Writing the Initial Draft of the Technical Definitions

The first unit of the ENGL 301 technical writing course introduced us to 3 methods of definition-writing: parenthetical, sentence, and expanded.  Parenthetical and sentence definitions, although new, I found to be straightforward in structure and purpose, explaining a term in parentheses and in sentence form, respectively.  Expanded definitions take the term and define it multidimensionally, using history, comparison, visuals, and many other elaboration techniques to piece together a more comprehensive understanding of the term.

Using a technical term from my area of study, pharmacology, I used the definition types to explain what parathion was to a non-technical audience in an established scenario.  This not only increased my awareness of how to simplify complex technical terms accordingly, but also expanded my own understanding of the topic.  I found jargon such as acetylcholinesterase or phosphorylation to be surprisingly difficult to explain, leading me to the realization that my own understanding of these concepts was relatively elementary.  I utilized quite a few elaboration techniques in my expanded definition, providing what I believed was a well-rounded definition of the drug parathion and its history, mechanism of action, toxicities, and commercial use.

I found it most difficult to explain the mechanism of action because the chemical properties, structure and systems the drug acted upon required chemical and physiological prerequisites.  The commercial uses were easier to expand on, as I felt that I knew about as much as a general audience would, and thus was unaware of any potential jargon that I may have been concerned about if I was more knowledgeable in the agriculture industry.  Since drugs can be explained based on quite a few different aspects, the expanded definition technique was very useful and allowed for increased explanation structure. It would definitely be something I would use again if I needed to define pharmacological terms to a general audience.

Peer Review Process

I was quite excited by the prospect of peer reviewing of a terrific writer on my professional writing team, Eugenia Fasciani (a 4th year in political science). Her excellent writing style concerning the definition of the political aspect of sovereignty challenged me to find potential areas of improvement in a seemingly flawless paper.  Her paper allowed me to critically assess my own paper (in addition to her peer review of my paper), which was comparatively lacking.  I was able to see her own method of taking a relatively complex term and breaking it down appropriately in order for someone with no previous knowledge on the topic (like me) to understand it.  I was also able to give her points from my unique perspective as the audience, whose understanding was entirely based on her ability to effectively communicate her ideas to me without creating the feeling that she had to stoop down to my level to do so.  I also had my own methodology and thoughts on explaining technical terms, which I communicated through my peer-review, focusing on critiquing her detail-heavy visual.  Eugenia gave me an excellent review, which guided my definition to answer pressing questions she had relating to parathion, the drug I defined. These included an explanation of the drug by contrasting it with a similar drug with less toxicity as well as looking into the physical properties of the drug.  I have always been an advocate for receiving feedback from widely varying perspectives, and this peer review allowed for just that.

Incorporating Feedback to Form a Final Draft

After receiving (and giving) feedback on the definition techniques, I used the constructive criticism to make my definition document as strong as possible.  I further broadened my expanded definition to include an introduction sentence about the physical properties of parathion, and a concluding summary of pesticide recommendations to the farmer, the scenario I established.  I also included a paragraph expanding on a drug with a similar mechanism of action as parathion, but reduced toxicity to satisfy the lingering questions provided by my reviewer.  I attempted to explain all the jargon I introduced, finding this aspect particularly challenging when it came to chemical structure.  Finally, I learned a little bit about referencing, a definite weak point in comparison to my reviewing partner, who is skilled at citing.  This revision primarily taught me just how important the reader’s feedback is in developing a strong document.

Through this definition writing assignment, I exercised and improved my technical writing skills by (counterintuitively) defining a technical term.  I look forward to the next unit, where I will learn to write reports and hope to improve my resume and networking skills.

Please find attached my peer’s review and my final draft.

Eugenia Fasciani’s Review: 301 Eugenia Fasciani Peer Review of Quentin Michalchuk Definition

Revised Definition: Quentin Michalchuk ENGL 301 Parathion Definition