Our first major assignment is the Technical Description. This assignment requires us to pick an object or process and describe it as clearly and effectively as we can. Up until now, I’m not 100% sure what I want to write about since there are so many things that I can write about. One idea that I have is to compose a technical description of the digital piano. Considering I’m passionate about music and I have some experience with piano playing, I’m interested in learning more about how the piano works.

I couldn’t find anything else interesting to write about in time, so I decided to focus on the digital piano. On Thursday, we were required to compose an outline for our documents. I found that process to be very helpful because it pushed me to really think about what I wanted to write and how to write it. However, it’s very likely that I may not follow that outline exactly. Over time, I may find additional, useful information to add to my document that won’t align with the outline I’ve created. After all, it is part of the brainstorming process; it only serves to guide my writing. 

One of the main purposes of my Technical Description is to distinguish the differences between the digital piano and the acoustic piano. The reason why I want to do this is because not everyone understands the difference between the two, and perhaps explaining these differences will help people — especially those who are beginner pianists — decide which instrument best suits them. Is this necessary, though? Based on what I read so far, making comparisons in technical descriptions is appropriate, but would my example fall under this “appropriate” umbrella? I don’t want to confuse my audience by drifting away from my object of focus (the digital piano), but simultaneously, making frequent connections can help paint the picture. I don’t know. So far, I just have paragraphs that describe the general appearance and functions of the digital piano. With the remaining time I have, I will think about what else I should add.

I was able to write a Technical Description that focuses on one specific digital piano, which is the Yamaha P-125. I figured that generalizing the entire description will not only fail to meet the assignment criteria but also leave my intended audience confused about the subject. But by focusing on one particular piano, I hope to inform my audience about the specifications of the P-125 and have them thinking about whether or not it works for them. One part of my paper that I believe did a great job at this is:

“There are digital pianos available that use visual aids – either illuminating keys or a digital monitor – to help users get more familiar with which keys are which. The P-125 does not have either of these features, so the learning process with this piano will just be slightly more difficult.”

Here, I explain that some pianos have illuminating keys or monitors to help players better distinguish between keys. The P-125, however, does not have any of these features. That said, I feel like this section was important to include in the Technical Description in case readers want a more “beginner-friendly” alternative.

We were also given the opportunity to peer review each other’s work, which I found to be very helpful. I was paired with Sonam, who wrote about a very similar topic: the computer keyboard! After reading my paper, she suggested to be more detailed in the body and add more information regarding the history of the piano. I took her advice into consideration, and to be honest, my Technical Description sounds much better. I’m not sure if you’ll ever read this entry, but thanks for the help, Sonam!

We’ve moved on from the Technical Description and now the class is working on what’s called a Memo. I’ll admit, because the workload of all my classes is constantly intensifying, I’m stagnantly making my way through the assigned textbook chapters. So as I’m writing this entry, my understanding of a memo is not as solid as it needs to be. But based on what’s been posted in the discussions these past few days, it seems like a memo — or the one we’re supposed to compose, at least — is supposed to describe an issue that impacts a large number of people (ex. poor housing quality in NYC) and provide a list of proposed solutions. Also, this writing assignment was given as a group project, so I’m working on it with a few of my classmates. 

For this project, my group and I have decided to focus on how overcrowded train stations in NYC impact the overall subway service. This is a significant issue to discuss because lots of New Yorkers depend on the MTA to transport around the city, so it’s important to keep public transportation running as smoothly as possible. However, since millions of people live in this one city, it’s common for train stations to have an excessive amount of people waiting for the next train. And…that’s pretty much our topic. I was assigned to be the topic supervisor of the group, which just means that I need to “keep track of all project requirements and consolidate the team’s efforts.” In other words, I’m responsible for making sure our project is heading in the right direction and turning all the group ideas into ideas that will help make our memo more effective.

For the next “class,” we need to submit an outline for our memo. But before doing so, I need to catch up on my reading so that I can better contribute to my group’s discussions and also turn in a thoughtful outline.

I believe my group’s Memo is heading in the right direction. We were able to add enough information to our outline so that by the time we started writing the first draft of the memo, we already knew what to write. As of now, our memo document consists of the notes we took while doing research, a list of sources we came across during our research process, and the actual memo.

After reading Chapter 5 of the textbook, I gained a better understanding of how to speak to your intended audience and why it is important to do so properly. Since our memo topic relates to the MTA, my group figured it would be best to write directly to the MTA board members and Mayor Bill de Blasio since they practically control what happens with our city’s train service. But in order to personalize our memo for them, we need to make sure we have a solid understanding of their characteristics. According to the textbook, researching about the members of your audience and looking at examples of their work can help you better understand who they are, where they stand on certain topics, etc. I’ve progressively been making contributions to the discussion and recommendation sections of our memo, but all I wrote so far is just a reiteration of our brainstorm notes in a more organized form. In order to enhance the effectiveness of our memo, we need to analyze our audience a bit more. Perhaps see how MTA plans to continue improving the train service or what the mayor has to say about this situation.

I haven’t written an entry in a while, but only because not much has happened. Since I last wrote, my Memo group and I were just about done with our first draft. And since we were given about a week to submit the final draft, we resorted to making revisions as soon as we could. Honestly, I believe we were able to compose a well-written memo for our final draft. For the first draft, the Discussion was the weakest part of our memo, since not enough information regarding our issue was being brought up. But after doing additional research and critically thinking about the significance of our memo topic, I was able to expand the Discussion to double its size. Not only that, but my group members revised the Recommendation according to anything I added to the Discussion. So all in all, I think it’s safe to say our memo effectively presents our claim towards train station overcrowding and proposes an appropriate potential solution.

But onto the next project! A few days ago, we started working on what’s called a Lab Report. It’s based on the scientific method, which I have an adequate amount of experience with. That said, I don’t think this project should be that challenging. For my lab report, I’m thinking about “reviewing” a C++ program that I wrote a few weeks ago. It seems a bit uncanny compared to the topics I usually see lab reports done on — like the effect of video games on cognition, how the amount of visible light affects plant growth, and other similar reports — but I think I’ll be able formulate a good lab report as long as I follow with the guidelines provided by the textbook.