Describing a definition or a complex term to a non-technical reader can be a very challenging task. In a similar process, medical professionals must be able to clearly describe medical drugs and terminology to patients so that they are able to fully understand what the drugs may do and what a term may mean. In order to do this, we must be able to at least provide the baseline explanation of what the complex term may mean, given the situation and audience that will be reading or interpreting this term. This is as to not overwhelm and cause even more confusion in understanding the technical term. This writing challenge was able to help build on some key skills and make notable takeaways with the help of my peer reviewer, Johnathan.
I found this to be a great challenge as I approached a complex term that I was fairly comfortable with within the realm of computers and technology. However, it was difficult for the reason that the term “virtual reality” could have many possible ways of interpretation. I took the approach of attempting to put myself into the shoes of a non-technical finding this term for the first time. This process was my method of trying to keep it as simple as possible so that the explanation could be understood without requiring any background knowledge on the topic. I think this was the right approach to take as technology is definitely a difficult field to explain. Even though current technology is so advanced, most of the general population appears to understand how to use technologies to a degree but may not fully understand the terminology or components behind electronic devices. I learned that this is a very hard thing to do and to implement an easier explanation of the term, I decided to implement further explanations on difficult terms and jargon that needed to be used.
Being peer review partners with Johnathan was a very rewarding part of this writing challenge. I was able to read an explanation on the complex term of “self-management” and try to understand the technical definition given. It was interesting to see how my classmate took their approach in defining “self-management” and also compare it to my approach. I was impressed by how simple and precise Johnathan’s definition was in contrast to the dense definition I had produced. I approached the peer review process by asking myself questions similar to “does this make sense using a logical order and related material?” and “how quickly can I understand this material or is it too difficult?” I found it easiest to really break down the writing and look at it in parts that should hopefully then work altogether. Furthermore, I really enjoyed receiving feedback on my definition and hearing how I described a certain area well, or if there were areas for improvement. It was great having a fresh set of eyes to review my definition as it really removes the aspect of writing with knowledge on the topic at hand.
From previous experience, I understood that it is very difficult to get something perfect on the first try. With help from my peer, I was able to receive constructive feedback on how I could further improve my definition. I learned that there are many things that others will notice where I may have missed. Noticeably, my writing style was drastically different from my partners. I write in a style similar to scientific articles which take the approach of assuming the reader already has some knowledge in the field and will understand the jargon that will be presented. It was a nice challenge to really go from this end to the opposite end of writing clear precise explanations for the layperson. The feedback provided really helped clarify my thought process as I was now able to make changes that reflected a more distinct and concise definition. I think this is a great skill to continue building on as it will really help lay the groundwork for clarity and understanding in the realm of technical communication.
I realized that there is a very big spectrum in terms of how much knowledge one can have in a particular field prior to reading a definition. This portrays how the concept of understanding a definition lies in the hands of the writer as they want to reach the target audience. In a way, the writer must be able to reflect those explanations to match the corresponding reader.
Please find the peer review and revised definitions below. Thanks, and enjoy.