This reflections blog contains my thoughts and experiences while writing a technical definition for a non-technical audience and the peer review process of the definition assignment.

Original writing

By writing the first draft of the definitions for my chosen term, algorithm, I realised the importance of choosing a term that is easy to define without using technical jargon. In particular, I researched several different terms (in the Statistics and Computer Science field); however, many of those terms required a strong mathematical background to understand. Terms which are along the lines of abstract concepts, rather than physical objects, seem to be more challenging to describe to a non-technical audience. I learned that using the UBC library commons to research my definition was also challenging in the sense that I could not find peer-reviewed articles that revolved around an introduction to algorithms. While writing my original draft, I reflected on a time not too long ago, when I did not know what an algorithm was. During that time, I remember I was just starting out in computer science and reading articles that utilized very simple language was crucial. I learned that when writing an expanded definition for a non-technical audience, comparisons to situations which the audience may be familiar with can be very useful to elaborate in the definition.

Peer Review Process

Through reading Jamie’s writing, I realised that I can be more specific in my own writing. I found it helpful to edit someone else’s work for many reasons. One is that it allows me to incorporate some of the stylistic flavours used by my peer in my own writing. Another reason is that reviewing another person’s work allows me to identify parts of his or her writing that does not flow well and learn from his or her mistakes. I enjoyed reading Jamie’s work because his writing is very technically sound. Jamie expanded well on his definition and included visuals in his expanded definition that aided in his description. Through the peer reviewing process, I get exposure to a writing style that is different from mine.

Editing Process

Jamie gave me excellent feedback. Looking at his peer review, I agree with almost everything he suggested about my writing. I agree that I need to expand more on my original definitions, and that my original expanded definition lacked structure. I found this exercise very useful to help edit and improve my definitions. I learned that I can write much better when I have someone that gives good constructive criticism. After receiving the peer review and while editing, it became much easier to expand on my examples, and it also became easier to construct a logical flow to my writing for more concise organization. In the editing process, I learned that my writing is much better if I start early, and continuously revise and make additions to my work over several days, rather than write everything all at once.

My final definition assignment after making changes based off Jamie’s suggestions is included in my best work on this website. Please take a look here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/nancywuwebfolio/best-work-in-engl-301/