As I was writing assignment 1:3, I tried to focus on writing both clearly and concisely for those readers who may be unfamiliar with or don’t fully understand the term: sophistication. In order to do so, I focused on the etymology of the word, so that readers could understand where the word originated from. The three progressions of definition type (ranging from least to most in-depth), I believe helped me to both communicate and understand the term I chose more clearly. Reflecting on that assignment, I actually would have preferred if the outline of definitions went from, more to less in-depth: Expanded, Sentence, then, Parenthetical. I believe that this would have helped narrow down my definition, in terms of what the most important over-arching idea was.
I enjoyed the peer editing process because you got to see how others interpret the assignment, and through the various definitions my group chose, the different subjects others are studying. I found the peer review a mutually beneficial process, as while I not only benefitted from my partner’s peer review but also by reflecting on what they may have done differently in their assignment. For example, when I was peer-reviewing Taylor Smith’s assignment, I was able to see how elaborating on the context behind the visual I chose, could help to further expand on my definition, which was something he suggested in his peer review.
The peer review process made my editing process for the final draft of my definition easy, as my peer reviewer structured his suggestions clearly. I appreciated his comment on what I could improving on, and what parts of my writing he considered strong. In writing, I think it’s always helpful to have a second opinion because unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately) writing is something that one can always improve on. Below, I have attached the peer-review Taylor Smith has written regarding my first-draft of assignment 1:3 and my final edited copy.
Lia Slager
Have a Day 🙂