The assignment to write three different definitions for a complex term, peer review to other\u2019s assignment and editing the definitions based on the peer review were very useful processes that allowed me to practice technical writing, reflect mine and analyze\u00a0peer\u2019s writing. Through these processes, I can see my weaknesses of writing, and I am thankful for Justin to point them out. I have edited the original assignment regarding to the peer review.<\/p>\n
The complex term I picked was \u201csynapse\u201d, which is\u00a0a very familiar term for a Chemical Biology student like me. When I was writing my original assignment, I repeatedly reminded myself, \u201cmake it simple to be understood for all college students\u201d. Although I have tried to think in this way, it turned out that many jargons lacked enough explanation in it\u00a0regarding to Justin\u2019s review. I was quite surprised when I read the review because I thought I have made it very simple for college students with all backgrounds. However, that was just too subjective. I believe my peer may have the same feeling. I reviewed the definitions of \u201cLinked List\u201d (a term related to programming) written by Justin who is a Computer Science student. Since I barely have any programming knowledge, I honestly felt quite struggled to understand it. From this experience, the most important thing I have learned is that I have to carefully and objectively consider the audience that I write for. For science writing, if I want to write for the general audience, I should simplify the concept as much as possible. If it is possible, using analogy could be a very useful way to interpret a complex concept to general audience. I should either minimize the use of jargons or fully explain the jargons in my writing.<\/p>\n
In addition, as Justin commented, using paragraphs instead of bullet points in a major part (function of synapse) of the expanded definition could be looked more professional. I also think it makes the overall structure of the assignment look more neat. As well, I agree that by using etymology would make the writing more interesting, so I have added the history background of the discovery of \u201csynapse\u201d to the original assignment.<\/p>\n
I have attached the edited assignment, as well as the link to my original assignment and the \u00a0review from my peer as below.<\/p>\n
Maggie Zhou’s Edited definition of synapse<\/a><\/p>\n Maggie Zhou’s Original definition assignment<\/a><\/p>\n Peer Review from Justin Chau for Maggie Zhou’s definition assignment\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The assignment to write three different definitions for a complex term, peer review to other\u2019s assignment and editing the definitions based on the peer review were very useful processes that allowed me to practice technical writing, reflect mine and analyze\u00a0peer\u2019s … Continue reading