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.