This first unit was an incredibly enjoyable introduction to the process we will be following for other assignments in the coming term. This first unit consisted of writing a letter, memo, definition and peer-reviewing the definition of our teammate. My reflection will include my learning experience in writing definitions, peer reviewing and editing of my definition of A/B testing.
Writing the definition was a great lesson in writing precisely for the intended audience. Knowing a lot more about A/B testing compared to my intended audience created two problems.
Firstly, when writing my sentence definition I grappled keeping my definition concise and excluding jargon. Knowing the topic well had become a hindrance, not help since knowing the vastness of the A/B testing made it difficult to decide with aspects to omit in the sentence definition. For example, at first, I had included a sentence about the statistical method used when comparing two samples in A/B testing. Since this is an important part of the testing process. Without it, to me, the definition felt incomplete and inaccurate. However, with it the sentence had now become a small paragraph, which seemed to defeat the purpose of a sentence definition. This is where having a specific audience and situation helped. I realized that likely the small business did not need to know nor would they be interested in the statistical approach used in A/B testing.
Secondly, already knowing a lot about the topic can make it difficult to put oneself in the position of someone who knows little. With my expanded definition, I found it hard to know where to begin. Once again knowing how vast this topic had become a hurdle, the curse of knowledge.
The framework given to us in the textbook was a huge lifesaver, helped narrow down the choices of aspects and gave direction from where to begin
Peer reviewing Mathew’s work was quite insightful since it helped me understand the mindset of a non-technical reader. First I simply read the definition, not thinking about giving feedback and without reading the framework. Paradoxically it seemed easiest to find areas for improvement and see what the writer did well when I was not actively looking for it. After taking note of these things I read through the textbook and framework. Now I could start putting reasons into the sentences and words that stood out. Once I was able to figure out the “Why”, I was in a better position to give recommendations to improve. In addition, the framework really helped me look in places where I had not looked before, in my first read-through. For example, I hadn’t given the visual much thought but the framework helped me look at it more closely. It was then I realized that it was clear what the different stages in the cycle were. Peer review helped me to provide suggestions in a constructive and friendly tone.
The last step of this process was changing and improving my work based on the feedback I was given by my teammate. Keeping with the strategy I had with my previous components I first read through my own work with fresh eyes. Whilst reading it I took note of sentences that felt too long or did not sound right. After reading Mathew’s feedback I saw that we agreed on a few things, which helped me improve further.
I agree with his assessment that my sentences often ran too long and felt choppy. He gave examples but I was able to find more now that I knew what I was looking for. In addition, the similarity of my headings and subheadings jumped out to me too.
I also removed the etymology section since it did not add value to the reader. Although interesting I don’t think it helped further the understanding of A/B testing beyond what was given in the sentence definition. Secondly, I also noticed I had used conjunction a few times and this is not appropriate for a document that requires a formal tone
The assignments are included below: