Monthly Archives: October 2016

Unit 2 Reflection Blog

October 27, 2016

LinkedIn

Reflecting on this week’s assignments, I was taken by surprise how useful, intimidating, and sophisticated LinkedIn is. Creating the correct kind of profile was a big challenge to me as I have never used such a website to present myself. I hope to use what I have learned from this experience to improve upon my LinkedIn profile in the future.

My mini-LinkedIn Profile Screenshot

Formal Report

As the weekly assignment on our webpage indicates, I have complied my Formal Report proposal and the outline. It has been an exhilarating experience. I truly feel passionate about making a change in how Starbucks Canada operates. Even if the report fails to be conclusive or does not yield any support for the idea, I feel good to actually have a positive input to the company that I feel passionate about. As of now I am waiting for the green light from Dr. Paterson to approve of my research topic, I hope she agrees with me and I cannot wait to collect data to see if any significant amount of people are willing to come on board with the idea. Reflecting on my peer reviewer, I can tell he was happy with the ideas presented. Ajay was kind enough to suggest fixes for grammatical errors and the environmental factors I haven’t thought of. As I reviewed Ajay’s proposal, I learned that an in depth scope would help with the research part, as I have focused on what the company would like, rather than the impact that it may cause for the surrounding industry.

Peer Review of LinkedIn Profiles

Finally, both my peer review of Jade‘s LinkedIn profile and Ajay’s proposal allowed me to revise the style I write it. I have been writing in a casual tone while I was out of school for a year and a half. I must retool my writing style that is suitable to academic writing. I was very impressed with Jade’s writing and Ajay’s ambitious proposal, it made me realize that I should really focus and work harder to keep up to their level of writing. Last, I feel that by having the peer review process, I have been a little more cautious about what I write and how I present the idea. It occurred to me that I have an impactful way of writing, that is not suitable for professional grade.

DOC file of Revised Proposal with Peer Reviewer’s Input

301-revised-steven-seungyup-lee-fomal-report-proposal

Hyper Link to Peer Review of my Proposal

http://engl301.arts.ubc.ca/2016/10/09/peer-review-formal-report-proposal/

Unit 1 Reflection Blog

October 3, 2016

The last assignment of Unit one allowed me to reflect on what I have written, with my peers reviewing it. I have learned that my technical writing style requires more attention towards the audience, whom has never studied psychology. My attempt to introduce “cognitive dissonance” used technical jargons that are unfamiliar to a broad audience. I chose to utilize more examples and explanation methods to explain the concept. Through my peer review feedback I have received, I have edited my definition paper with more expanded examples and less technical jargon.

Original Draft

When I was writing the original draft, I went through the process of addressing a broad audience. I have chosen to write in a manner that initially dulled down the grammar so that everyone can understand. However, this made the document extremely dull and it had undermined the reader. Thus, I have decided to utilize some technical terms to explain the concept while adding various types of examples of the concept so the audience may understand through more than one example, without allowing the text to be dulled down.

My attempt to use visuals for Cognitive Dissonance.

Peer Review Process

I have had the opportunity to take a look at Alyssia Law’s peer review of my definition paper. While reviewing, I realized the use of technical terms hinders the readers from fully understanding the concept or definitions. My use of psychology terms is not understood by anybody unfamiliar with psychology. Expecting the audience to understand my use of visual representation without proper explanation was my mistake. Also, I learned that expanded examples were great for understanding hard concepts as it frames it into context others can understand. I have learned that I should strengthen my examples, as it would allow my readers to frame the concept in a practical manner.

When I was given the opportunity to send feedback on my peer’s work, I learned many things that never occurred to me. Technical jargon is hard to bypass when explaining a technical term. Perhaps it is because we are university students and we are so entrenched in our focus of study, we are unable to see technical terms that others cannot understand. As stated in the textbook, I worded my review very carefully and the results were very pleasing. I learned that even critical reviews can be drafted in a very polite manner and still be effective in carrying out the message.

Self-editing

While editing, I took into consideration of what Alyssia had explained to me. I have streamlined all jargon, to be more friendly towards non-technical readers, made explicit explanations on my parenthesis definition, and explained what is happening on my visual explanation. I have also expanded and described in detail of my examples, as well as added more definition inside the explanation to allow readers to understand what exactly is happening in the example.

Overall, I have learned that addressing a specific audience requires more than vocabulary that would match the audience’s level. Examples drawn from life related to the reader is helpful and examples are more useful if they are explained through easy to understand definitions themselves. I have learned that it is not enough to explain the definition; the reader has to understand and relate to it to fully utilize the item at hand.

Attachments:

Rewritten Definitions :301-1-3-edited-steven-seungyup-lee-definitions

Hyperlink of my Peer Review from Alyssia

Peer Review of Steve Lee’s Definitions Assignment