In Unit One, our target was to take a relatively technical term in our field of study and define it in a way that would be comprehensible. This unit was also an introduction to Peer Reviewing. Described below are what my reflections are of both.
Technical Definitions
As Richard Feynman quoted, “If you want to master something, teach it. The more you teach, the better you learn. Teaching is a powerful tool for learning”. The P versus NP problem was a topic I encountered in my 3rd year Computer Science course. Since it was the summer semester, and I had no time to master it, the P versus NP problem left me utterly perplexed.
I chose to explain the P versus NP problem in my assignment as a challenge to myself. I wanted to see if I could take a core technical term and distill it down to a concept understood by anyone. When I felt satisfied with the definition I had written, I put my work up to be Peer Reviewed.
Peer Review Process
Peer Reviewing is a process that is alien to me, and it allowed me to view my work through the eyes of another. I am very fortunate to have knowledgeable peers who took the time to review my work and provide me with constructive feedback.
I also got a chance to review my peer, Amol Chahal's, work. I surprised myself when I picked up on the points that I felt would improve his definition, like adding a detailed illustration. I realized that I should also view my work with that same critical lens.
Closing Thoughts
Overall, I learned a lot through the process of peer-reviewing. I found that it is beneficial for this course as it allows you to get a reader's perspective on your work. Not only does it make you more attuned to how your text comes across, but it also moulds you into becoming a better writer.
Comentarios