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.<\/p>\n
Writing Process:<\/strong> Peer Review Process:<\/strong> Editing Process:<\/strong> What did I learn?
\nWhen 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.<\/p>\n
\nMy 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.<\/p>\n
\nMy 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.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>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\u00a0 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n