Summer 2018

COM 476 Risk Communication

Instructor: Janet Yang

Initially I was a little scared when I started taking this class, as Dr Yang’s concepts initially were a bit hard for me to grasp. She is a very bright professor, as she graduated from Cornell University. But as I tried to internalise her concepts and absorb them, I felt like my IQ literally increased by 5 points. In my evaluation I wrote:”The course was so intellectually stimulating that I swear my IQ went up by 5 points. I really learnt a lot from this course that my neurons were firing at full speed. The entire universe of knowledge opened up to me and I had unlocked the gates of enlightenment in my mind.” I know it sounds very funny, but I decided to inject some humour in my course evaluation. She started class on time, however, quite often, our class would have to be extended by 30 minutes as she was trying to explain the concepts again to us, as some of us had a lot of doubts about the content. She is also quite patient in clarifying course content as she would be quite clear and precise when I consulted her about the powerpoint slides. Her slides are not very wordy, and you have to come to class, take down notes and listen attentively if you want to do well in the class. She has a lot of graphs from research papers on her powerpoint slides, and often, she will talk about the correlation of the numbers, and what do they mean, ie. whether males or females are more prone to risks so you just have to copy down the main points. Also, like the variables used in a particular study will be tested, ie. trust or care etc. You should come to class after completing your readings, so you will understand what she is saying. Personally, I print out my readings and highlight them, so I will be able to spot the main points, from matching the slides and the readings. The course comprises of 2 tests, 200 points each, a research project, 300 points, and 3 written assignments. Basically, for the tests, there will be 20 MCQs, 3 marks each, 20 T/F questions, 2 marks each, and 3 short answer questions which add up to 100 marks total. Generally, the short answer questions are quite doable as long as you understand the concepts and you are able to apply them, and your logic is sound. I got one of the terms wrong for my short answer question but I only had 5 marks deducted for that mistake, so I think it isn’t too bad. As for the true/false questions, you might have to pay attention to the study, like what measures were used etc., what variables. As for the multiple choice questions, it is best to pay attention to the readings, and understand the definitions, and the terms under each concept. For my first test, I scored 184/200, as I think I was paying a lot of attention in class, as I was scared that I would flunk the test. For my second test, I scored 172/200, which wasn’t too shabby, but I wished it was slightly higher. As for the 3 written assignments, these are short case studies, in which you have to read up on a short research article, and apply the relevant concepts to answer the question. This forms 70 marks of the case study. After which, you have to work in groups, and possibly discuss the case study and implement possible solutions to the problem, in the form of a play, or a skit or presentation. For the second case study, it was an expert vs citizen panel, and for the third, it was about coming up with a narrative. I scored 93 for the first one, 100 for the second, and 96 for the third case study. For the group project, you will be given a few topics to choose from, and  you can choose the same topics as your friends or choose who to work with, or be assigned a group organically. It comprised of a 75 points presentation, 150 points paper(4-5 pages), 25 point peer evaluation and 50 points for any supporting documents, like graphs and charts. Our group earned the full 75 points for the presentation, 130 marks for the paper, and the full 50 marks for the supporting documents. In your peer evaluation, you can raise any concerns about your group project, or justify your contributions if you feel it is necessary. I think I had some conflict with my group members, and I did slack off a bit towards the final project, as I was down with severe sinusitis, but I was given 25 marks for the peer evaluation. I scored a 925/1000 total, which is about an A-, on the cusp of an A.

My grade for this course: A-

 

COM 205 Research Methods

Instructor: Zachary Carr

This module comprises of 3 tests(10 points each), a research proposal worth 50 points, and 30 marks worth of class participation, which is extremely easy to earn. The tests are all open book, and you have to print out any notes/readings which may help you in your exam. I printed out the textbook chapter which was uploaded on ub learns, highlighted the important points after skimming and reading through, and I printed all the slides which were relevant to the test. Occasionally, he might ask you 1-2 questions about the video that he showed in class, such as the Experimenter or the Miligram experiment. These tests are mainly MCQ and True-false questions, with some short answer questions thrown in. Each question correctly answered earns you 0.5 points. For my Quiz 1, I earned 9.5 points, and 9 points for quiz 2, and 9.75 points for quiz 3. As for the class participation component, you should attend class regularly, as he will have unannounced class activities, where you have to answer some questions about the concepts taught in class, which will usually come out in the quiz, such as factorial design, or the difference between dependent and independent variables. Whether you are right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, as he will go through the entire activity with the whole class afterwards, and you can change your answers/clarify your doubts. Put in effort and try to get it correct, and you should earn the full 30 marks.  Each activity is worth 5 points. He doesn’t like it if you choose not to attend class, yet you try to answer the material outside class and submit it online, so don’t do that. It is best that you submit the answers immediately after class, or during the class period. If you are caught red-handed, you might get 0 marks. The research paper is quite manageable, as you can choose to work in groups or alone. I worked alone on the research paper, and I scored the full 5 marks for stage 1, 9/10 marks for stage 2, 14.5/15 marks for stage 3 and 18.5/20 marks for stage 4. For stage 1, you have to come up with a research question, and hypothesis and define your variables. You should have a short paragraph explaining why you chose that topic. This part is very easy to score. As for stage 2, you have to conduct a literature review regarding the topic, which shows past research done, and articles which support or do not support your hypothesis. If you are quite seasoned with literature reviews and summarising and synthesizing content, this part should be quite easy for you. Dr Zach would be keen to show you his research paper, as a sample of how to write a literature review, if you request for it. As for stage 3, you have to design an experiment/survey/interview which shows how you would go about conducting the experiment/interview/study. It is best to document everything, like how you would recruit participants, the design used, the methodology, and the procedures. Also, you should attach any survey questions you created/used, or any graphs/pictures showed to the participants. You don’t have to conduct the study, and obtain results, but you have to design a detailed procedure which describes how you will obtain research data. For stage 1, 2, and 3, Dr Zach will provide a lot of valuable feedback and advice on how you can improve your stages. You should take the feedback into account as he is very lenient with stage 1, 2 and 3, but not so lenient for stage 4. In stage 4, you have to combine stage 2 and 3 and add an abstract, an introduction, and add in your expected results, as well as discussion section. You should implement any changes which are deemed necessary, and your literature review should become more robust and grammatically and structurally sound. Take note of transitions, the way you cite your article, and the tone of your paper. I was down with a severe sinus infection, and I was adding in stuff gradually. But there were a lot of things I decided to add in last minute, as I was scared that he would deduct a lot of points. I guess it paid off. In total, I scored 105.25/110 points fot the entire module, which translates to an A grade. To top it off, he offered us 2 bonus points for taking part in Dr Yang’s study. Dr Zach is a very warm and friendly lecturer, and despite being bombarded and inundated with countless questions and emails from me, he still bothered to answer and clarify my doubts. He is a professional vocal instructor, and I asked him for some singing tips. You can also volunteer to be his research assistant, which will be a good and valuable experience for your CV. However, his FACs manual is very long, and I think I might only finish reading it after I graduate. He is an eminent professor who has special interests in deception and non-verbal communication, and he has been working under Dr Mark Frank and he likes to talk about Paul Eckman, the father of deception. If you would like to go into research or academia, you can talk to him about it.

My grade for this course: A

 

COM 420 Conflict Theory

Instructor: Frank Tutzauer

Dr Frank Tutzauer is a very nice and approachable lecturer, and he loves Singapore a lot. He is also quite kind to bump our marks up, despite many of us not doing that well for the tests. We have 2 tests, one mid term, one end of semester, and a project which is related to game theory, 100 points each, totalling to 300 points and converted to our grades in the form of percentage points. We were required to form teams for the group project and compete against the other teams. Although we came in second last for the tournament, and didn’t manage to get bonus points, we secured 95/100 marks for the group project. As for the first test, I didn’t do very well, and I scored 68/100 for the test. Dr Tutzauer was kind enough to bump our marks by 5 marks. The average mark was about 80.00% according to Dr Tutzauer. As for the second test, I scored 68/100 as well. He decided to bump it up by 9 points, by adding 3 percentage points to our overall score from the 3 assessments. Dr Tutzauer had a lot of supplements for his notes, as well as handouts, and he has a small little compact textbook for us to read, which wasn’t very necessary as long as we listened in class, understood the content and studied the material. One thing is, he tests very comprehensively on the course content, such as definitions of integrative bargaining, various scenarios, various terms, and like the various types of distributive games and bargaining strategies, such as chicken or leader or hero. It would be good to remember the stories behind the games such as prisoner’s dilemma, instead of trying to memorise where the numbers fall in the game.  For the second test, we had to know how to find the Nash solution, how to find the Raiffa solution, and how to find equal gain solution. It is not very difficult if you listen in class and clarify with the teacher, but you do need to understand the concept well and you need to have an analytical mind. I understood the Nash solution, Raiffa solution for the second test, but the definitions tripped me up, as well as the part where there was a flowchart showing how the different aspects of bargaining linked together. For the first test, I confused maximin and minimax, and my concepts weren’t very sound when it came to the bargaining games. Also, I think it would be better if we had lecture notes organised by week, or if his handouts and supplements on ub learns were organised by week. He would demonstrate a lot of examples on the board, and he would write down the terms and definitions on the board. You may have to copy them down, and hand-written is better, as you need the diagrams to understand the subject. Sometimes he would draw one diagram, and write down the values/figures/examples, then he would tweak the diagram and modify it, changing the values/figures/words, so you have to pay attention and re-copy the same diagram if necessary, if not it might be very messy and confusing. Try to organise your notes systematically and write in the same notebook. If your notes are good, it will make it easier to catch the lectures. Also, he speaks very fast. When I read the rate my professors reviews, someone wrote that his tests were open book, but its not true. His tests are closed book, 50 MCQ questions for the mid-term and final.

My grade for this course: B-

 

PSY 341 Cognitive Psychology

Instructor: Joseph Boomer

Dr Joseph Boomer is a very interesting and peculiar lecturer. If you hate group work and if you are good at taking tests, you should take his classes. He has 3 tests, 25% each, and 8 online quizzes, of which the 6 best are counted, which account for 25% of your total grade. Initially when I took his module, I read a lot of negative reviews on Rate my professors, like how his module was very difficult, or how his tests are tricky and how he had an extra credit paper which was very difficult to write. When I chanced upon the course syllabus, seeing that he will bump up the quiz marks to 4/8 if you score anywhere from 1/8 to 3/8 for the quizzes, I thought I was going to be doomed. But then again, it is not that bad. The quizzes are doable, and they can be done at home. The first quiz is a giveaway, about the course syllabus. I got 8/8, 7/8, 6/8, 7/8,8/8, 7/8, 4/8 and 8/8 respectively, about 23.4% in total. I scored 40/50 for my first quiz, not too shabby but kind of expected more. I didn’t study that much for the test. The average was 44.37, and the median was 45. As for the second exam, I scored 36.00/50 and I was quite shocked by the results, as I studied harder. The average was 41.49, and the median was 42. Somehow my marks will always be below the average, no matter how hard I work. I was glad that I am not a psychology major as I think I would get really shitty grades as a psychology major. Or maybe its the self-selection bias? Since psychology majors who take this module would naturally be good at psychology hence the high average? As for my third test, I was feeling very lethargic, and there were 2 more chapters to study the night before the exam, so I just studied, but not that much, and hoped to just get a decent grade. Dr Boomer is very willing to clarify any doubts you have, but he is not lenient. He will not reset your quizzes if you miss the deadline or your internet dies. He will only curve the grade if the average is below 76 percent. He likes to tell funny anecdotes, and he uses dark humour to engage the class. He likes to joke that he is an evil wizard, especially when there is lightning and rain. I took this module because I wanted to clear my modules and graduate on time. As for the third test, I messed it up really badly, and I got 33/50. The average was about 39.01, Median was 39. Sigh. According to Dr Boomer, the average was 86.67% (B+) with a SD of 7.5%. The median grade was 88% (B+). Among all the 143 enrolled students, 59 received As, 64 received Bs, 17 received Cs, and 3 received Ds or Fs.

My grade for this course: C+