I believe that many of us have taken up this module unwillingly because we had failed the Qualifying English Test. Most of us may find it time-consuming, especially when it is not counted into our Cumulative Average Points. Initially, I was very reluctant in taking this module but my friend told me, “Since we are already taking this module, might as well we get something out of it.” I find that what he said made sense and therefore, it sort of changed my mindset towards taking this module.
During class when we were learning grammar, I felt that that I had already learnt these during my secondary school days and it is rather redundant to learn everything again. But after trying several grammar exercises in class, I realised that I do have a serious problem in my grammar and it is indeed useful that we are relearning our basics again. This is important because, as mentioned in my previous portfolio, we are required to submit reports during our four years engineering course and if we were to make grammatical errors in our reports, we are actually telling the reader that either our command of language is not up to standard or we did not bother to check through our work. In both cases, it would not reflect well on the writer. I believe these grammar lessons have allowed me to refresh on what I had learnt back in my Junior College and Secondary school and also increased my awareness on all my common mistakes.
I have certainly learnt something from the 2 writing assignments too. Particularly, I am glad that we were taught how to cite our sources properly and the document on APA style citation given to us is very informative. The strict correction by our tutor on format of citation has also made me realise the mistakes I made. This format of citation that i learnt would be useful when I am required to cite sources again in my future work.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to my tutor for putting in the effort in helping us to improve our English language and also putting up with a bunch of unresponsive and English language impaired students (us).
=)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
portfolio 6
Identify three of your common grammar mistakes and explain how the grammatical structure should be used correctly.
My major weakness in my grammar would most probably be the use of plural or singular form for subjects in a sentence. I tend to overlook such mistakes which can be spotted easily by others. Take an extract from my recent writing assignment as an example,
“However, if we were to look at it from the biological point of view, embryos of less than 14 days old should not be considered a human life yet as they lack parts that clearly define its possibility of turning into a human being. ”
I am actually quite surprised that I totally overlooked the gross error in the inconsistency of using plural or singular subject. We should always be consistent in the form of subject throughout our sentences, either we stick to the singular form or we change everything to plural form. Here is what I have changed the above sentence to,
“However, if we were to look at this issue from the biological point of view, an embryo of less than 14 days old should not be considered as a human life yet as it lacks parts that clearly define its possibility of turning into a human being.”
The second grammatical error that I usually make is writing non-parallel sentence. It is acceptable if you want to present several ideas together in one sentence, but you have to make sure that the ideas are parallel to each other. For example,
“From the pro-life advocates and religious point of view,....”
The term “Pro-life advocates” is a noun while “religious” is an adjective. We should keep everything to either noun or adjective term. Here are two examples,
“From the pro-life advocates and devotees to certain religions point of view,....”
Or
“From the pro-life and religious point of view,....”
Lastly, I tend to smash several important ideas together in one sentence. Below is another example from my writing assignment draft2,
“ACSR should not be used to replace ESCR since adult cells are not pluripotent and lastly, despite a number of failures, ESCR should continue as its success would certainly be of significant value to the medical field.”
If we were to group ideas together in one sentence, it may devalue the importance of those ideas that you want to bring across. This is particularly important when you are writing argumentative essays.
To conclude, such simple mistakes can be very irritating to the readers. Especially when these errors appear in our reports, the reader might think that we did not even put in the effort to check through our work for simple grammatical errors. Therefore, we should all be mindful of our grammar and improve on our language together!
My major weakness in my grammar would most probably be the use of plural or singular form for subjects in a sentence. I tend to overlook such mistakes which can be spotted easily by others. Take an extract from my recent writing assignment as an example,
“However, if we were to look at it from the biological point of view, embryos of less than 14 days old should not be considered a human life yet as they lack parts that clearly define its possibility of turning into a human being. ”
I am actually quite surprised that I totally overlooked the gross error in the inconsistency of using plural or singular subject. We should always be consistent in the form of subject throughout our sentences, either we stick to the singular form or we change everything to plural form. Here is what I have changed the above sentence to,
“However, if we were to look at this issue from the biological point of view, an embryo of less than 14 days old should not be considered as a human life yet as it lacks parts that clearly define its possibility of turning into a human being.”
The second grammatical error that I usually make is writing non-parallel sentence. It is acceptable if you want to present several ideas together in one sentence, but you have to make sure that the ideas are parallel to each other. For example,
“From the pro-life advocates and religious point of view,....”
The term “Pro-life advocates” is a noun while “religious” is an adjective. We should keep everything to either noun or adjective term. Here are two examples,
“From the pro-life advocates and devotees to certain religions point of view,....”
Or
“From the pro-life and religious point of view,....”
Lastly, I tend to smash several important ideas together in one sentence. Below is another example from my writing assignment draft2,
“ACSR should not be used to replace ESCR since adult cells are not pluripotent and lastly, despite a number of failures, ESCR should continue as its success would certainly be of significant value to the medical field.”
If we were to group ideas together in one sentence, it may devalue the importance of those ideas that you want to bring across. This is particularly important when you are writing argumentative essays.
To conclude, such simple mistakes can be very irritating to the readers. Especially when these errors appear in our reports, the reader might think that we did not even put in the effort to check through our work for simple grammatical errors. Therefore, we should all be mindful of our grammar and improve on our language together!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Portfolio 4
During our group’s round table discussion, we discussed on issues surrounding the topic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). The opposition team started off by pointing out that ESCR devalues human life. Embryonic stem cells are located within the embryo and the process of removing them requires the embryo to be destroyed. Certainly, from the pro-life advocates’ and some religious point of view, this should not be allowed as we are killing a life. The proposition team rebutted by indicating that embryonic cells that are before 14 days shouldn’t be considered a human being yet as these cells have not developed any part that clearly determines its identity as a human. Without the nerve cells, the embryo would not be able to feel pain and since it is not considered a life yet, we should be allowed to use them for ESCR. However, the opposition team continue to argue that since embryonic cells have the potential to become a human, they should be given the same treatment as a human being. I feel that this area that we are debating is a rather grey area, one is backed by science while the other is backed by religious views, we cannot just ignore the religious point of view since beliefs of many are defined by their religion.
The opposition team also pointed out the high failure rate of the research and this would only result in wastage of embryos. Stem cell research has been ongoing for the past 10 years but no promising result has been achieved. Then, the proposition team stepped in to point out that ESCR is very restricted in many countries and researchers are only using 21 stem cell lines that are available for their research. More lines are needed to be introduced in order for scientist to conduct a more extensive research on embryonic stem cell.
Personally, I am standing on the side of allowing ESCR, I believe not only lives will be saved, it will also relief the financial, mental and physical strain of those suffering from long-term diseases. However, I am just wondering: if ESCR were to be allowed, it may advance to the point that every part of your body can be replace/repaired and people are able to “renew” their degenerated body parts. If that is the case, wouldn’t life expectancy be going up? Will the increasing population pose a threat on the equilibrium of the earth?
The opposition team also pointed out the high failure rate of the research and this would only result in wastage of embryos. Stem cell research has been ongoing for the past 10 years but no promising result has been achieved. Then, the proposition team stepped in to point out that ESCR is very restricted in many countries and researchers are only using 21 stem cell lines that are available for their research. More lines are needed to be introduced in order for scientist to conduct a more extensive research on embryonic stem cell.
Personally, I am standing on the side of allowing ESCR, I believe not only lives will be saved, it will also relief the financial, mental and physical strain of those suffering from long-term diseases. However, I am just wondering: if ESCR were to be allowed, it may advance to the point that every part of your body can be replace/repaired and people are able to “renew” their degenerated body parts. If that is the case, wouldn’t life expectancy be going up? Will the increasing population pose a threat on the equilibrium of the earth?
Friday, February 6, 2009
portfolio 3
I find that the three guests invited for the lecture actually mentioned most of the points covered in the video “An Inconvenient Truth”. So, I will just give a brief summary on their talks and discuss some issues that I find interesting.
First on the list, Prof Andrew Palmer gave the first talk which concentrates more on ways in which government and individuals are able to slow down the rate of global warming. I find what the lecturer said is very true, the politicians would usually place the short term problems at higher priority compared to environmental issues which does not pose a serious threat at the moment. Moreover, when we compare environmental issues to improving the economic state of the country or fighting famine in rural areas across the globe, many may prefer to spent more resources on the latter. Next, something I found interesting about the talk is the storage of carbon dioxide down at the seabed. Initially proposed to store them in pressurized liquid form, it was later rejected as it will affect the acidity of the ocean. The next feasible plan was to store them within membrane which I find is more absurd. I wouldn’t think that this membrane is tough enough to prevent penetration from sea creatures and I believe the consequences of all the giant “bubbles” of carbon dioxide bursting simultaneously will definitely be more disastrous to the oceanic life.
The second lecturer bombarded us with terminology and issues that I find rather foreign but he raised an interesting case study on electric cars. Disregarding power, electric cars certainly possess more benefits than gasoline cars. It is a pity that industrialisation favoured the production of more gasoline cars instead of the more environmental-friendly electric cars and subsequently, exhausts produced from gasoline cars resulted in the increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Lastly, the 3rd speaker, Prof Bala mentioned almost the same points as Prof Andrew Palmer. He mentioned the government roles in reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon taxes and subsidises in energy-efficient technologies. Ultimately, I feel that the government will only take up measures which would not affect its economy. For example, the government might not implement high carbon taxing since it will discourage firms from setting up factories in Singapore. Saving the earth is a very slow process, it is important for every country to make its first move to help address these environmental issues and put a stop to them.
First on the list, Prof Andrew Palmer gave the first talk which concentrates more on ways in which government and individuals are able to slow down the rate of global warming. I find what the lecturer said is very true, the politicians would usually place the short term problems at higher priority compared to environmental issues which does not pose a serious threat at the moment. Moreover, when we compare environmental issues to improving the economic state of the country or fighting famine in rural areas across the globe, many may prefer to spent more resources on the latter. Next, something I found interesting about the talk is the storage of carbon dioxide down at the seabed. Initially proposed to store them in pressurized liquid form, it was later rejected as it will affect the acidity of the ocean. The next feasible plan was to store them within membrane which I find is more absurd. I wouldn’t think that this membrane is tough enough to prevent penetration from sea creatures and I believe the consequences of all the giant “bubbles” of carbon dioxide bursting simultaneously will definitely be more disastrous to the oceanic life.
The second lecturer bombarded us with terminology and issues that I find rather foreign but he raised an interesting case study on electric cars. Disregarding power, electric cars certainly possess more benefits than gasoline cars. It is a pity that industrialisation favoured the production of more gasoline cars instead of the more environmental-friendly electric cars and subsequently, exhausts produced from gasoline cars resulted in the increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Lastly, the 3rd speaker, Prof Bala mentioned almost the same points as Prof Andrew Palmer. He mentioned the government roles in reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon taxes and subsidises in energy-efficient technologies. Ultimately, I feel that the government will only take up measures which would not affect its economy. For example, the government might not implement high carbon taxing since it will discourage firms from setting up factories in Singapore. Saving the earth is a very slow process, it is important for every country to make its first move to help address these environmental issues and put a stop to them.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Portfolio 2
Numerous studies and reports have clearly shown that the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has soared up over the years. Minimal efforts were made to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and this is understandable as politicians would argue that in view of matters that are deemed ‘more important’ such as the country’s economy state, environmental issues should be placed aside. It is inevitable for politicians to react in such a way since it is logical to solve the short-term problems first before considering the long-term ones. Moreover, the present effects of global warming are not yet significant enough for people to start worrying the true meaning of it.
Though Singapore has not pledged its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, the government has step up its actions against global warming. Following up the first Singapore Green Plan (SGP) that was released in 1992, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) launched the SGP 2012 in August 2002. It is a ten-year plan which describes the strategies and programmes that Singapore would adopt in order to maintain a quality living and curb environmental issues while pursuing economic prosperity. Its success is evident with ambient air quality, measured by the PSI, in the "good" range for at least 85% of the days in each of the years between 2003 and 2007 and annual average Particulate Matter 2.5 level fell from 21µg/Nm3 in 2005 to 19µg/Nm3 in 2007.
Looking at the emission from vehicles, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) approved the retrofit of cars for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) usage as an alternative to petrol in 2007 with plans made to open more CNG stations in the future to encourage more people to use CNG. Since natural gas vehicles reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 25% compared to the equivalent petrol vehicles and also reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions to practically zero, this further justify the government’s support in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases.
The above mentioned policies are only two of the many that our government have adopted. Though most of them are not large-scale, they have proved to be successful in improving our Climate Change Performance Index. Singapore may not be a big country, but its efforts would certainly be recognised on the global scale.
Bibliography:
http://www.cng.com.sg/benefits.html
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1370_2008-11-22.html
Though Singapore has not pledged its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, the government has step up its actions against global warming. Following up the first Singapore Green Plan (SGP) that was released in 1992, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) launched the SGP 2012 in August 2002. It is a ten-year plan which describes the strategies and programmes that Singapore would adopt in order to maintain a quality living and curb environmental issues while pursuing economic prosperity. Its success is evident with ambient air quality, measured by the PSI, in the "good" range for at least 85% of the days in each of the years between 2003 and 2007 and annual average Particulate Matter 2.5 level fell from 21µg/Nm3 in 2005 to 19µg/Nm3 in 2007.
Looking at the emission from vehicles, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) approved the retrofit of cars for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) usage as an alternative to petrol in 2007 with plans made to open more CNG stations in the future to encourage more people to use CNG. Since natural gas vehicles reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 25% compared to the equivalent petrol vehicles and also reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions to practically zero, this further justify the government’s support in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases.
The above mentioned policies are only two of the many that our government have adopted. Though most of them are not large-scale, they have proved to be successful in improving our Climate Change Performance Index. Singapore may not be a big country, but its efforts would certainly be recognised on the global scale.
Bibliography:
http://www.cng.com.sg/benefits.html
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1370_2008-11-22.html
Thursday, January 22, 2009
portfolio 1
Basically, how an engineer is able to “systematically analyze complex information and apply a holistic (systematic) approach in designing solutions" goes down to the education that he have undergone.
Education plays an important part in shaping an undergraduate’s path in becoming an engineer during its course of study. An engineering course would usually encompass modules that expose engineers to many different problems and scenarios and drill them in problem-solving techniques. Furthermore, engineers are allowed to take up modules from different faculties, enriching their education. Taking NUS as an example, graduating with an engineering degree requires one to complete cross-faculty modules, apart from the core modules. In doing so, engineers are exposed to different fields and this would certainly enhance their working capabilities in a wider scope of occupation.
Besides nurturing them in classroom-based education, it is usually mandatory for engineers to participate in laboratory experiments, research and even Industrial-Attachment. These essentially allow engineers to verify what they have learnt and to apply them. Experience gained from these activities would certainly prepare the engineers with the challenges ahead after they enter the workforce. I believe with such a pedagogical approach in its education coupled with the hands-on experience they gained, engineers would naturally have a cut above the rest in terms of analyzing information and holistically designing solutions.
One should also note that advancement in technology has also contributed greatly in aiding engineers to accomplish these tasks. Engineers made use of the power of the internet to facilitate them in gathering and organising information efficiently. Computers also served as great tools in assisting engineers to systematically design solutions.
To sum up, an engineering education weighs significant importance in preparing engineers with its desired skill in “systematically analyzing complex information and applying a holistic (systematic) approach in designing solutions" and technological advancement would definitely improve its efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)