Last Wednesday, my group C05 and I had our first CG1102 project meeting. We convened in the computer lab first to clarify the task requirements and to seek the advice from our lab assistant. Next, we found an empty tutorial room and proceeded to conduct our meeting and recording.
The meeting proceeded smoothly and we discussed our approach to solving the task as well as the various details related to its implementation. There were no major conflicts throughout the discussion however; further clarification was required at certain points to help us better understand what our teammates were trying to say. One such occurrence happened while we were discussing the method in which to implement the UI or user interface.
The user interface we had to create would allow users make selections via a menu. The input received would then determine the function to be executed or the sub menu to be displayed. My concern was that while the main menu dictated that choices were limited to the numbers 1 to 5, other sub menu may require user input of different datatypes.
I was under the impression that a separate function would be required to handle the different datatypes. However our group leader Russell had intended to create different sub menus that could then handle its specific input datatype. At this point we tried to reconcile our different approaches by first understanding each other’s methods as well as the rationale behind them.
While I first had difficulty trying to explain my concern regarding his implementation, by listening carefully to his explanation and trying to visualize his concept, I was better able to understand his approach. Having reviewed the recording of our interaction, I now see that I was still unable to fully grasp what he meant as I was too focused on my suggestion as well as the perceived “flaw”. We then compromised and decided to first adopt a simple case scenario and assume his implementation would suffice. During a second meet up, we were able to discuss the issue again and this time, having already accepted his solution, I was better able to understand it and come to see that it would work despite my initial reservations.
It is interesting to see that our behaviour during the meeting was somewhat different and perhaps a little self-conscious due to the presence of the camera. However as the meeting progressed, we were absorbed by the work at hand and soon forgot about the camera. I was later told that they were slightly uncomfortable having to be recorded as they felt pressurised to adopt better communication practices during discussion. While I fully understand the desire to present a better image and also the merits of trying to put good communication practices to use, I wonder if the effectiveness of the exercise might be reduced by doing so intentionally.
Be Veg . Go Green . Save the Planet .
For more information regarding climate change please visit:
Dear Kai Ren,
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn’t realize that you did not understand my idea during the meeting. Perhaps, I got was too pushy with my ideas and didn’t really hear you out. I apologize for that.
I agree that the uncomfortable awareness of the camera has probably affected our behavior during the meeting. I think that the purpose of this exercise is to allow us to spot our own mistakes during the meeting and hence, to improve on them. The video is a pretty good aid to help us recall our actions and reactions during the meeting. While the presence of the camera does impact our behavior, I still think that the video is still pretty good in helping us spot our flaws.
Overall, I think that you did quite a good job during the meeting and you even took the addition responsibility of writing down the minutes!
Regards,
Russell
Hi Kairen,
ReplyDeleteA very well organized post. Your post is concise and well written.
The discussion of your ideas with Russel is analysed and written in a very interesting manner.
I like how subtly you talk about the camera consciousness. I is slightly funny but true. I am sure all of us must have faced it.
I cannot find any flaw in your post. It is always hard to find one in your writings!
Cheers
Geeika
Dear Kai Ren,
ReplyDeleteI think this entry was quite well written. You explained what went on during the meeting and showed the difficulties faced in it.
I understand the problem you faced when trying to understand Russell’s point of view. We often find that our own ideas are the best until we take time to understand the ideas of others. Thus, it is good that you finally managed to grasp what he was trying to say. This shows that you are open to other people’s opinion. I also agree that we act self-consciously in front of the camera, but become oblivious to it after being engrossed in the discussion.
Overall, it was fun reading this post. Perhaps you could briefly include any other difficulties faced during the duration of the meeting.
Cheers
Michael
Dear Kai Ren,
ReplyDeleteI agree that sometimes during the meeting, one can be so pushy that another can't understand what he says. In such case, it needs both time and compromise from both sides to come to an agreement.
Overall, I think your group went through the meeting very well. Maybe you can include some reflections about how your group before the meeting and how the meeting was conducted.
Cheers,
Duc