The CASE Podcast ep.01

This is an improved version of my first podcast, where I made changes to my podcast based on feedback I received of Flipgrid. The feedback I received was “I’m wondering what effect moving the last section, about the different views, and putting it in the middle of the interviews could have done to keep the listener more engaged.” Acting on this feedback, I inserted a small comment and summary of each interviewee’s response after their recording and sound effects to section off my comment and their recording. I think it did make my podcast more engaging because we can hear some opinions based on the interview and not just listening to three interviews in a row. I also like this improved podcast more because I also put some personal opinion on it. Before I improved the podcast, it wasn’t nearly as engaging as the improved version and now it could maintain the audience’s attention for most of the podcast.

IDU reflection

The IDU was a perfect experience for students to learn about a specific inclusion issue within the ISB community and to collaborate with one another. Collaboration is essential so we can see other’s perspectives towards the same problem. We can see someone else’s take on the world when collaborating. In the two and half weeks that we devoted to the IDU project, I worked with my group to create a solution for students of lower socioeconomic status. We worked collaboratively to approach and create a develop our solution to its best in the timeframe given. As a group member, I contributed as a leader in my group. I put my ideas on the table and organized our team to work more efficiently, but I need more work on being more aware of self and others.

At the beginning of the project, we spent a long time trying to identify an inclusion issue and target population. I gave as many ideas as possible, such as body size, gender, and the LGBTQ+ community, so that we have options open if one doesn’t work out. As a group member, I think that it is valuable to know that your ideas are taken into account and are valuable to the group. Secondly, I posed as a leader in my group. Because both Sarah and I are organizers, we took on different roles. I noted and created timelines and assigned each member the work that needed to be done that day, while Sarah outlined each specific task that needed to be done. Our leadership in the group made our group more organized and everyone knew what they had to complete by the end of that day.

One major weakness I have in terms of collaboration is that I’m more aware of myself than others. There are times where I can seem like a “dictator” in group work, so with Sarah posing as another leader, it made me more aware of my weakness and what I need to work on. I assign people tasks so that our group work can be done efficiently, but I did not take into consideration if they are happy with the job given to them. Although this time, my teammates took on each assignment willingly, I do not know that if others in a different group project would feel the same way.

Overall, I believe that I worked pretty well with my group during the IDU project. Although we disagree with each other sometimes, we made compromises and considered other ideas and made the final decisions as a group with civil arguments. The easiest collaboration norm for my group to implement was presuming positive intentions. We all saw each other’s idea as something proposed to make our project better, so we didn’t have big conflicts. However, when big conflicts do occur in a group, the best way to resolve it is to put yourself in the other person’s shoe and talk it out peacefully. In conclusion, IDU was an exceptional experience to learn about myself and further develop collaboration skills. In Ms Wong’s words, “The IDU isn’t for you to sit around and do nothing. It is for you to learn to become a better person.”

Design Cycle #2 D-Log Define and Inquire Unit

In the Define and Inquire unit, I focused on the research question “How can language barriers affect the experience of a customer’s Didi ride?” Following a tool development flow chart, I clearly established the background of both the audience and the research question, created a component justification and created a tool which I used to collect necessary data to develop hypotheses towards the research question.

First of all, I decided upon the research question because it is a problem that my friends face whenever they use rideshare apps. Whenever we take a Didi together, I am always the only one that speaks to the driver because I am a native Chinese speaker; however, that made me think about how my friends would react to this situation when they take a Didi without a Chinese speaker.

A previous data collection tool I developed for the Capstone project inspired me to create a survey for my tool. The survey I created last year showed me a variety of data regarding people’s opinion towards a specific problem, which is exactly the same type of data I need for this design cycle. Therefore, I created a short ten-question survey that collects both qualitative and quantitative data.

Originally, my hypothesis for the research question was “The lower the Chinese proficiency level, the worse the Didi experience.” However, after collecting data, the hypothesis proved to be untrue. Compared to the original hypotheses, the ratings received from the interviewees are all 4 and above, with one exception. This could be because interviewees could avoid communication or have minimal communication with the drivers if the Chinese skill level is low. Today, with the technology industry soaring, a large number of translation apps are offered. Didi users with language barriers could simply translate using a phone app and show the translation to the driver.

In the future, I would like to continue practising creating concise, effective and efficient interview questions. Although my tool was a survey with mostly ratings out of 5, I need to make my qualitative questions more effective in terms of collecting accurate data.