At the time of writing, I have not received a peer review of my definitions piece and, therefore, I cannot provide an account of my experience nor provide an updated definition piece. As soon as I receive this review, I will implement the necessary changes to the document immediately and note the advice given.

The lack of peer review, however, does not inhibit my ability to discuss my experience thus far and to comment on the advice provided by Professor Erika Paterson. I believe that I am prone to wordiness and over-elaboration. Prof. Paterson has corroborated this issue in her remarks concerning my letter of application and biography page on my blog. This is a serious issue for the reader as they can become either disinterested or tired when reading long-winded work. My central rationale for joining this course was to work on this aspect of my writing. I aim to build concise, readable prose for business, while maintaining some of my personality or voice in the writing. This is an area that I feel will affect my definitions piece and I will endeavor to deliver succinct work in this course.

I took the opportunity to review Stephen Razis’ definition piece, which was aimed at high school and university students who studied English and philosophy. My overall impression of this piece was very positive. Stephen’s organization was very clear and straightforward as he provided subheadings. Furthermore, his ability to break down  Pharmakon using three categories, such as etymology and modern usage, provided context for both English and Philosophy students. In fact, this is an approach that I would like to incorporate into my own work, as Stephen was able to accomplish the above with in concise and short sentences. I have pointed to where I think he could make a few changes in my review and it is interesting to discover that we both use flowery-language. This is an area that I would like to cut back on and work within established parameters of business language, rather than academic terminology. Generally, it was a pleasure to read Stephen’s work and reviewing his piece allowed me to reflect on some of my own issues within writing.

We all have areas to work on in our writing, I more than others. I took the opportunity to read a few of the students’ writing and I was impressed by their ability to unpack abstract or scientific concepts for the reader. With this in mind, I will attempt to work on my understanding of technical writing so that I am able to offer my readers short, succinct descriptions, briefs, and papers that are accessible. I look forward to reading more of my peers’ work and learning from both them and Prof. Paterson to gain a solid understanding of business English.

My review of Stephen Razis’ definition piece can be found here.