Unit Three Reflection Blog
Formal Report Draft and Peer Review
1. Overview
Unit three focused on the submission of the Formal Report Draft and the Peer Review and emphasized writing with ‘You’ attitude. These assignments built on the work completed in unit two, including the Formal Report proposal, outline, and progress report. The Formal Report Draft provided more information on the problem and the potential solutions identified in the proposal. To gather data for the report draft, students conducted a survey of the population impacted by the proposed solution and an informational interview with at least one individual with authority on the topic. After submitting the Formal Report Draft, and in preparation for the final report submission, students wrote peer reviews of their teammate’s submission using a ‘You’ attitude.
2. Formal Report Draft
a. Research and Data Collection
The research phase was the most challenging part of the Formal Report Draft assignment, especially the survey. First, there were several issues encountered when creating the survey on the UBC Qualtrics platform, however, I was able to successfully create my survey using Google Forms. These issues taught me a great deal about the requirements for an ethical survey, including the importance of clarity, details, and specific language. In addition, it was challenging to find relevant information about standards or regulations about waste stream contamination in public facilities in Kelowna and in British Columbia. During the informational interview, I learned that the lack of information was because contamination parameters for public facilities are set by private waste management companies. These companies establish the acceptable waste contamination levels and repercussions for non-compliance based on the need
Other than the issues with the survey and regulation review, the research process went well. The informational interview with Jamie Armer, Head of Facilities Management at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO), provided crucial details for the report. The interview findings included UBCO’s sustainability targets, current waste diversion efforts on campus, and informed the feasibility and comparison analysis. In addition, Armer provided unpublished UBCO waste audit reports from 2018 and 2022, which became the primary sources of the literature review.
b. Report Organization and Writing
The organization of the Formal Report Draft was also challenging, although not as much as the research. The outline and progress report submissions in unit two were crucial for the successful organization report. After submitting these assignments, I began writing the report draft, but I struggled to make meaningful progress. To overcome this challenge, I decided to re-write my outline and include additional information. I continued building on the outline until the report began to come together. I then added the information from the outline to the Formal Report Draft template I had prepared previously.
3. Formal Report Peer Review
a. Peer Review Process
Writing the peer review of my teammate’s Formal Report Draft allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of what is required in an effective report. While reviewing the report I encountered several areas of concern of which I was unsure, including grammar, MLA formatting, and content. To give my peer useful feedback and correct, I had to research these areas of concern, which taught me a great deal about report writing. Overall, the peer review process encouraged me to learn more about the requirements for an effective report and taught me about proper grammar and MLA formatting.
b. Revision Process
The feedback given by Jeemin in the Formal Report Draft Peer Review was very positive. Thus, the revision process was straightforward. Jeemin noted some minor errors throughout the report, including:
- Minor typos on pages 1, 11, and 12.
- Incomplete text in the survey question which was shown in Figure 5.
Further revisions were made to the Formal Report in addition to editing the errors identified in the peer review. More information was added to the Data Collection section to clarify the results of the feasibility and comparison analysis and explain their significance. Moreover, in the conclusion, the summary of findings and recommendations were expanded to effectively summarize the body of the report.
5. Links