For the last official post of the semester, I will be reviewing the journey through my FOP.
I thought FOP was pretty straightforward - there was sufficient time to prepare even though I was the first group. In my opinion, the rehearsals without using slides were really beneficial as it allowed me to discover what I did not know about my own content, and allowed me to learn how to make my presentation flow naturally. There's always the temptation to structure a presentation using PowerPoint, but this method is not as good as starting with a piece of paper (for me, at least).
I felt I did well enough during the actual delivery. During the Q&A session especially, I felt confident enough to handle any question thrown at me with ease, crafting up a reply on the spot even though I did not prepare for such questions (about my recommendations). It was a good learning experience - it allows a person to think on the spot, as well as how to subtly side-step certain issues you do not want to go into ;)
In terms of slides, I still admire the work of those doing Issue A as well (you guys know who you are!). For a guy like me, coming up with beautiful slides is truly a difficult job. Perhaps using a simple theme (think along the lines of Apple) would be better for us!
Now it is the end of BizComm, and I hope everyone has picked up something useful from it. I sure did!
Monday 15 April 2013
Week 8: Reflection on Report Writing
Hi! After a long break, I'm back to blogging again!
I was assigned to do Issue A: whether NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from students on Facebook.
On analysis of the topic, it was not as easy as it looked - in my opinion, it actually turned out to be one of the harder topics. Plenty of thinking and preparation time was needed in order to justify the recommendations. It may seem easy to just recommend that NUS faculty and students should not add each other as friends on Facebook, but it had to be justified in a very concrete way for the purposes of the report.
In the end, I designed a survey to gather students' opinions on the matter. True enough, while most did not want to be friends with teachers on Facebook, many felt that there were benefits towards the use of Facebook (but not Facebook friendship!). This is where one of my recommendations, the use of Facebook pages, comes in.
To be honest, I spent a whole lot of time thinking about the content and how to organise the report. I also found out how to get a table of contents to generate automatically using Word's formatting (hurray!).
Reviewing the comments I received, it appeared that my efforts did pay off. It was clear and well organised, and it seemed like the marker liked my preview sentences at the start of each section (it was a calculated gamble - I was right up against that word count). The findings were generally relevant, and there were positive comments about the conclusions.
The only significant issue was the recommendations - logical but not innovative. Still, it was also a calculated move - I did not want to 'step out' form the norm, and I felt that recommendations should be logical rather than creative or innovative.
All in all, a very interesting and insightful experience. I now know that it is a really difficult job to churn out a good report!
I was assigned to do Issue A: whether NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from students on Facebook.
On analysis of the topic, it was not as easy as it looked - in my opinion, it actually turned out to be one of the harder topics. Plenty of thinking and preparation time was needed in order to justify the recommendations. It may seem easy to just recommend that NUS faculty and students should not add each other as friends on Facebook, but it had to be justified in a very concrete way for the purposes of the report.
In the end, I designed a survey to gather students' opinions on the matter. True enough, while most did not want to be friends with teachers on Facebook, many felt that there were benefits towards the use of Facebook (but not Facebook friendship!). This is where one of my recommendations, the use of Facebook pages, comes in.
To be honest, I spent a whole lot of time thinking about the content and how to organise the report. I also found out how to get a table of contents to generate automatically using Word's formatting (hurray!).
Reviewing the comments I received, it appeared that my efforts did pay off. It was clear and well organised, and it seemed like the marker liked my preview sentences at the start of each section (it was a calculated gamble - I was right up against that word count). The findings were generally relevant, and there were positive comments about the conclusions.
The only significant issue was the recommendations - logical but not innovative. Still, it was also a calculated move - I did not want to 'step out' form the norm, and I felt that recommendations should be logical rather than creative or innovative.
All in all, a very interesting and insightful experience. I now know that it is a really difficult job to churn out a good report!
Sunday 3 March 2013
Week 6 post: My GT Experience
Hello my dear readers! Before I get into the actual reflection, I hope you guys have been well rested and used your holiday fruitfully :D Now back to the reflection proper.
My GT experience itself was amazing- I had incredible group members (you guys know who you are!) who knew what to do during meetings, and we quickly had a clear idea of what we were going to do during the actual presentation.
I must say that I didn't expect to do that well during the actual presentation. From my experience, I am just an average presenter. There are many other people out there who can articulate their thoughts better than me, and have way better pronunciation than me. For some reason, this presentation came naturally to me and I didn't have much trouble with it. I suppose I could say that this was because I didn't use a script or cue cards, and hence the the presentation became much more 'natural'. I'm not exactly sure that this is the main reason though, I'll have to wait till the next presentation to find out.
Still, my group and I were very well prepared for the presentation, having met several times before to try to perfect our deliveries. During the actual presentation itself, I didn't feel any nervousness at all, which surprised me a little. Perhaps my teaching stint at AJC helped somewhat? Still, I hope to be able to continue with this level of confidence for my future presentations. My other group members did very well too, and I am very happy and impressed with our level of performance on that day.
Moving on to my part of the presentation, I must say that I am lucky that my part was short- I had no trouble deciding on my content for the presentation. I tried to act naturally throughout- without paying much attention to my hand gestures, which came off pretty okay. However, during the presentation itself, I had the feeling that I slowed down too much at the start (for audience interaction I think) that I sped up the last part of the presentation. Not very good. My aim for the next presentation is to have good pace control to project an image of calmness. Another thing that I felt I could improve on was my pronunciation (especially when talking faster).
In terms of slides, we tried to go for a minimalist slide design. Still, I felt that the other teams after us had slides which looked so nice, and I hope to be able to do that for the next presentation, while still using a minimalist slide design.
In conclusion, I am very happy with the results of the first GT, and I wish everyone the best for the upcoming presentations in the future!
My GT experience itself was amazing- I had incredible group members (you guys know who you are!) who knew what to do during meetings, and we quickly had a clear idea of what we were going to do during the actual presentation.
I must say that I didn't expect to do that well during the actual presentation. From my experience, I am just an average presenter. There are many other people out there who can articulate their thoughts better than me, and have way better pronunciation than me. For some reason, this presentation came naturally to me and I didn't have much trouble with it. I suppose I could say that this was because I didn't use a script or cue cards, and hence the the presentation became much more 'natural'. I'm not exactly sure that this is the main reason though, I'll have to wait till the next presentation to find out.
Still, my group and I were very well prepared for the presentation, having met several times before to try to perfect our deliveries. During the actual presentation itself, I didn't feel any nervousness at all, which surprised me a little. Perhaps my teaching stint at AJC helped somewhat? Still, I hope to be able to continue with this level of confidence for my future presentations. My other group members did very well too, and I am very happy and impressed with our level of performance on that day.
Moving on to my part of the presentation, I must say that I am lucky that my part was short- I had no trouble deciding on my content for the presentation. I tried to act naturally throughout- without paying much attention to my hand gestures, which came off pretty okay. However, during the presentation itself, I had the feeling that I slowed down too much at the start (for audience interaction I think) that I sped up the last part of the presentation. Not very good. My aim for the next presentation is to have good pace control to project an image of calmness. Another thing that I felt I could improve on was my pronunciation (especially when talking faster).
In terms of slides, we tried to go for a minimalist slide design. Still, I felt that the other teams after us had slides which looked so nice, and I hope to be able to do that for the next presentation, while still using a minimalist slide design.
In conclusion, I am very happy with the results of the first GT, and I wish everyone the best for the upcoming presentations in the future!
Friday 22 February 2013
Letter to HDB/URA/LTA/ST
This is not a course assignment, however, I feel that I should share this letter as a learning experience to everyone.
To: HDB, URA, LTA
Re: Drivability - Slopes and humps
Singapore is known for having a well-developed transport infrastructure. Yet, some areas of this infrastructure seems to be poorly designed, probably by people who do not drive.
Multi-storey carpark (MSCP) slopes is one of these areas. Currently, it seems like the approach taken is simply to build a 'bridge' between two levels. However, this is a problem as the angle between the slope and the deck of the carpark itself can be too steep for cars to negotiate down safely, especially when coming down the ramp. This leads to cars damaging their front bumpers when negotiating such slopes.
Carpark designers should allow for a gradual change in the gradient of the slope to make it more gentle, and to prevent such damage to cars.
Road humps is also another issue. The humps at certain areas are so high and steep that it seems as though road planners/designers want to build a hill instead of a hump. Cars have trouble clearing such humps successfully without scraping. This is evident by the scratch marks on the hump itself, and on the road after the hump.
Road planners/designers should come back to the basic issue of why we need humps: it is a traffic calming measure to reduce the speed of vehicles to a suitable level. A small hump would suffice in most cases. Having larger humps simply leads to damage to cars (lips, bumpers and suspension) and inefficiency as braking more scrubs more kinetic energy, and cars have to accelerate more to regain momentum after negotiating the hump leading to wasteful emissions and wear and tear.
On a more fundamental level, it may even be justifiable to eliminate the use of humps totally - they are inefficient and a nuisance to drivers. Other traffic calming measures, such as bright markings on the road, could be employed in the place of humps.
In conclusion, transport designers/planners should review their design of carpark slopes and road humps. In the case of MSCPs, they should flatten the angle between the slope and the carpark deck, and in the case of humps, they should leave the creation of hills to nature and use smaller humps.
By a <censored> and disgruntled motorist.
To: HDB, URA, LTA
Re: Drivability - Slopes and humps
Singapore is known for having a well-developed transport infrastructure. Yet, some areas of this infrastructure seems to be poorly designed, probably by people who do not drive.
Multi-storey carpark (MSCP) slopes is one of these areas. Currently, it seems like the approach taken is simply to build a 'bridge' between two levels. However, this is a problem as the angle between the slope and the deck of the carpark itself can be too steep for cars to negotiate down safely, especially when coming down the ramp. This leads to cars damaging their front bumpers when negotiating such slopes.
Carpark designers should allow for a gradual change in the gradient of the slope to make it more gentle, and to prevent such damage to cars.
Road humps is also another issue. The humps at certain areas are so high and steep that it seems as though road planners/designers want to build a hill instead of a hump. Cars have trouble clearing such humps successfully without scraping. This is evident by the scratch marks on the hump itself, and on the road after the hump.
Road planners/designers should come back to the basic issue of why we need humps: it is a traffic calming measure to reduce the speed of vehicles to a suitable level. A small hump would suffice in most cases. Having larger humps simply leads to damage to cars (lips, bumpers and suspension) and inefficiency as braking more scrubs more kinetic energy, and cars have to accelerate more to regain momentum after negotiating the hump leading to wasteful emissions and wear and tear.
On a more fundamental level, it may even be justifiable to eliminate the use of humps totally - they are inefficient and a nuisance to drivers. Other traffic calming measures, such as bright markings on the road, could be employed in the place of humps.
In conclusion, transport designers/planners should review their design of carpark slopes and road humps. In the case of MSCPs, they should flatten the angle between the slope and the carpark deck, and in the case of humps, they should leave the creation of hills to nature and use smaller humps.
By a <censored> and disgruntled motorist.
Saturday 16 February 2013
Week 4/ Report: Main Question/Thesis/Outline
Week 4/ Report: Main Question/Thesis/Outline
Problem: Whether NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from students on Facebook
Purpose: To evaluate if NUS faculty should initiate/accept friend requests from undergraduate students on Facebook, and to suggest guidelines for Facebook interaction with students.
Question(s):
1.
What are the (positive and negative) consequences of
faculty-student “friendship” on facebook?
2.
What are the attitudes of students towards befriending
teachers on Facebook?
3.
How feasible is it for NUS teachers to use Facebook to
value-add their relationship with students?
4.
What role does Facebook play in teacher-student
interactions on Facebook, and can this be done in any other way?
Flow of issues:
1. What are the consequences (benefits/evils) of having teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook? (perspective of students)
2. What are the attitudes (general response) to befriending teachers on Facebook? (Why would students want to add teachers on Facebook?)
3. Suitability of integrating Facebook into courses – evaluate usefulness, convenience, ease of use
4. Evaluate whether FB ‘friendship’ is actually beneficial overall
4a. If FB usage is deemed to be beneficial (ie NUS faculty SHOULD initiate/accept friend requests from students on FB), what is the role of such “friendships”?
4b. If FB usage is deemed to be harmful (ie NUS faculty SHOULD NOT initiate/accept friend requests from students on FB), what are the guidelines that staff should follow with respect to FB usage?
Report will follow the following format:
1.Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of report
1.2 PPQ
1.3 Scope
1.4 Limitations ???
1.5 Sources & Methods
2.0 Findings
- To interpret data (Compare&contrast or Functional?)
2.1. Consequences of teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook
2.1.1 Benefits of
teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook
2.1.2 Drawbacks of teacher-student
‘friendship’ on Facebook
2.2 Students' attitude towards
teacher-student ‘friendship’ on Facebook2.3 Suitability of using Facebook for teaching
33.0 Conclusions
- To provide explanations for key findings
4. 4.0 Recommendation
- NUS faculty SHOULD intitiate/accept friend requests on FB, and the guidelines for FB usage in this case (for staff)
- NUS faculty SHOULD NOT initiate/accept friend requests on FB, and the guidelines for FB usage in this case (for staff)
55.0 Overall conclusion
- -revisit ppq
--highlight key findings, conclusions, recommendations.
Sunday 20 January 2013
Week 2: Resolving Interpersonal/Intercultural Conflict
Week 2: Resolving Interpersonal/Intercultural Conflict (Post
#1)
This post will be based on the relationship between my
mother and me. As some may know, I have a passion for cars and have the
privilege to drive a Japanese legend, the Subaru Impreza WRX STI. It is true
that owners of such Japanese sports cars love to modify, or ‘zhng’, the car
according to their taste, such as to develop more horsepower, to make the car
look better (stance) in terms of its visual appearance, or to enhance the car’s
bassy boxer burble from the exhaust. It is also true that I do subscribe to
this view.
However, it seems that my mother is not exactly receptive
about the concept of modifying the car. According to her, I shouldn’t do it as
I would be “wasting my money”. However, my argument against this is that since
we already own the car, coming up with a small amount of money to buy nice
parts would value add more to the cost of the car. In my evaluation, the
benefit of being able to drive a nicer car more than outweighs the cost of
doing it. In addition, having a nicely modified car makes me proud as it
represents the freedom we have in modern society.
The problem comes when I want to modify a certain part of
the car. For example, take the spoiler. The standard high-mount spoiler has a
very factory-look, and is unsuitable with my plans of having a race-car look.
Thus, I wanted to put on a GT wing at the back of the car, which also had the
benefit of reducing weight. My mom, as usual, objects to this by saying I would
spend too much money and would attract attention from the authorities.
 | ||
| This is what the GT wing looks like, from the rear. Love that overhead bridge look! This was taken late late last year at Edge Tuning, on the day I collected the car with the wing. |
I tried to explain to her that it was legal and the cost was
actually not as much as she feared, but every time I approached her, she would
just stop the whole debate by throwing a temper and shouting. Since I had no
avenue to advance my interest, I decided to act on my own. There was an online
seller selling the wing, so I met him and bought it off him without the
permission of my mom. I then brought the wing back (it was in the dead of the
night), showed it to my mom and left it in the storeroom. The thinking behind my action was that if I had already bought the wing, there was nothing much she could do about it.
Of course, she wasn’t exactly very pleased about it.
However, since I had already bought the wing, she chose to control herself and
warned me about making sure it was legal. Since it was, I just had to go down
to the workshop to fix it a few days later.
Now, my question to you guys is this: What would you have
done in my position, assuming you really wanted to put the wing on the car?
Friday 18 January 2013
Creation!
Hi readers! (if there are any)
This will be the blog I will be using for ES2002! Looking forward to exploring blogging the rest of the semester ;)
This will be the blog I will be using for ES2002! Looking forward to exploring blogging the rest of the semester ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)