My writing process

When I start writing a paper for a school assignment, I review each of the requirements of the assignment, making headings for each in a word processor. Then I try to link each part of the assignment with one or more of the objectives for the instructional unit. For example, in preparation for this assignment, I started with three lines at the top of a blank document in the following manner:

What is my writing process like?
What is your first step in completing a paper?
What is each subsequent step?

Of the four objectives listed for this instructional unit, “recognize and articulate your own writing process”, was the only objective to match the components of the assignment. I try to make the link between assignment requirements and objectives to double-check my interpretation of the assignment.

What I do next, in writing a paper, depends on the type of assignment. In the case of this assignment, I am reflecting rather than summarizing results of research, so I started writing immediately after I linked the assignment requirements with an objective. After each paragraph, I read back through what I said in the previous two paragraphs and make revisions.

Had this assignment been to write about the results of research, I would have started by outlining the sections of the paper. Each section would contain a notation of the applicable requirements in the assignment. If any ideas come to mind for things to write about, I add them as short, incomplete notes in the section it belongs. I create a title page with a temporary title. Next, I start a literature review. The literature review almost always prompts me to change the title of my paper more than once. I only start writing the paper for an assignment when I have a solid topic statement or abstract for guiding the rest of the report.

Whether it be subject of the paper is reflection, research, or a topic where I am a subject matter expert, I revise the report in two paragraph chunks as I go. I think it helps confirm the flow between paragraphs. When I finish a complete section, I skim through the section before moving to the next to check flow. At the end of the paper, I walk away from the computer; final revisions are for a fresh sitting. In the ideal situation, I print the paper to edit with a pencil.

In my first critical revision, I check for using the same word to start sentences and grammar. I only read one sentence at a time to see if it makes sense. When I finish the pencil revisions, I make the corrections in the word processor and make my final read-through on the computer screen for the flow of the paper. Sometimes I move large chunks of paragraphs to other parts of the paper. At this point, I coax my wife into using a red pen on a print-out of the paper. For the most part, she revises for content, leaving comments on what I should leave out, expand on, or add. In ideal situations, I give the paper a third read before turning it in. Unfortunately, procrastination often prevents me from having the energy to put into a third reading.

Technical editing defined

Technical editing is an iterative team effort involving one or more editors, authors, subject matter experts (SMEs), and evaluators. Each team component has specialized roles. The editor provides direction, scope, vision, purpose. Editors verify adherence to applicable style guides as well as review drafts for usability, logic, arrangement, spelling, punctuation, grammar, and design. Writers translate information from subject matter experts to written form. Writers are responsible for arbitrating content presentation between the editors’ global scope and the SME’s specific content. Changes to text during the review process are the responsibility of the writers. SMEs provide expert input on required content. SMEs also serve as a specialist member of the evaluation team to review text for currency, accuracy, and adequacy. Evaluators serve as a third party to improve the effectiveness of delivery. Evaluation is performed in a one-to-one or small group format to include clarity, impact, feasibility, and generalizations. Field trial is performed with evaluators to judge the text’s effectiveness under the targeted conditions.

The editing process is a kind of life cycle. I developed a waterfall style diagram of the production process, consisting of 6 major parts, as shown in Figure 1: define project parameters, logical design, physical design, development, implementation, and maintenance.

Figure 1: Technical Editing Waterfall

Between each step, a review is performed by the editor, SME, and/or evaluators, to be implemented by the writers. Since costs to significantly revise a document increase as the document reaches completion, the review and changes are essential before moving on to the next step.