Reflections of Unit One Writings
by RowanHarris
Assignments in this unit have focused on building relationships with our group members and writing more professionally. Outlined below are reflections of the writing, peer review, and editing stages for the process of defining a technical term in our field of study.
Stage 1: Writing
Initially, it was difficult to separate the definition of my term agroecosystem into different expansion strategies. As many of the strategies covered similar components of the term, it was difficult write a complete explanation in each section without repetition.
Using non-technical terms and distinguishing between technical and common knowledge terms was harder than anticipated through the initial editing. For example, I assumed that non-technical readers know terms such as ecosystem and organism which are essential for defining agroecosystem, but this might not be the case.
Stage 2: Peer Review
Through the process of peer review, I realized that there were organizational requirements for the assignment that I had previously overlooked. When giving feedback to my group member Sitao Lu, I realized that I had not included a title or a figure description in my post. As I wanted to give constructive and critical feedback, I was forced to pay extra attention to detail. Consultation with the ‘Technical Communication’ textbook was essential at this stage to ensure a professional document. This extra attention to detail for all aspects of writing is why peer review is so important in composition.
The suggestions made by my peer Sitao Lu were extremely helpful when I reviewed by own definition. For example, with the conversion of the document from word to the blog page, my image shrunk in size and was hard to see. This was critical to the readability of my definition and was a fix that was made possible by peer review.
Stage 3: Editing
Reading my peer’s definition gave me a better idea of what is important for someone trying to understand a new term. Through my own realizations and suggestions by my group member Sitao to reorganize the content of my definition, I was able to rewrite parts of my paper to make it more comprehensible to the reader.
In addition to my own realizations, having a second opinion about the structure of my definition was very helpful. For example, Sitao pointed out that I had started each section of my expanded definition with a new part of the definition. This meant that I had not included a complete definition of my term when I had initially introduced it. Sitao’s review of my work allowed me to have a document which was much more clear and professional.
I have learned many different thing through all three stages of this writing process; the writing, the peer review, and the editing. Completion of this project has significantly improved my writing capacity and ability to create a polished article. It has also shown me the importance of peer review so that I can address issues such as sentence structure and content organization. I look forward to the next peer review opportunity!
Below I have attached the link to the peer review of my definition by Sitao Lu and my updated definition.