I reflected on the writing practices and strategies at the end of each unit through several blog posts.  As I was preparing my webfolio, I focused on developing a consistent voice so that each blog blends into the next.  Through each blog you will see key learning outcomes as well as reflections on personal struggles and self reflections.

Final Blog: A Challenging Journey of Growth and Sharing

As ENG 301 comes to end, I am both exhausted and reflective.  The final blog requires each learner to discuss areas of weakness and strength on: the learning process, assignments, and how the skills and strengths as a student supports future career goals.

I want to be honest and vulnerable and so let’s start with the weaknesses.  Right from the start I was ready to quit ENG 301!  Yes, it’s true and big shout out to the UBC I.T. Support who had treated me as though I had a legitimate technical issue (for a number of tickets) when the truth was I had no idea what wordpress meant, but certain it was a technical issue.  7 days later, my name still appeared on the student roster which was once again threatened when I had to set up a Facebook account.  Most would say what? You’re not on Facebook?  No, I wasn’t on Facebook and in fact, I doubt I’d ever have set up an account except for this course.  But there I was, decision time and so I put my big girl pants on and ensured my privacy settings were on lockdown.  When I had to join a writing group, I knew I could sell my writing skills, however, my technical blunders couldn’t be hidden, fingers crossed someone would want me (I had sent out some invitations that weren’t accepted).  Thanks to Technicallective for coming together and weaving through peer reviews, postings, and sometimes, challenging times so that we could work and grow together.

The learning process and assignments proved to be areas of strength and strengthening.  As I worked through college and now, university I have honed my writing skills with the help of a person who reviewed my work and said “so what?”  It appeared that my writing was flamboyant and never got beyond a description.  I took this feedback and learned to write in a succinct and focused way.  This strength became an area of strengthening as I moved through ENG 301 completing peer reviews that required me to answer the question “so what” in a different way.  Constructing a peer review that was constructive and helpful was very important to me.  As I provided feedback to my peers, I wanted to empower each one with clear examples that answered either “so what does it matter” and “so what could it be”.  I spent thoughtful time writing and considering each message.  Based on feedback from fellow group members, it was time well spent and as I reviewed their final pieces, I was cheering them on as I saw the edits made, meaning they understood the message, and improved their work.

As my career path continues to unfold, ENG 301 has improved my technology skills and social networking understanding.  My business will continue to benefit from strong layouts and a better understanding of reports, memos, and letters.  Most of all, the peer reviews may form the foundation of a future teaching career as I transition from clinical to teaching supports.

Going Public One More Time

Creating a webfolio has been quite enriching.  For most of my UBC courses, the papers are finished, marked and stored on a hard drive, rarely touched again.  The webfolio brought me back to the works I had developed throughout ENG 301 and as I read each piece this time, I realized there lacked a common tone.  I didn’t feel as connected to the pieces as I had when I originally created them.  For example, Unit 1 blog was the first blog I had ever written and as I reread blog posts 1 through 3, I realized my voice was missing.  I had approached the blog process as a paper based reflection until blog 3 where I moved beyond reflections of the tasks or assignments and explored my feelings about the peer review process.  This led me to refining all of my works, especially the blogs, to ensure that the work truly reflected my written voice and my personal voice.

The webfolio has shifted my thinking on creating a public presence.  Okay, I’m not ready to change my privacy settings on Facebook and I’m not sure that I’ll really be active on LinkedIn, but the web folio makes sense and inspires me.  It is a place that I can grow with as my career unfolds and act as a new type of resume.

The Art of a Peer Review: Are you a Credible Peer Reviewer?

Unit 3 caused me to reflect on 2 peer reviews, presented to me by 2 different peer reviewers.  The feedback and personal growth came not from the written peer reviews, but from a moment of personal reflection.  Why is it that one peer review frustrated me and the other, made me realize there were a number of changes that would improve my work?  The answer, I believe, lies in the following thought – that an effective peer review is an art.

I believe that people generally come from a positive place, wanting to do a good job.  Whether it’s walking into work and finding out you’ve made a mistake or cooking a seemingly perfect dinner only to find out your guests were less than impressed; no one starts from a place wanting to fail.

So if everyone’s intentions are good, why do things turn out so different?  This is the question I pondered as I read not only my peer reviews, but the peer reviews completed for others.  It has become clear to me that we should not just be improving our own written work so that it kisses the perfection we seek, but if we are ever to be heard and deemed credible, we must find ways to be effective in providing feedback.  I share the following challenges so that you may ponder, just as I have, how the peer reviews you have written rise above or fall victim to the ideas below.

It’s Easy to Point Out the Small Errors, but Did You Get the Message?

If you are trying to acknowledge positive aspects of a particular piece of work, be specific about what and why something is good.  Stating “there are good points” followed with a list of insignificant constructive feedback such as comma use suggests to the writer that the reviewer lacks the skills to understand the ideas and complexity of the document and as a result, resorts to simple feedback.  By identifying specific strengths of the writer’s work, it builds the credibility of the reviewer and increases the likelihood that (s)he will adopt the feedback.

Clean Hands Principle

When providing feedback on grammar or spelling as a reviewer, you lose credibility when your feedback is grammatically weak.  It’s important when pointing out an error to another person, that you avoid making the same error when pointing it out.

The K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) Principle

Using terminology that assumes someone has a degree in English can come across as insulting and is ineffective in conveying feedback.  Give the writer real world terms so they can appreciate your point and make the necessary adjustments; it’s unlikely someone is going to Google search a term just so they can understand what the reviewer is saying.

You’re Not The Boss

It’s important to ensure reviewers avoid directive language such as “you need to . . .” or “this should be . . .”  People read this approach as adversarial and are more likely to resist making the change.  Reviewers should be aware they are providing suggestions, considerations and are trying to influence the writer’s thinking.

This list is not exhaustive and I invite you to share your own rules.  We may be providing feedback as students, but at some point we will be both givers and receivers as professionals, leaders and potentially, business owners.  I will continue to practice and encourage you to do the same.

 Joining the “Public” World: Confessions of a Private Professional

The process of creating a LinkedIn profile was both informative and personally challenging.  Prior to starting English 301, I had neither a Facebook nor a LinkedIn account.  Yes – we really do exist!  As a business owner in a very small community, word of mouth dictates whether your business will succeed or fail and so the business value of LinkedIn was too low for me to invest time in creating and maintaining a profile.  ENG 301 pushed me, as a private professional, to dip my toes into the public world.  So I decided to just jump in and constantly challenged my emotional “who needs to know that!?” gut feeling and instead focused on what I believe and what I’ve accomplished because that is what is important.  When I focused on these two things, the process became much easier and maybe one day, maybe, I’ll ease up on my security settings as well.

A second piece required for Unit 2 was a research proposal.  I am very excited to work through the research and writing of the final proposal given the topic is real world and I believe there will be some strong recommendations that could be implemented.  I have found it difficult with the layout of the course, which at times has interfered with the organic process real world research can take.  For example, my original proposal suggested reallocating some of the HR functions to administration team members, however, when I met with the Owner he felt these employees lacked the behavioural competencies to take on these roles.  This process reflects the public versus private lessons I’ve learnt as a result of the ENG 301 curriculum.  While privately my brain peculated on the possibilities of unlocking existing talent, the public reality was that none of the employees were ready yet.  Bringing the two worlds of my brain together and adjusting my private thoughts to better reflect the real world reality, an even better idea came forward.  You’ll have to read the Formal Report to see what that looks like!

Can You Understand What I Mean?  Writing for a Non-Technical Audience

When writing for a non-technical audience, a technical writer may find greater difficulty with writing an explanation for this audience than he/she did when first learning the information.  This was certainly the situation I found myself in as I completed an Assignment describing a technical process for a non-technical audience.  Throughout this process I found myself doubting whether or not the process I was writing about would be clear enough to the non-technical reader and yet, be a true reflection of the technical process.  While most of my professional research has surrounded new treatments or tools, I had to reach out to a friend who suffers from dental anxiety for feedback as a non-technical audience, which proved to be a useful strategy as I made a number of edits to the original draft.  By the end of the process, the focus on audience, sequential steps and simple language developed a different level of thinking and writing for me.  I encourage all writers to challenge themselves to a writing for the non-technical writer challenge and ask yourself at the end, did they understand what you meant?

In another exercise, I acted as a peer reviewer, which challenged my writing process once again.  I was constantly thinking about how to construct feedback in such a way that the author received it as constructive.  This was a difficult task ensuring the avoidance of language that has a tendency to negate previously stated positive comments including “however” and “but”.  I wanted the author to feel that the feedback was to be “considered” and so I “suggested”.  A difficult part of the process involved the late submission of the author allowing for less than 24 hours to review and complete the report.  As a reviewer, I had to switch my thinking to the task at hand, providing quality feedback, rather than the circumstances surrounding the submission.  This was just another example of being consciously aware of whether or not the audience understands the meaning behind the writing.

As a writer receiving feedback from a peer, the lesson from this part of the process surrounded how I, as the receiver of feedback, decide what to do with feedback from others.  There were pieces that I agreed with and made changes, but there were also other items that didn’t seem to fit the overall feel to the piece, so I didn’t apply those changes.

I share with you a critical lesson learnt through the work completed in this unit; whether you are a writer or receiving feedback, the question you should ask yourself is whether or not your audience will both understand the information as well as accept the information.  If at the end of a piece you can answer “yes”, then your audience will understand what you meant.