Unit 3 of this course focused mainly on drafting the formal report as well as peer-reviewing. The drafting process consisted of gathering primary and secondary research, collecting data, and analyzing the data. Based on the analysis, a recommendation or solution needs to be made to the one receiving the formal report. This was tedious and research-intensive work.
The previous unit (unit 2) included the research proposal and outline. For me, this was an easier step to complete. However, putting everything together in one report was harder than I expected. For instance, the survey portion was the most difficult aspect for me. It was hard to find people to take the survey and I was worried that it would affect the results. Data was collected through the survey for one week. During that time, the first couple of days were slow, but I managed to get more results by spreading the survey link through my social media platform (Instagram). The majority of my followers live in the area of the ice cream shop, so I made sure that the results were affected.
Another obstacle I faced was the formatting. There was so much information that needed to be included but I was not sure how to place it in the report. However, it worked out in the end. Lastly, my time management for the draft was poor. I was not able to submit on time and was disappointed in myself for not following my writing schedule more strictly. Nonetheless, I did submit it a day later and was satisfied with my work!
For the most recent task — peer revision — my group and I switched our partners so everyone peer-reviewed someone that hadn’t before. I reviewed Leif Jack’s formal report and it was super interesting, yet long to read! This was my first time reviewing someone’s paper this lengthy — it was a new yet rewarding experience. Reading Leif’s report on managing the water crisis in Mission Creek helped me reflect on my report. I was able to consider the advice I gave him and incorporate them into mine. In addition, his feedback on my paper was helpful. While looking at his feedback, I noticed some technical elements that I could have fixed, added, or removed. Overall, this peer-revision process was a huge step toward the final report and I realized that with Leif’s suggestions, I will need to focus more on the final report.