Monthly Archives: October 2015

This reflection blog summarizes the work completed and the things I have learned in Unit 3. The following gives an overview of the topics in Unit 3 with hyperlinks to the web page from ENGL 301:

Lesson 2.1: Formal Report & Proposal writing

Lesson 2.2: Networking and Resume Building

Lesson 2.3: Outlines and Progress Reports

During the process of creating my LinkedIn profile, I discovered that this website has a lot to offer to students and professionals from a networking and contact-building perspective, and it can be a great way to find new job opportunities. I found that it was easy to use, intuitive, and provides a platform for me to get my name and work history out there in the world. After receiving feedback on my profile from Ruth, I realized that there were many other ways that I could improve upon my profile. This includes items such as re-wording jargon to more common terms, re-arranging my skill sets to show my top priorities first, and adding other courses to my profile to show breadth and depth of knowledge.

With regards to my final report proposal and outline, I had to consider many factors and the significance of my topic – not just to me, but to various groups of stakeholders. As a student with a background in sciences and biology, this was somewhat out of my comfort zone and allowed me to open my mind to new concepts and processes. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, I was surprised to discover that Bath and Body Works doesn’t have a formal recycling program for waste within its stores. This was something that I thought I could lend a hand with in doing primary and secondary research for the benefit of the store, its customers and the environment overall. I’m happy with my topic selection and eager to start the research component. I don’t have questions about how the research will become a formal report, but I expect to encounter challenges as I navigate through the process.

When I reviewed Justin’s report proposal, I learned new things about possible process improvements and efficiencies that could be implemented at the UBC Bookstore. His proposal was well-defined and thorough, and I believe that providing an option to purchase digital custom course packages would be welcomed by students. I hope that my feedback on his topic was constructive and that Justin will find it helpful in making modifications for his next draft.

In reviewing my team’s writing forum, I have been able to see a variety of topics from new angles and perspectives that I may not have considered otherwise. I’ve been impressed with what I’ve read so far in my colleagues’ work and it has allowed me to open up to new ways of writing that are not as technical as what I’m accustomed to. In addition, being part of a team has made me feel like my opinions are valued and that my ideas and feedback will be taken into consideration. I believe that my own writing has improved since beginning this course, and the team writing forum has played a large part in my own development.

The link to the peer review of the formal proposal by Ruth Benjamin can be found here.

The link to there revised version of the formal proposal can be found 2.1- Proposal_revised according to peer review.

This reflection blog summarizes the work completed and the things I have learned in Unit 3. The following gives an overview of the topics in Unit 3 with hyperlinks to the web page from ENGL 301:

Lesson 1.1:  Introduction and Setting Up Student Blogs

Lesson 1.2: Specific Documents: letters, memos, emails

Lesson 1.3: Definitions and Peer Review

During the process of writing the original document, receiving feedback on my own work, and editing based on Jordan’s suggestions, I learned a lot about how to write appropriately for a specific audience and take constructive feedback into consideration to significantly improve my work.  Using different methods of writing definitions to explain the topic allowed me to realize how these definitions need to be broken down into simpler terms, and not to make assumptions on the readers’ level of knowledge about the subject.

I liked how the expanded definition can include a format of ‘question and answer’ that allowed me to first ask a question, then answer it for the reader in terms that are descriptive, yet not overly complicated. While Jordan liked the format of the expanded definition section, he pointed out that I used quite a bit of jargon in my writing. That is something I will definitely take note of for the future.  Jargon, while understood by some, is not appropriate for an audience who may have little to no knowledge of a particular subject. Because my assignment is based on phylogeny, I truly must consider the topic and how the reader will interpret this based on a limited understanding; therefore, I need to use words that are simple to comprehend.

I found Jordan’s suggestions very valuable and I updated my assignment based on his feedback. I think that removing the jargon and using his ideas about wording allowed me to simplify the writing so that all audiences can understand the basics of this topic.

Conducting the peer review was an interesting exercise because it allowed me to read someone else’s work and provide suggestions to improve it and ensure that the information was coming across in a simple way to the audience.  Breaking things down and viewing them from another perspective was extremely helpful in reviewing my own work, as well as (hopefully) aiding my peer with some suggestions for improvement. In looking at Ruth’s work, I highlighted what she did well and provided some feedback as to how to enable the audience to better understand relational databases. The suggestions centred on ensuring that the primary or unique key is mentioned within the parenthetical definition, providing consistency in the terms used (relational database versus database), and describing how to access the information as well as who uses it in their jobs.

Overall what I learned is that essentially, when you think about the writing and editing from two different points of view, i.e. the writer versus the reader/editor, it opens up your mind to various ways of looking at what is being presented in the writing.

Link to Peer’s Review – by Jordan Bhullar

Definition of phylogeny- Revised