In Unit One Assignment 1.3, our tasks were divided into three main phases. The first phase involved us writing three different types of definitions (parenthetical, sentence, expanded). Once completed, we progress to the second phase where we assigned ourselves into pairs to review each other’s work. Then the last phase involved us revising our work based on the feedback of our partner.
I selected the term “akathisia,” because of how common this condition is in patients who take certain anti-psychotics. Initially during the process of writing the definition, I found difficulty explaining the term concisely to an individual without any technical knowledge. This knowledge constraint reduced the vocabulary I could use. However, once I began to understand how to use the different methods of the expanded definition, I realized that it allowed me to simplify my explanations without losing the meaning. I learned that the use of the expanded definition methods are very powerful in breaking down complex terminology into parts that almost any individual can understand. I decided to use the methods of etymology, history, comparison, and visual for my expanded definition. Because akathisia defines a type of movement disorder, I had difficulty finding a visual image to portray it, so I decided instead to create a visual diagram to assist the audience in understanding the cause and effect of akathisia.
In the peer review phase of the exercise, I reviewed the definition for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This section was an intimidating experience for me, since I do not have extensive peer reviewing and technical writing experience. This phase of the exercise forced me to reflect on what I know and what feedback I can offer to elevate my partner’s technical writing. It also allowed me to appreciate the effective writing strategies that my partner incorporates into her writing and what strategies I could use to incorporate into my own writing. Through this process, I learned to carefully consider how to structure my document for a peer review and how to provide written feedback without using pronouns.
In the editing process, I reviewed my writing partner’s feedback and found it extremely helpful. The feedback helped me make revisions to my writing, such as fixing a run on sentence, improving the structure of my definitions, and adding an additional image to improve audience understanding. My writing partner pointed out that I could improve my compare and contrast method section by selecting a more specific condition that had its own characteristics that I could compare “akathisia” with rather than generally with conditions like anxiety and agitation. The feedback allowed me to revise the section using the term “Restless Leg Syndrome,” which greatly improved its clarity. Considering I do not have extensive technical writing experience, another aspect of this exercise I found challenging was ensuring that the document was well structured, organized, and satisfied all APA style guidelines. With the help of my writing partner, she was able to provide feedback that really helped me correct my APA style implementation such as reformatting my figure to APA style and reorganizing the order of my references.
This exercise has made me understand and appreciate the importance of peer reviewing in technical writing. It required me to think hard about audience comprehension and allowed me to work on my peer reviewing skills, while also reflecting on my own technical writing strengths and weaknesses.
Link to Revised Definition:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30199c2022w2/2023/02/13/assignment-1-3-revised-definition-of-akathisia/
Link to Peer Review: