Unit 1 has been a difficult learning process to write in a style different from writing short stories and research papers. I was required to adjust my tone of writing and became acquainted not only with writing Memos, but also with myself while writing the Application Letter in terms of better self-understanding. This post will reflect on my experience in the Writing, Peer Review and Editing Process of the Three Definitions assignment, in addition to what I have learned from the listed assignments. The revised version of my “Three Definitions” assignment is attached below.
Writing Process:
When writing, I first created an outline for a term that I knew nothing about to draw inspiration. I compiled a list of what I would have needed to understand the term, in addition to what I would like to know more about. I proceeded to write the first draft with an attempt to minimize jargon and used words that I believe would be accessible to most individuals without extensive knowledge of Decompression Sickness (DCS). The process allowed me to have a better understanding of DCS as well and I came to appreciate the three types of definitions: Parenthetical, sentence, and expanded definition, as well as the types of definitions appropriate for the given given audience.
Peer Review Process:
My team members and myself first assigned the term we were to peer review based on the term we were least familiar with; the purpose was to better simulate an exchange with the reader our assignment was intended for. By reading my team member’s definitions, I had the opportunity to read the style of writing used by someone in a different field than myself, and was better able to understand the importance of using limited jargon. From my previous experience of peer reviewing, I applied what I have learned to suggest additional ways my assignment’s author can incorporate them into their assignment. I thought this process allowed me to see where I can improve in my own assignment along with identifying areas I can further elaborate on.
Editing Process:
My peer review partner was incredibly helpful in providing feedback for my assignment. Therefore the process of incorporating what has been suggested in their feedback made it easier to identify where I needed to improve. Words that I did not think were important to define were brought to light, including the kind of additional information/ visuals that would be helpful for my readers to have. I also made changes to some sentence structures as suggested by my peer reviewer. Moreover, I incorporated what I would have liked to see in the three definitions assignment I peer reviewed, by adding transitions that I believe would benefit my readers, as well as a description for the images I use which has also been suggested by my peer reviewer.
What did I learn?
Having another set of eyes to edit your work is extremely helpful in spotting any spelling/ grammatical errors, and presenting new ideas or adjustments that could be useful for my reader. It allowed me to create a more well-rounded scope of the topic, especially in the expanded definition, in addition to addressing areas that require more information. Having a different perspective of my writing and re-reading with another individual’s suggestions in mind helped me see where I can further improve to better communicate information to my target audience. I also learned that appropriate visuals can be the difference between understanding and not understanding a certain topic for some readers. This point was introduced by my peer reviewer, as well as in my own process of reviewing the definitions I peer reviewed for; the diagram of their term presented as a cycle was what allowed me to better understand their term.
Revised Version: 301-Mila Tung-Three Definitions Revised