Ok, a delicate issue, so language will be a bit more circumspect than usual:
Head Office has identified certain unfair practices in the conduct of project appraisals. Some branch offices have been practicing unauthorized procedures to advantage themselves in the award of 'A' grade work, but in so doing have contravened the spirit of independent enterprise. Head Office has been clear in censuring such practices and hopes to level the playing field for all candidates once again.
I, for one, am appreciative of the stern action taken by Head Office. It proves to me that the higher ups really do have their heads screwed on straight. It's about time we put the emphasis back on quality rather than quantity.
Showing posts with label pw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pw. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
You have five minutes... start talking!
With the new J1 oral defence assessment component, I'm using the Pecha-Kucha movement to inspire the kids. The general PK rule is 20x20, that is, 20 PowerPoint slides set to auto-advance at every 20 second interval which amounts to a presentation slightly less than 7 minutes long. Each slide contains minimal text to avoid distracting the audience from the speaker, while the speaker learns to make a sharply focussed presentation with no time for kerfuffle.
I think it's a fun and creative means of getting the kids to develop their communication skills, and it should certainly help them prepare for their oral component during their end-of-year Project Work assessment as well. Might as well start them off early, I say.
But for the purposes of our J1 newbies, their first oral exercise will only last three minutes. If you're doing the math, that's 9x20. That's fine by me. Who knows? We just might be reviving the movement here in S'pore with our little experiment -- it seems to have died out a couple of years ago. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
I think it's a fun and creative means of getting the kids to develop their communication skills, and it should certainly help them prepare for their oral component during their end-of-year Project Work assessment as well. Might as well start them off early, I say.
But for the purposes of our J1 newbies, their first oral exercise will only last three minutes. If you're doing the math, that's 9x20. That's fine by me. Who knows? We just might be reviving the movement here in S'pore with our little experiment -- it seems to have died out a couple of years ago. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
No free lunches
Officially been tasked as a Project Work supervisor for my civics group. Six project teams in all.
The Idea Factory dropped in to give us some ideas for in-class activities to stimulate collaborative and innovative thinking among the group members. A key point of this afternoon's workshop was that although we allow the initial creative process to flourish without the prejudice of both internal and external censor, all that creativity has to be eventually focused upon addressing a particular stakeholder's needs, wants or inconveniences. The better innovations deal with problems the client couldn't articulate or even didn't even know it had.
It was good for me to confirm an angle I was going for with my groups this year. The kids tend to think of their projects as philanthropic exercises. They usually want to help the disabled or the disadvantaged and hence would never consider charging for their eventual product or service. Noble, but ultimately pointless. Instead, I'd like them to think about providing a product or service they would pay hard cash for. The money factor is a practical reality check. It also reminds them that if no one would pay for their project, then no one would accept it for free either.
The Idea Factory dropped in to give us some ideas for in-class activities to stimulate collaborative and innovative thinking among the group members. A key point of this afternoon's workshop was that although we allow the initial creative process to flourish without the prejudice of both internal and external censor, all that creativity has to be eventually focused upon addressing a particular stakeholder's needs, wants or inconveniences. The better innovations deal with problems the client couldn't articulate or even didn't even know it had.
It was good for me to confirm an angle I was going for with my groups this year. The kids tend to think of their projects as philanthropic exercises. They usually want to help the disabled or the disadvantaged and hence would never consider charging for their eventual product or service. Noble, but ultimately pointless. Instead, I'd like them to think about providing a product or service they would pay hard cash for. The money factor is a practical reality check. It also reminds them that if no one would pay for their project, then no one would accept it for free either.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Small-time solutions for big-time poverty
Because we think of poverty in developing nations as a huge problem, we tend to leave the thinking of solutions up to international aid, government and non-government agencies and big business. We have this assumption that because they are much bigger, smarter, and richer than us, they have the responsibility to fix the problem. Who are we, after all, to even comprehend the scale of the problem, let alone contribute to solving the problem?
But here's a radical idea: since the people suffering in poverty are so short of many necessities, why don't we (as in 'normal' people) invent some kind of technology they can use to maximize what resources they do have, and sell it to them at a low cost? Notice I said 'sell' and not 'give', because resources can only be acquired at a cost; and if we don't recover our costs our Christmas Tree would run dry very fast.
And why should we even bother helping these poor folk whom we have almost zero contact with in our day-to-day lives? Simple: there are millions of people living under the poverty line in the world today, let's say on about US$1.25 a day. They may not have a lot of money in their pockets, but they do have SOME money they would be ready to part with IF we can sell them a product that is both good and useful to them.
If a few million people would give us a portion of their US1.25 a day, what's in it for us is a huge market with lots of further growth potential... or in other words, there's a lot of money to be made selling them a product they would be willing to buy. But we're so not selling them junk. As David Wolman says, "The poor may be poor, but they're not stupid."
So, if we're going to save people from poverty, perhaps the best ones to do it would be us, the small-time entrepreneur with an innovative idea that would benefit millions for a low, low price. Wait, why does this sound like PW all over again?
But here's a radical idea: since the people suffering in poverty are so short of many necessities, why don't we (as in 'normal' people) invent some kind of technology they can use to maximize what resources they do have, and sell it to them at a low cost? Notice I said 'sell' and not 'give', because resources can only be acquired at a cost; and if we don't recover our costs our Christmas Tree would run dry very fast.
And why should we even bother helping these poor folk whom we have almost zero contact with in our day-to-day lives? Simple: there are millions of people living under the poverty line in the world today, let's say on about US$1.25 a day. They may not have a lot of money in their pockets, but they do have SOME money they would be ready to part with IF we can sell them a product that is both good and useful to them.
If a few million people would give us a portion of their US1.25 a day, what's in it for us is a huge market with lots of further growth potential... or in other words, there's a lot of money to be made selling them a product they would be willing to buy. But we're so not selling them junk. As David Wolman says, "The poor may be poor, but they're not stupid."
So, if we're going to save people from poverty, perhaps the best ones to do it would be us, the small-time entrepreneur with an innovative idea that would benefit millions for a low, low price. Wait, why does this sound like PW all over again?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Great expectorations
It's PW season for the J1s on campus. The majority of their project deadlines coincide over the next couple of weeks and everyone's working feverishly (we hope) to impress their assessors with what they've been working on for the last 6-7 months.
The grading criteria go by the following premises: projects are either Approaching Expectations (AE), Meeting Expectations (ME), or Exceeding Expectations (EE). Of course, the EE grade is the most coveted, and every self-respecting staff supervisor will design such training as to prepare the students for that esteemed level of achievement.
Herein lies a conundrum I've discovered between balancing out the training with the grading criteria: no matter how much I teach and train, no matter how much I consult the project groups to help them raise their level of performance, my efforts will only help them attain a Meeting Expectations (ME) grade. That's because as long as the groups do what I tell them, as long as they doggedly follow my lead, they can only Meet the Expectations I have of them. I cannot teach them to Exceed Expectations because in order to do that, they have to do more than what I have taught them to do, and to do it better than I would have done myself. Think I'm asking too much? Go look up what 'exceed' means.
PW is one subject in which "teach more, score less" applies. That's because the more is taught, the fewer the opportunities for the students to exceed expectations because we keep raising the expectation bar higher and higher. If we didn't teach so much, everything the kids do right would look like a marvel. Instead, because we have taught them so much, every deviation from the way we think is 'right' becomes a disaster.
Yes, I agree that certain basics and standards have to be laid down as foundation. The kids need a launchpad that is solid and stable enough to support their explorations -- that's our job. But beyond that, the more reluctant we are to give up our remote control, the sooner we think our kids' projects are likely to crash and burn.
PW is designed as a subject to advantage students who can take charge of the given problem, and use their own ingenuity and resources to innovate and develop a reasonable solution. Not many students can do this, hence they stand out as Exceeding Expectations. For the rest of the pack, they have to be satisfied with Meeting Expectations because they can perform as reasonably well as they have been taught. And in the grand scheme of things, that should be quite enough.
The grading criteria go by the following premises: projects are either Approaching Expectations (AE), Meeting Expectations (ME), or Exceeding Expectations (EE). Of course, the EE grade is the most coveted, and every self-respecting staff supervisor will design such training as to prepare the students for that esteemed level of achievement.
Herein lies a conundrum I've discovered between balancing out the training with the grading criteria: no matter how much I teach and train, no matter how much I consult the project groups to help them raise their level of performance, my efforts will only help them attain a Meeting Expectations (ME) grade. That's because as long as the groups do what I tell them, as long as they doggedly follow my lead, they can only Meet the Expectations I have of them. I cannot teach them to Exceed Expectations because in order to do that, they have to do more than what I have taught them to do, and to do it better than I would have done myself. Think I'm asking too much? Go look up what 'exceed' means.
PW is one subject in which "teach more, score less" applies. That's because the more is taught, the fewer the opportunities for the students to exceed expectations because we keep raising the expectation bar higher and higher. If we didn't teach so much, everything the kids do right would look like a marvel. Instead, because we have taught them so much, every deviation from the way we think is 'right' becomes a disaster.
Yes, I agree that certain basics and standards have to be laid down as foundation. The kids need a launchpad that is solid and stable enough to support their explorations -- that's our job. But beyond that, the more reluctant we are to give up our remote control, the sooner we think our kids' projects are likely to crash and burn.
PW is designed as a subject to advantage students who can take charge of the given problem, and use their own ingenuity and resources to innovate and develop a reasonable solution. Not many students can do this, hence they stand out as Exceeding Expectations. For the rest of the pack, they have to be satisfied with Meeting Expectations because they can perform as reasonably well as they have been taught. And in the grand scheme of things, that should be quite enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)