At the start of the unit we took a look at writing letters from the reader’s perspective. Through the exercises of writing the complaint and “bad news” letters, I was able to not just get my own opinion and thoughts across to the reader, but to also mold the message in such a way that the reader is willing to read the letter and respond in an objective manner. It is not simply as easy as always being polite to the reader, as a writer I also need to make sure the reader will take my point into serious consideration. These exercises will hopefully allow me to professionally address future issues with a colleague or co-worker without being too hesitant or too forceful.
It was a little difficult for me to begin the first draft of my formal report. I feel like I chose a fairly technical topic and had some trouble toning down the technical jargon and definitions that readers outside of the industry would have a hard time understanding. I feel in my first draft I was able to get my points across fairly clearly, but I can still work to make certain sections transition better to improve the overall organization of the paper. Through writing future drafts and the final copy, I will work to include more data from my research findings and present them in detailed illustrations that will improve the quality of the research report. I will also aim to find a finalized solution to the problem of implementing automated testing as a recommendations section after the conclusion.
For this peer review, we reviewed a much longer work compared to the other peer reviews we had. I felt that reading over the longer research report draft, I was able to find much more points for my partner to improve on. A side effect of this is also that the report was in an incomplete state and was much easier to pick on mistakes. Therefore, some of my suggestions may seem obvious to my partner as she has not formalized the structure and content yet. Despite this I do feel I was able to identify areas of improvement and give constructive criticism much better than previous peer reviews.