Climate change is driving the pursuit of clean energy solutions. As I have experience in the fuel cell industry, I chose to explain what a fuel cell is to the general public. Assignment 1:3 was straightforward. However, I found it difficult to make the document clear and concise. My in-depth knowledge of fuel cells makes it challenging to determine the level appropriate for non-technical readers. Additionally, in my efforts to make my writing more concise, I did not include enough detail for the reader. As this may have resulted in a confused audience, I had to seek a different approach for this assignment. I decided to imagine the questions that would be asked from a reader’s perspective and provide answers that could thoroughly explain the subject.
During the peer review process, I partnered with a member of my writing team, David Cheung. It was enjoyable to see how David approached this assignment compared to myself. David’s definition of “debasement” was impressive and informative. I initially found it difficult to start this assignment, as I had never written a peer review before. After reviewing the instructor’s blog and the peer review handout, I formed a plan. On the first read through of David’s document, I wrote down all the questions I had. The second read through was more thorough; I took note of any grammatical and formatting errors. Finally, I noted the positive features that made the document stand out. Doing a peer review for David taught me how to write a positive, yet critical peer review. Furthermore, after reviewing David’s document, I found ways to improve my own definition assignment.
The constructive criticism David gave me from his peer review is invaluable. As someone with minimal formal English experience, I learnt greatly by having my partner critique my writing. As a technical writer, I find it difficult to assess what level of detail is appropriate to explain fuel cells to a non-technical reader. David found deficiencies in my explanation that might confuse my target audience and provided useful suggestions for improvement. Despite my careful review before publishing, I still made errors in the document. David provided useful critiques that I was unable to see before the peer review.
Overall, completing assignment 1:3 has been a positive experience. Most of my writing experience has been directed towards professionals in my current industry, so it was great to gain exposure to writing professionally to a non-technical audience. Furthermore, my ability to self-edit and write concise documents has improved through the process.