The unit one definition assignment gave us great practices in learning to write with a specific purpose and audience in mind, and in refining our writings through peer review. We learned to write parenthetical, sentence, and expanded definitions for a complex term in our discipline targeting a non- technical audience. Through the experience of peer reviewing others’ writing, I got to learn and receive feedback from others and to better improve my write-up.
When I wrote my original piece of definition assignment, I tried to put in every detail related to capillary action in my expanded definition. However, I focused too much on the details and was offering too much technical information to the readers. The details might be of interest to those with a science background but not so much for the non- technical audience, whom I was trying to target in my writing. Manpreet’s comments gave me a third party view on the flaw in my writing that I would have not noticed myself. For example, I was reminded of fixing my long and wordy sentences to engage the audience and emphasizing key points to prevent the readers from being overwhelmed. Through her feedback, I realized the unneeded information that non- technical readers would not have wanted to know or would not have understood. To illustrate, I assumed that a short explanation for the term “meniscus” would be sufficient when non- technical readers would need further definitions. To modify my original write up, I would especially focus on my audience and whether their questions are answered without other unnecessary distractions.
As I was peering reviewing Manpreet’s document, I had the chance to review and learn from her writing techniques. I received much benefit from having her as a partner in peer reviewing as her writing style is concise and straightforward. The way she expanded the term hypoxia is very focused and targeted to the non-technical audience. Even though hypoxia can be applied to both human disease and the environment, Manpreet’s did a great job to only expand the term specifically on human disease. This narrowed down and classified the term, which helps the readers to be more focused in their reading. Her sentences are also short and to the point, which made reading easy and understanding simple. I would definitely apply these skills to my writings in the future and find a good balance between the information needed and the details to include depending on my audience. Lastly, through creating a peer review criteria, I was able to get into the guidelines of a definition assignment and of targeting non- technical audience more. As I was making the criteria, I had the chance to ask myself if my own writing meets the requirements, and if not what I should change. These criteria points will for sure help me in the self-editing process to focus more on what I need to include i in my writing.
When I was editing my definition document, I really appreciate the constructive critiques from Manpreet as they give me a fresh perspective on my own writing. Through peering reviewing her writing, I also had the opportunity to act as a non- technical reader and experience that mindset when reading through a definition assignment. While going through Manpreet’s write up, I found myself constantly asking myself “does this information interest me?” and “do I want to know the answer to this question/problem?” Through these insights, I learn to modify my writing and target the non- target audience more specifically. I decided to take away the paragraph that explains the concave and convex meniscus as well as the diagram of capillary attraction and repulsion. Manpreet commented on these details as too technical for the audience and requested further expansion. She brought my attention to the unnecessary information, which surprisingly, was exactly what I found to be extra in my writing while creating the peer review criteria and reading through Manpreet’s writing. Since the information was too detailed, non- technical audience tend not to be interested and it served little interest in helping the readers understand capillary action. It was definitely exciting to see the complementary relationship between the peer reviewing process and the self-editing process. I learned to better self edit my writing from both the peer reviewer’s comments and my own insights gained through the peer reviewing process. Following Manpreet’s suggestion, I also changed my wordy sentences in the “What is capillary action?” paragraph and explained how gravity is related to capillary action earlier in the document. As for the figures, I learned to reference them underneath the caption rather than in the text. Finally, I categorized the examples I have for capillary actions and removed the repetition in my sentences so that the readers do not get overwhelmed.
Overall, I really appreciate the opportunity to undergo this process of writing, peer reviewing, and revising. I believe that it is an excellent way for students to not only learn from self-practices and mistakes, but also from one another in a constructive manner.
Enclosure:301 Lydia Chang Three Definitions-edited
Link to Manpreet’s review of the assignment: http://engl301.arts.ubc.ca/2017/02/02/peer-review-for-lydia-chang-assignment-13/
