Reflecting on Unit 3: Development of the Formal Report Draft and Peer Review
As per my previous reflection in Unit two, I had hoped in Unit three to integrate more creativity and clarity into this section’s technical communication projects. I also aimed to incorporate writing with a “you-attitude”. The following reflection on my Formal Report, and my Peer Review of Paul Lee’s Formal Report demonstrates my effort in incorporating these writing styles.
Researching the Formal Report
One of the main challenges I had when researching for the formal report was finding studies which specifically utilized the iClicker. There were several American secondary sources available regarding similar products (some of them competitors to the iClicker) however, in order to minimize the number of variables I wanted to incorporate information pertaining to the product at hand (i.e. the iClicker). Finding research on REEF Polling software was whole other ball game. As the software is relatively new, there is limited information being offered on the effects of its use. Aside from what I have found on REEF’s company website, and information provided by universities (mainly the UBC), there is only data pertaining to similar primarily American products (this has been integrated into the Formal Report).
Research for this report is still ongoing. I am in communication with representatives (Adam and Derek) at the UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology who have been providing me with updates to the system as they work through some of the problems (mainly bugs with the software) they have been having. Fortunately, we have another opportunity to sit down together prior to the submission of the official report. I hope to discuss any recommendations they may have and share my insight to help expedite the release of the software.
Organizing the Formal Report
The organization of the formal report came quite naturally thanks to the proposal and outline completed earlier. I did have a few issues with Microsoft Word as a result of my decision to download the newest version of the program. These issues resulted from changes to the processes required to create tables and figures. The new version took some time getting use to, but in the long run I definitely saved time formatting the document.
Interestingly, I found myself constantly looking at the Technical Communications text (which is not necessarily a bad thing) for insight on the layout of the document. I have completed many scientific reports however, these papers generally had specific guidelines. There was much more freedom (in terms of both the layout and criteria) with this assignment and I was uncertain on how to proceed without having a guiding hand. I enjoyed having to flick on the creativity switch because of it.
Writing the Formal Report
This report was a huge undertaking. As I had previously stated, the toughest part of brainstorming for the formal report was finding a subject which I could be categorically impartial. There were countless instances where I would spend time researching and writing only to find I was focusing too much on the student’s perspective, and their needs, and not considering the university’s side (UBC). It took some time before I thought about what the iClicker meant for the University. This device was a source of revenue and I didn’t consider how REEF Polling would impact their revenue stream. In addition, after reading my peer’s report (Paul Lee’s Formal Report:Programme Resource Center Website Survey, link can be found below), I realized my report lacked an emphasis on the reader as I had not incorporated writing with a “you-attitude”. I had generalized the audience too a great extent (which is found often in scientific writing). I hope to rectify this issue by modifying the introduction to sound more personable helping to connect with the reader.
Important Takeaways
I have found some resources on the UBC libraries website which I can use to help with studies on the subject at hand. A few of these aids included physically communicating with representatives who are working to help you navigate through the endless numbers of databases. Going forward, it will be great to utilize these assets for future research which will help me utilize time more efficiently.
I am glad to have moved away from the usual scientific reports which I have produced in the past to ones with less parameters. Although disoriented at first, I believe this ultimately led to a more thorough report as there were seemingly less restrictions on the freedom of thought. With a scientific report you have set standards and are pressed to discuss your results effectively. I felt with this report I was able to step out of the element allowing me to provide a more sound argument. I also must comment on the information which I found while conducting this report. Some of the most insightful thoughts and ideas I received were sitting with individuals face-to-face, and having them talk about the products and their feelings towards them. Although, I found it difficult at times for individuals to move past their comfort zone, listening and providing your input went a long way to finding out interviewee’s true feelings.
Peer Review
In my peer review, I was extremely impressed by the level of professionalism both in the layout and writing of my colleagues report. The document was logically laid out and he made excellent use of his primary resources. One of the main weakness I found was the lack of limitations. From a reader’s perspective, I feel this created a subjective view point. To strengthen his writing, I explained he should focus on the readers standpoint and look to see where he could be more impartial. In addition, although he delivered attainable recommendations, I felt the lack of secondary sources weakened them. Further research could aid in filling this gap.
The peer review for Paul Lee’s Formal Report:Programme Resource Centre Website Survey shined a light on what was missing in my own report. I had spent a considerable amount of time researching secondary studies only to see some key results of my primary studies go unnoticed. In completion of the formal report, I will spend time ensuring I incorporate pertaining primary source information while minimizing wordiness and redundancies.
Unit three tested my patience. There were several instances where I couldn’t find answers immediately, forcing me to change my perspective. The assignments required me to pull ideas and practices not only expressed through the Technical Communications text, and online sources, but also from previous knowledge. I allocated a considerable amount of time writing the formal report draft and am very proud with what I had produced. After reading my colleague’s peer review, there were a few weak areas which I overlooked, however, I am already finding ways to strengthen them. In Unit four, the final unit of the course, we are realizing the culmination of our efforts. I look forward to presenting the improvements I have made in my writing abilities with submission of the Formal Report, Application Package, and Web Folio.
By Mitchel Sharko
Link to Peer Review of Paul Lee’s Formal Report
English-301-Mitchel-Sharko-Peer-Review-of-Paul-Lees-Formal-Report