This post is created to reflect on the process and the choices I made while writing, peer reviewing and self-editing the definitions assignment. I chose to define the technical term “STAR” using three different levels of details. 

After successfully completing Unit 1 of the course, I gained a lot through self-learning and peer reviews. I enjoyed the concept of a writing group. Having people with different writing skills means we all can contribute in our own ways.

Original Writing

My original definitions writing was on a commonly used report –STAR in the hospitality industry. I found that reading the textbook really helped me with the assignment. Through clear instructions and ample examples, I was able to understand the topic and complete the writing. I also learned that no matter what you are writing, it is crucial to identify the intended audience in advance. This will help you better structure your writing and be selective on the amount of details to include in a writing. This assignment perfectly demonstrated the importance of selecting your audience. The three different types of definitions are meant for three different types of audience. For people who are outside of the hospitality industry, parenthetical or sentence definition is enough for them to grasp the concept of a STAR. However, for my intended readers who are hospitality students, the expanded definition is appropriate. The students would need more details to understand the term.

Peer Review Process

Overall, I enjoyed the peer review process. I was not used to it at first but the peer review form really guided me along the way. It helped me to pay close attention to details that I would otherwise miss. I also found it particular interesting that the more times I read, the more things I can spot that needed modifications. My partner Polly is a very good writer. She writes concisely and eloquently. This made my job harder as I was not able to spot a single thing that needed touch up after first reading. I had to refer back to the peer review form and read that line by line. With all the criteria in mind, I went through Polly’s writing a few more times, focusing on different criterion each time.

It was also very beneficial to receive Polly’s review on my writing. She correctly pointed out the additional “report” I had after my acronym STAR. She suggested me to note the source for my visual aid and helped me with some grammar mistakes and tone selection. It was nice to have a fresh set of eyes to review my writing and provide constructive feedback.

Image from Google Images

Editing Process 
Thanks to Polly, my editing process was straight forward and easy. Because of her detailed suggestions, I was able to spot and change my mistakes right away. I also noticed through reading Polly’s definitions assignment, she had a clear objective statement in her introduction paragraph. I quickly realized that I lacked one while editing my own piece. As a result, I modified my introduction to include a clear objective statement. This is another thing I learned through peer reviews. Editing does not stop after peer reviews. It is just the beginning.

For more information on my updated definitions assignment and Polly’s peer review, please see the below links.
Definitions Assignment
Polly’s Peer Review