the gathered data, writing the first draft was similar to filling blanks on a test and was the least demanding part of the process. In addition, since it was just a draft, the pressure of preparing a full report was taken off, and writing proceeded in a smooth singular stroke, as I knew I could change and improve any part of the draft later. The main things that learned from that experience was that having a pre-defined structure and content, which included the proposal, the outline as well as the data analysis helps a lot in moving the project forward. However, as it turns out, I still need to develop a skill of escaping the inescapable spiral of procrastination by developing a habit of working in small steps in advance.

Peer Review

In the last part of Unit 3, we were tasked with writing a peer review on a formal report of one of our team members. The review process was different from the previous peer reviews in a way that we were not reviewing the final product, so to speak, but something intermediary and in many respects raw. However, I realized that a lot of review in actual working environment would be just like that – an intermediate step in a multi-stage iterative process of preparing an important document. Reviewing an incomplete work may not offer a full picture but allows for early suggestions of major issues that can be addressed promptly, rather than haphazardly right at the deadline. Another learning point was that a review of a lengthier work, such as a report, has slightly different considerations. It is possible to include only so many little details in a limited space of a review, and a big picture outline is much more valuable and effective. After receiving a review of my own report, I noted similar insights. It was pleasing to read that elements of style and flow were well done, and the content was easy to understand. I felt that that was the result of improving my skills throughout this course and understanding the reader’s perspective better. However, some technical mistakes still remain, though it is clear that none will be hard to fix in the final revision.

ENGL301 Formal Report Draft Konstantin Mestnikov

Unit 2 Reflection

Networking via LinkedIn

One of the assignments for Unit 2 of ENGL301 course was to conduct research on best practices for networking on LinkedIn. Many sources that were found agreed on several important points about networking, namely, that one needs to complete the profile, keep it up to date, perform timely engagement with the network and create relevant content. All of these require good habits as well as good knowledge of various functionalities that LinkedIn has. I found that the necessary skills and habits are similar to those that we already study in ENGL301. For example, the ability to write concisely and persuasively while maintaining the appropriate tone would be essential in completing one’s personal profile as well as in communicating with potential connections. Even though I already have a profile on LinkedIn, I never actually used it effectively to build my professional network. The research exercise shifted my attitudes towards LinkedIn from that of apathy to a genuine interest. Learning about various features and the importance of building one’s professional network early on motivated me to plan to input more effort to maintain my presence in the social network.

Formal report proposal

A major part of Unit 2 of ENGL301 was brainstorming and developing a proposal for what is going to be a formal report. After the proposal was done, an outline and a progress report needed to be completed shortly after to keep the formal report project on track. The process of brainstorming was not very challenging, as the instructions aided the process very much. The key to finding an appropriate topic was the tip to find an area that relates to personal experience and immediate environment and does not require a lot of literature research. Given these recommendations, I quickly came up with a few topics in mind to which I have a direct relation now. So, after a short period consideration I decided to work on something that I am actually working on currently myself, namely visualization of networked data. Once the problem was chosen, preparing a proposal was not challenging, since examples were given in the textbook and the instructor’s blog. The main considerations while writing the proposal was making it persuasive and focused. In order to make sure that the proposal had these qualities I used a technique, where I would stop working on it for some time and return and re-read it with a fresh mind, and that helped a lot. As for how the report progress is going, I feel slightly behind the schedule that was set out in the progress report, but it is still possible to keep things on trac. I have a general idea of how it is going to come all together, which makes the actual writing and planning simpler. However, as with any other work, the vision of the report develops and matures as the progress continues.

Peer review and proposal revision

As the final assignment for Unit 2, we were tasked with peer reviewing a team member’s formal report proposal. Having the perspective of the reader of the proposal proved to be very revealing. Since a proposal has a very clear structure, it is much easier to see if something is wrong with it, or if some part is not clear or persuasive enough. For example, despite it was very evident to me that the proposed solution of my peer’s proposal did not address the entirety of the stated problem. This is important for two reasons. First, this underlies the importance of knowing the formats of different document types to adjust the style and structure appropriately. Second, it reveals that the document format itself helps the writer to organize points effectively with potentially little effort. Reading my team member’s peer review of my proposal also provided some useful insights. As was the case with Unit 1 assignments, bridging the cognitive gap between the reader and the writer remains the most crucial aspect of writing that I need to improve. Only by learning to take the perspective of the reader can one excel in making their writing clearer and simpler. I found that I still need to make more progress in that regard, as the reviewing team member found a few places where he was not able to follow easily what the proposal was trying to convey. Overall, the peer review process once again provided a crucial outside view on my writing and gave important insights that will impact my future work.

Revised proposal

Leif Jack’s review of my proposal

Unit One Reflection

The process of writing the first draft

As an assignment in unit one of ENGL301 course, we were asked to write three definitions of a relatively complex term for a non-technical audience. The three definition types were parenthetical, sentence and expanded, and I knew nothing about how to compose them beforehand, which was the first challenge for me. However, as I was writing I learned the relative importance of each definition type, as well as how the situation and audience affect what should be included and how. Tailoring the expanded definition to the audience with no technical background was the second challenge of the assignment. I chose “High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL)” as the topic for my definition, and since I am used to scientific jargon, it was difficult to come up with a way of explaining the term simply and clearly. Trying to look at my writing from a perspective of another person and revising several times helped a lot. The next learning outcome was discovering various ways in which a definition can be expanded depending on the context. In the case of HDL definition, I decided to add a section explaining the relation of HDL to cardiovascular health, since the reading situation was a health brochure. Overall, this seemingly simple assignment, was a rich source of learning and writing practice.

Peer Review

After completing the first draft of the definitions assignment, we were given an opportunity to review the work of my teammate (Piper Kim) and to compose a peer review document based on that. This exercise allowed me to analyze a different take on the same assignment, which broadened my perspective on writing. A major learning point was to write a constructive and useful criticism of someone’s work. It was difficult to combine all the suggestions together into a coherent and sectioned document. A crucial insight for was that a peer review may not be meant for the original writer only, but perhaps for a larger audience. This meant that a review should combine suggestions and praise concisely and still be understood by a third reader (other than reviewer and writer). During the review, I also realized the extend that the same piece of writing can appear very clear to the writer, and at the same time confusing to the reader (myself). This highlighted the importance of practices that we learn in this course – avoiding pronouns or wordy expressions – as they are often the cause of such confusing language.

Self-editing

After completing the peer review, I have received a review with criticism of my own work. That provided me with a valuable perspective of a reader and a direction in which to revise my first draft. I was glad to read that she was able to understand my definition and had an overall positive impression. The reviewer was also very helpful, for example, in identifying the need to change the order of the paragraphs in the expanded definition to achieve a better flow. Also, the criticism helped me realize a few awkward phrases with multiple jargon words, which I was able to rewrite into a simpler form. Furthermore, the instructor blog proved to be an invaluable resource in the revision process. I found several places where I could simplify wording. For example, “inner core” was revised to be just “core”, as there is only one core in the lipoprotein particle. Furthermore, in a couple of places I was able to fix ambiguous prepositions, such as “their” in the introduction, which I did not notice as unclear before. In summary, having an outside perspective and keeping in mind general tips from the instructor helped me revise my definition draft into a clearer and more concise read.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/13/konstantins-revised-definition/

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/10/peer-review-to-konstantin/

Email messages to perspective writing team partners

Subject: Invitation to join an ENGL301 writing team

Email 1

Dear Jessica,

After reviewing your application, I would like to invite you to form an ENGL301 writing team.

Your experience in social service field and exposure to counselling psychology can be invaluable in understanding the audience and building effective communication within the team. Furthermore, our common experience of switching our previous degrees towards the BCS program can provide us a common ground for collaboration. At the same time, it can also add unique perspectives, since both us have different backgrounds (psychology and biochemistry).

Please, let me know if you are interested and see attached my application. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best,
Konstantin Mestnikov

301 Konstantin Mestnikov Application Letter

Email 2

Dear Anushka,

Your application impressed me, and I would like to invite you to form an ENGL301 writing team together.

I believe that in writing, as in any creative endeavour, combining diverse perspectives can yield a productive synergy. Your background in marketing and sociology in this way complements mine in computer science and biochemistry. Furthermore, our skills in writing also supplement each other. Your skills in understanding the audience and writing clearly can aid at times when my writing is wordy and awkward. Likewise, my ability to organize thoughts can overcome your difficulties in combining writing into a coherent whole.

Let me know if you are interested in forming a team. Please, see attached my application and feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best,
Konstantin Mestnikov

301 Konstantin Mestnikov Application Letter

Email 3

Dear Leaf,

Thank you for your invitation and for sending your application to me. I would be interested in working with you in a team for ENGL301 course.

I believe that your experience in academic and creative writing, as well as strong academic record can bring valuable skills to the team. I also value the fact that you enjoy a structured team work with project timelines and roles, as this may prove crucial in completing assignments in such an intensive course as this one.

Please let me know if your team has any other members, as well the your preferred means of communication.

Best,
Konstantin Mestnikov

MEMO

MEMO

To: Erika Paterson, Professor of ENGL301
From: Konstantin Mestnikov, Student in ENGL301
Date: May 30, 2022
Subject: Letter of application posted

I am writing to inform you that I have written the Letter of Application as requested by you and posted it on my ENGL301 student blog alongside with an attachment in Microsoft Word document format.

The letter includes a summary of my:

  • experience in biochemistry and computer science and how it developed my communication/writing skills
  • experience in organizing collaborative writing for project reports
  • strengths and weaknesses in my writing habits
  • basic components of my learning philosophy

Please let me know if need any further information.

Enclosure: Letter of Application

301 Konstantin Mestnikov Application Letter

Application letter

123 123rd Avenue
Vancouver, BC, V1A 2B30

May 30, 2022

The 301 Technical Writing class,
The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Dear English 301 students:

Please consider my application for a professional writing team member position in your class, as advertised on English 301 Technical Writing course blog. Originally trained in biochemistry, I am currently pursuing my second degree in computer science. I believe that my diverse experience and skills in written collaboration would make me a valuable member of your team.

My work experience includes positions in both academia and industry, all of which exposed me to various settings for technical communication. I have worked a total for three years in biochemistry labs, where I wrote numerous protocols, communicated with scientists, and kept clear and complete notebooks of all my everyday work. Later, as a software developer Co-op student working from home, I developed the relevant skills of professional communication in settings where personal meetings are not possible. During that time, I was able keep the team informed about my progress and provide useful feedback to company operations in a professional manner.

As a writer and a team member, I have proven to be effective in organizing collaborative writing sessions when classes were online due to the pandemic. For every group project in my current degree, I was the team member who gathered disparate ideas and written sections into a single coherent whole for project reports. Furthermore, my other strength in writing is in my habit to see writing as a process embedded in learning. This manifests itself through an iterative attitude to writing, where I would perform planning, rewrites, and further rewrites. However, at times, my writing can be wordy and awkward, which I am currently working on by means of practice and self-reflection.

I see learning as a lifestyle, which revolves around four basic principles. Learning for me is effortful, incremental, self-driven, and social. This means that one must accept that learning will be difficult and require effort, which will only result in gradual progress. However, through persistence, a good work ethic and collaboration, one is guaranteed to achieve any heights.

Overall, as a motivated learner and team member, I believe I can succeed at being a part of your writing team. If my experience and skills meet your needs, please feel free to email me at kostya13@student.ubc.ca.

Sincerely,

Konstantin Mestnikov

301 Konstantin Mestnikov Application Letter