The process of writing the first draft
As an assignment in unit one of ENGL301 course, we were asked to write three definitions of a relatively complex term for a non-technical audience. The three definition types were parenthetical, sentence and expanded. At the time I knew nothing about how to compose them, which was the first challenge for me. However, as I was writing I learned the relative importance of each definition type, as well as how the situation and audience affect what should be included and how. Tailoring the expanded definition to the audience with no technical background was the second challenge of the assignment. I chose “High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL)” as the topic for my definition, and since I am used to scientific jargon, it was difficult to come up with a way of explaining the term simply and clearly. Trying to look at my writing from a perspective of another person and revising several times helped a lot. The next learning outcome was discovering various ways in which a definition can be expanded depending on the context. In the case of HDL definition, I decided to add a section explaining the relation of HDL to cardiovascular health, since the reading situation was a health brochure. Overall, this seemingly simple assignment, was a rich source of learning and writing practice.
Peer Review
After completing the first draft of the definitions assignment, I was given an opportunity to review the work of my teammate and to compose a peer review document based on that. This exercise allowed me to analyze a different take on the same assignment, which broadened my perspective on writing. A major learning point was to write a constructive and useful criticism of someone’s work. It was difficult to combine all the suggestions together into a coherent and sectioned document. A crucial insight for was that a peer review may not be meant for the original writer only, but perhaps for a larger audience. This meant that a review should combine suggestions and praise concisely and still be understood by a third reader (other than the reviewer and the writer). During the review, I also realized the extent to which the same piece of writing can appear very clear to the writer, and yet very confusing to the reader (myself). This highlighted the importance of practices that we learn in this course – avoiding pronouns or wordy expressions – as they are often the cause of such confusing language.
Self-editing
After completing the peer review, I have received a review with criticism of my own work. That provided me with a valuable perspective of a reader and a direction in which to revise my first draft. I was glad to read that she was able to understand my definition and had an overall positive impression. The reviewer was also very helpful, for example, in identifying the need to change the order of the paragraphs in the expanded definition to achieve a better flow. Also, the criticism helped me realize a few awkward phrases with multiple jargon words, which I was able to rewrite into a simpler form. Furthermore, the instructor blog proved to be an invaluable resource in the revision process. For example, I found several places where I could simplify wording. For example, “inner core” was revised to be just “core”, as there is only one core in the lipoprotein particle. Furthermore, in a couple of places I was able to fix ambiguous prepositions, such as “their” in the introduction, which I did not notice as unclear before. In summary, having an outside perspective and keeping in mind general tips from the instructor helped me revise my definition draft into a clearer and more concise read.
If you are interested in reading the final draft of my definition assignment you can find it here.