Sangita's Web Folio

Original Drafting Process:

In unit one, we were assigned to define a technical term for a non-technical audience. My term is object-oriented programming. I chose this term because it is a term that I recently learned in my computer science course, but it is very abstract and technical, so I would like to be able to define it for another student in a simpler way. As such, my target audience are first year computer science students with little to no knowledge of computer science. In the assignment, the term was defined using 3 distinct categories of  technical definitions: parenthetical, definition, sentence definition, and expanded definition. Parenthetical definition is a brief definition that explains the term using parenthesis. When a term requires slightly more elaboration than a parenthetical definition, sentence definition is used. Sentence definition starts with the term, and then its distinguishing features are described. I did not find it too challenging to compose a parenthetical and sentence definition because it was relatively straightforward. Expanded definition provides a thorough explanation of the technical term through various methods like describing its operating principle, history, and/or using visuals. Writing this definition was the most challenging in my opinion because I had to make sure it was well-organized, concise and also not get carried away with using other technical terms that are not accessible to my target audience. I enjoyed learning about all the different expansion methods that can be used to supply the expanded definition, and which one would help my target audience gain a better understanding of my term. Overall, through this assignment I learned about the different categories of definitions and how I can use them to define a technical term for a non-technical audience.

Peer Review Process:

In this part of the assignment, I had the opportunity to perform a peer review for my writing team member ‘s (Helen) technical definition. She also provided feedback and critique for my technical definition in return. Examining my peer’s work allowed me to recognize different ways on how to improve my work. For example, Helen’s definition was very well structured, and she did not use any technical jargon that was not suitable for her targeted audience. This made me realize that I have to make sure I am not including any words that may be hard to understand for my own target audience.  Overall, reading and reviewing other’s work allowed me to gain insight on how I can further strengthen my own writing

Editing Process:

After the peer review process, Helen was able to provide some help constructive feedback and pointed out things that I had overlooked. For example, I was using some words that may be too technical and not suitable for my target audience. I edited my definition to omit those terms and replaced it with words that may be easier to understand for my target audience. I also found some parts in my definition that may be unnecessary. She further pointed out I did not include the main definition of my technical term in the parenthetical definition. Instead, I was using the parenthetical definition for other words in my definition because I had misunderstood how to properly employ the parenthetical definition. This writing process was very helpful and I believe that my technical writing skills have improved after this assignment. I look forward to learning more strategies on technical writing in future assignments and continue to grow as writer.