Writing the definition assignment was valuable because I learned how to tailor a piece of writing to a specific audience. Sometimes when I write, I tend to assume the audience already knows what I mean when I use a more technical term. With this assignment, I had to choose my words carefully so that they matched the audience’s level of understanding. I also found that I had to define words within the expanded definition. For example, I cannot assume that my audience knows exactly what I mean when I say ‘historical evidence.’ Instead, I have to make sure that they understand what this term is before explaining the rest of the definition. I also felt surprised at the level of depth I could potentially go defining a single word. I found it difficult to find four ways to expand my definition because I had to make myself think deeply about the assigned word. Writing this assignment showed me that there are many ways to approach a single word in a piece of technical writing. We also cannot always rely on the audience to interpret our writing for themselves. Sometimes they may not have the necessary knowledge and require a more detailed explanation.
The process of peer reviewing helped me understand what works and does not work in a definition. I found it useful to see how my peer decided to go about his definition because I got to see other methods of expansion. I also appreciated seeing a definition from a discipline different from my own. Since my definition is in the humanities, I found it useful to see a definition from commerce because I got an understanding of why different definitions might require different expansion methods. For example, etymology and history are probably not relevant for a commerce definition, even though etymology was useful for my definition. When I was writing my review, I found it difficult to organize my ideas. I also felt unsure of how much positive and negative feedback I should include in the review.
The self-editing part of this assignment was the most valuable part for me. Not only did I implement my partner’s suggestions, but I also re-read my own work to find anything that could be changed or worded better. I ended up finding a few small inaccuracies in my language, which made some parts of my definition contradict each other. Coming back to an assignment after not looking at it for about a day helps me view it again with a fresh perspective. Hearing my peer’s feedback was also useful because I liked having an extra pair of eyes to examine my work, especially someone who is not familiar with my term. Hearing the parts that did not make sense gave me a very clear direction of what needed to be improved.