The main assignment for the first unit of ENGL 301 is to write three definitions of a fairly complex technical term for laypersons. We needed to define the type of audience that would read the definitions, and for what purpose they would be reading them. This taught students that a good explanation needs to be organized well. Related ideas are grouped and predicated concepts need to come after the ones that explain them. Students helped each other learn by peer reviewing each other’s work. We learned to maintain a positive tone while simultaneously giving constructive criticism.
I decided to use the MLA citation style for citing the sources of my three definitions of bioinformatics. This was the first time I used MLA, so it took more time to write my citations since I was still learning. It also took a while because my citation manager software cited my references incorrectly. “Mendeley” is the program I used. In the end, I manually edited all of my citations to reflect what the MLA guidelines suggested. I used a secondary source from UBC (“getting started with MLA Documentation Style”) to guide me through the process of writing my citations in 7th ed. MLA, but many of the secondary sources I looked at were slightly different, so I am still unsure if I choose the correct guide. It’s possible that the differences were due to the use of different MLA editions. Next time, I will stick to the APA reference style because I am more familiar and I don’t see any obvious disadvantage compared to MLA. I also like to colour my references so that they are easier to identify, but my peer reviewer suggested they be left uncoloured. I could not find any MLA guidelines that suggested citations be left uncoloured, so it is not clear whether there is either a rule or reasoning for not colouring.
I received a mostly positive peer review from my writing team member which was encouraging. However, it was pointed out that there was a term, “biochemistry”, in my expanded definition of bioinformatics that I did not explain. I assumed it to already be understood. This made me realize how easy it is to forget that not everyone knows something that you have known for a long time. And as someone who was surrounded by other biochemistry students during my first degree in biochemistry, I took for granted that everyone already knew what biochemistry was. I replaced “biochemistry” with “experiments investigating the molecules and cells” since everyone who has graduated high school (my audience) should be able to understand that. This has taught me to be more careful when using terms that might not be common to laypersons, even if they seem basic to me personally.
I actually find it challenging to do a peer review of writing well. This is because there are two requirements for an excellent peer review that are at odds: the need to point out all errors and present your criticisms and the need to maintain a friendly and positive tone. Since these requirements seemed incompatible, I completed my peer review as more of a list of errors and complaints. After reading the tips on the instructor’s blog, I realized how to fix this: instead of saying an error was made, I can phrase each error as a recommendation. Observations of where the author did well can also be added to maintain the positivity of the review.
Three Definitions of Bioinformatics – Phillip Tellier
Peer Review for Three Definitions of Bioinformatics – Noah Saini