The first task of this unit was to write three different definitions of a word for non-technical readers, then we were asked to peer review one teammate’s definitions and give suggestions on what may be improved. The final task was to edit our own definitions based on one teammate’s advices.
First of all, I started my definitions by thinking about what I learned back in my first degree, and I figured that choosing a word from food-related field would be great for audience who do not have a background in food science. I read through my old assignments and picked the word “osteoporosis”. I thought it may be interesting to have clear definitions so that non-technical readers could understand the word easily. I began writing the first and second definitions by thinking about examples used in daily life. Next, I used dictionary.com to find out the meaning of each broken down pieces of the word. Then, I searched online for a suitable visual aid that would represent “osteoporosis” the best and found a simple one which compares normal and osteoporosis bones. I thought it would be the best way to see the difference between normal and damaged bones. I also searched up for the reasons of osteoporosis and the ways to reduce risk. I ended the definition with similar phenomena which compared osteoporosis with another similar word that has a slightly different meaning. I found this assignment interesting but a little challenging at the first. Without peer reviewing, it is difficult to see the problems in my own writing, such as grammar errors and wording.
Next, I worked on peer reviewing Selena Rai’s definitions. The reviewing process went smoothly. I read three definitions and gave her a few suggestions. It was clear that her writing had little grammar errors. However, I found that she used many technical words in the expanded definition. Although she explained every technical word, the audience may be confused and shift focus away from the main word. I read Selena’s suggestions on my writing as well. She definitely gave me some good advices on how I should make it more clear when specifying the audience. She also corrected my grammar errors. It was great to have a peer review on my three definitions so that I could improve my writing skills for the next assignment.
Finally, I edited my three definitions based on Selena’s suggestions and I figured that I had some spelling errors when I typed. I like how Selena pointed out my errors so that I could correct them easily. I also made my wording more specific so the readers could understand the word better. Overall, this assignment was helpful in terms of improving my writing skill and peer reviewing skill. Some errors may not be obvious to me when I write my three definitions, but the peer reviewer may catch the errors by the first read. From this assignment, I learned that peer reviewing is a process of learning how to give good suggestions. It is also a way to improve our writing skills. By comparing my work to other students’ work, I could see my weaknesses and strengths in writing and try to avoid making same mistakes next time.
Here is the rewritten definitions: Rewritten Three Definitions
Here is the peer review: Selena’s Peer Review