Unit Three of ENGL 301 showed the same steep progression in demand and learning that I felt in Unit Two. Certain aspects of the course have satisfyingly become habit; memos to peers feel absolutely natural, navigating the course website and textbook is easy and normal, and my understanding of the course structure and rhythm is much more thorough. With these newfound habits, however, have come newfound challenges and changes in the course. The Formal Report Draft was both the most substantial and challenging assignment we have seen thus far. Although my understanding of the specific goals of my report was extremely strong by the time I actually began it, the process of researching, writing, and organizing was still very challenging.

Perhaps the most smooth step of my Formal Report drafting was the research. As Our Community Bikes is an organization in which I was intimately involved for some time, I am still quite close with some of the core staff members and felt comfortable with interviewing them. Because I feel my questions were quite open ended and not necessarily critical of the organization, the interviews did not have a negative tone. The most difficult stage of interviewing was by far scheduling time with staff members and coercing those who I did not know so intimately to discuss with me. This was definitely an excellent exercise in persistent yet respectful communication.

Organization of these research results was definitely challenging. So much information obtained in interviewing was extremely intriguing and exciting for me personally but was not necessarily directly relevant to the specific topic of my formal report. Most difficult was cutting information and concising the amount of data included in the body of my text to most directly communicate my point without overwhelming or boring the reader with excess information. In the end, I was pleased with my execution of this despite the difficulty.

In turn, organizing the layout and progression of my report was the final hurdle. After constructing this, and condensing my data, the actual writing process felt easy and natural. Although I had already completed an outline, after the research process and further modification of my initial ideas based on this, I essentially had to overhaul my initial outline and begin again. Creating headings, subheadings, and a progression for my report was extremely useful in refining my ideas, understanding exactly the points I aimed to make, and understanding the order in which I wished to do so.

Finally, peer reviewing acted as a great opportunity, as it has been throughout this course, to reflect and gain inspiration from the work of my peers. Anastassiya did an impressive job of her report and as always, I was impressed with her direct language and her clear, strong writing. Her figures were great, and the degree to which they accentuated my understanding of her report certainly inspired me to focus a great deal more energy on the remainder of my own figures. Anastassiya’s review was fair and useful, and I was relieved that she seemed to have an overall positive response to my report. Her suggestions were very specific and attainable, such as revising my current use of acronyms and clearly outlining them at the beginning of the report. These suggestions will definitely be applied in my final draft of my Formal Report.

As a whole, Unit 2 felt to be a big step up in workload and progress for me. The initial assignment (2.1: Formal Report Proposal) felt perhaps the most challenging to complete. Deciding upon a topic which was both attainable to research and a subject in which I am knowledgeable and passionate appeared to be the biggest obstacle upon starting. Moving through the assignment, however, I struggled to articulate my goals and purposes in a clear and concise form. By a huge degree more than in Unit 1, the process of peer review and professor feedback felt critical. Jackson’s peer review was incredibly insightful, knowledgeable and specific in addressing my work. He was gentle in his criticism but made some very valuable suggestions. The professor feedback confirmed his suggestions, and made me feel extremely critical of my initial writing. I was able to return to my proposal with new vigour, shortening my sentences, reclaiming my active voice, and cutting extra fat from my overly ornate writing.  The giant takeaway I gained from this assignment was less is more, ie. simplicity and specificity is often the most effective.

Beyond this proposal, the Formal Report Outline and Progress Report felt more effortless and were beneficial in laying out my specific goals for the report, envisioning the structure of the report, and developing a timeline for the next few weeks. Although I am very anxious at the work ahead in compiling my research and surveys, as well as developing a comprehensive report, these smaller assignments helped ease this anxiety slightly.

The LinkedIn profile assignment (Assignment 2.2) definitely felt more natural and less challenging than the Formal Report Proposal, as I already had a pre-existing LinkedIn account. Certain key aspects of my profile were, however, missing including a “Summary”. Perhaps the most interesting and enlightening portion of the assignment was my research into LinkedIn best practices and the subsequent creation of my own “Best Practices”. Here I learned a huge amount about the informative yet professional voice necessary in projecting yourself on LinkedIn, the importance of the quality of your Summary and profile photo as first impressions, and staying active on LinkedIn beyond creation of a profile. The benefit of features such as “Groups” and “Pulse” were previously unbeknownst to me and I was extremely excited to learn about the huge breadth of networking tactics that can be applied to this social networking platform. Overall, this assignment felt like a very positive first step in developing a strong and comprehensive application package.

Click here to view Jackson’s review of my initial Formal Report Proposal, and see the link below for a .docx copy of my revised report:

ENGL 301 Hayley McIntyre Revised Proposal

Upon contemplating Unit 1 of ENGL 301: Technical Writing, culminating in the Three Definitions assignment, the tasks completed seemed most notable for acquainting me with the huge variety of platforms for technical communication in the digital age. Along with this acquaintance came definite struggles; I found myself wrapped up in technical glitches and formatting issues more often than I found myself struggling with writing. I have without a doubt come out the other end of the first unit alone more confident in my abilities to professionally and clearly express myself through at least two of these online forms of communications: blogging and use of the team forum. Having said this, a lot has been gained already in my writing capabilities as well. In the digital world of enormous visual stimulus and constant attention-grabbing rotations of seemingly limitless information, I feel extremely aware of trying to be as clear, concise, and engaging in my writing, a style that certainly does not come naturally.

In writing my definitions, the above mentioned struggle was particularly real, as the subject matter I chose to discuss (the term boudin) was very technically rooted in my particular discipline of study (geology) and therefore not necessarily inherently interesting to any of my peers in this course who do not necessarily feel my passion for rock. By far my largest challenge, particularly in writing my expanded definition, was in not becoming wrapped up in the technicalities of this discipline, and staying very conscious to write in accessible terms. My initial choice of a term that I am very familiar with in fact began to make this assignment more challenging, ironically, because of this. The expanded definition, immediately upon beginning, felt very much like writing a technical geological paper or abstract and it was particularly hard to break it down and define it in an objective way.

The peer review portion of this assignment felt, on a whole, extremely useful. My reviewer, Erin, was very well-spoken and positive, while still maintaining a critical approach and to my relief did not feel that I got lost in the technical details of my term as I had expected. Erin provided useful feedback, notably the suggestion to use parenthetical definitions of necessary geological terminology in enhancing the reader’s understanding. Also suggested was breaking up some of my run on sentences, which she specifically cited. Beyond this, peer-reviewing Erin’s piece was equally useful. I thoroughly enjoyed the format and high degree of organization of expanded definition, and her successfully laconic writing inspired me to be evermore conscious of trimming the fat from my writing. In editing my original work, keeping in mind the structure of Erin’s piece as well as her suggestions specific to my own definitions, felt equally important.

In summary, Unit 1 of this course felt very successful. Moving into Unit 2, I feel endlessly more capable of navigating the online platforms through which this course operates. I am excited to apply the time saved from my newfound efficiency in operating these platforms to my writing itself and focus even harder on developing and refining my technical writing skills.

Below, please find attached a downloadable link to my edited Three Definitions assignment, as well as a hyperlink to Erin’s peer review of my work:

Click here for my edited assignment: ENGL 301 Hayley McIntyre EDITED Definitions

Click here to read Erin Cederberg’s peer review of my piece.

TO: Erin Cederberg
FROM: Hayley McIntyre
SUBJECT: Response to Writing Team Member Inquiry
DATE: January 20th, 2017

Dear Erin,

TO: Anastacia Smirnova
FROM: Hayley McIntyre
SUBJECT: Response to Writing Team Member Inquiry
DATE: January 20th, 2017

Dear Anastacia,

TO: Jackson Weaver
FROM: Hayley McIntyre
SUBJECT: Response to Writing Team Member Inquiry
DATE: January 19th, 2017

Dear Jackson,

MEMO

TO: Dr. Erika Paterson
FROM: Hayley McIntyre, Student in ENGL 301 and Team Member Candidate
DATE: January 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Application Letter Ready for Review

I am writing to inform you that my application letter for the position of writing team member in ENGL 301 has been completed and posted on my UBC blog.

The letter is direct and contains the following information:

• My academic background; Bachelor of Science in Geology, in progress and expected graduation in May 2017.
• Specific experiences and courses within this degree that have benefitted my writing skills.
• Past work experiences and their direct influence on my writing.
• My learning philosophy and the benefits my group members may reap because of this.
• Contact information in case classmates are interested in contacting me to follow up on my application letter.

January 16, 2016

248 X Street,

Vancouver, British Columbia

ABC 123

English 301: Technical Writing

University of British Columbia

2329 West Mall

Vancouver BC

Dear Classmates,

I am writing with strong interest in a position as writing group member and contributor in English 301: Technical Writing, with the University of British Columbia (UBC). I am a current fourth year student at UBC, and will be completing my Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in May 2017. Come September 2017, I will begin pursuing a thesis-based Masters of Science in structural geology.

Within my current bachelors program, my writing experience has been almost entirely scientific and technical with focus on writing or critically analyzing academic papers on geology. In December 2016, I completed a 50 page Directed Studies thesis on my field work from this past summer. Writing of this thesis demanded a concise, clear tone that fell within the strict format of a scientific paper, and this form of unembellished yet eloquent writing strongly challenged my natural flowery writing style. This challenge greatly benefited my writing ability and the lessons learned from this experience would greatly enhance my capability as a member of your team.

Previous to pursuing a degree in Science, I was working towards my Bachelor of Fine Arts in Painting at the Alberta College of Art and Design (ACAD). Massively different from my more recent writing experiences, the writing I completed at ACAD was entirely creative. I took various courses in philosophy, creative writing, and critical analysis of art and design, was pushed to limit my writing as little as possible, and think as analytically and imaginatively as possible.

Beyond these almost entirely opposite academic experiences, writing and communications were a strong component of various past work experiences.  In the summer of 2015, I coordinated and ran the youth programs with PEDAL and Our Community Bikes, a non-profit east Vancouver organization focussed on sustainable transportation and education of low-income and at-risk youth. Managing communications with various non-profit organizations, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver School Board, and the youth themselves involved the ability to change my tone of communication at the flick of a switch in connecting and engaging with very different communities and audiences. I spent a great deal of time within this position writing and editing grants, and developed a strong voice as a primary advocate for our organization.

Not only within my academic experiences, but in my past work experiences, diversity has been a prevalent theme. Having worked in a wide range of positions that presented vastly different challenges and demanded very different skill sets, I learned huge adaptability and flexibility in my writing, and would make me a strong and versatile member of your writing team. I am extremely willing and excited to learn and know that I would gain hugely from the position.

Thank you so much for the opportunity, and if you deem me a strong candidate for this position, please feel free to contact me at hayleymcintyre248@gmail.com. I greatly look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Hayley

(Click here to download this letter in .docx format: ENGL 301 Hayley McIntyre Application Letter)