Health Drivers ED Project

This project was about designing a road safety campaign targeting young drivers. I had to collaborate with a peer and we decided to create a poster informing young drivers about fatigue driving.

The biggest thing that I learnt while completing this task a lot more crashes are a result of fatigue then i initially thought. I found that approximately 20% to 30% of crashes are a direct result of driving while tired. According to statistics, driving after being awake for 17 hours (average for a lot of younger drivers and UNI students) has the same negative impacts on your driving as having a BAC of 0.05, the legal drinking limit for drivers (drivers including and below a provisional P2 licence and interlock licence are required to have a BAC of 0). I also learned that young adults are four times more likely to drive fatigued and overall account for 2 thirds of all fatigued related crashes. To be safer, i am going to plan ahead and only drive when I know I am well rested.

We also added a second page, that would include more facts and statistics

One piece of advice I would give to young drivers is to be a cautious driver. As the saying goes, it’s better to be safe then to be sorry, and this applies to driving too. Driving is one of the most dangerous daily acts but its also one of the most liberating. When turning that corner, spend extra time making sure no one is there, when coming to a set of lights start to slow down sooner and when at a cross walk, always watch out for pedestrian. Just be a cautious and conscientious driver, trust me, it will pay off.

I pledge to be a cautious and conscientious driver, to always give right of way and to never drive when I’ve been near alcohol. I chose these things to commit to do these things as I am aware these cause the most injuries and fatalities when on the road. I will stick to these commitments by putting my phone in the back seat as to not be distracted, not drink or eat while driving as to not be distracted and to never drive while tired or been around alcohol.

Women in STEM Project Reflection

Women in STEM Project Reflection

The Sustainable development Goal (SDG) that my group and I worked on was goal 5, gender equality. Gender equality is an SDG that’s purpose is to empower women in all they do, as a group comprised of all female-born members, this goal resonated with all of us. Given that this goal covers all the approximately 3.5 billion women in the world, we choose to focus on a more local context, such as decided to work on the younger generation of females at ASC (aka Year 7’s). After doing some extensive research, we have found out that only 30% of research at major tech companies are female, which is an extremely concerning skew considering the progress we have made as a modern-day society.

Within ASC we noticed a trend in how many female students were applying for STEM ATAR in their later high school year. We traced this back and found that this started way earlier on than originally perceived. We decided to work with the year 7 females at ASC, to hopefully make a change in the way that they perceive STEM ATAR, and STEM-based jobs.

This relates to our chosen SDG because we hope to empower women to be able to pursue jobs other than the stereotype ‘female’ jobs (cooking, cleaning, motherhood, etc.)

To come up with a project/solution to our found problem, we followed the design thinking process, and our first step was to decide on a clear aim or goal for us to work towards. Our aim to have completed by the end of our project was to make a positive change to their opinion on STEM ATAR and jobs. The next step was to seek out data to see where we could make improvements in their opinions. So, we delivered and got them to complete a survey to see what they thought, and the next step was to plan out a workshop based on their reply. After conducting the workshop, we sent out a post-workshop survey to measure if we were successful in at least providing them with information to make an informed decision about their future.

While we were planning the workshop, we had many ideas on what we should do, such as doing some sort of collaboration with professionals from Curtin University. However, we decided against this idea, due to time constraints, and instead, we decided to run the workshop ourselves.

A significant piece of planning was our communication with two experts Dr. Rachel Sheffield, who is a Chair of Curtin Academy, and Rekha Koul who is an associate teacher. Both wonderful ladies work directly in females in STEM schooling. We sent numerous messages to and forth and even having an internet meeting to design the workshop which would be an effective solution but additionally a great encounter for the students.

When planning our workshop, we had to consider numerous things including, date, time, and content. One of the major things to consider was, who was to attend? In the end, we decide on inviting the Year 7 female students of ASC. These students were chosen by their tutors based on who they thought would benefit most from the workshop.

Our project succeeded, as we can see from our post-workshop survey in which, 2/3 of the students that attended have said that the workshop has either changed their views or provide more information on STEM and its related jobs which allowed them to make a more informed decision on what they want to do when they get out of school and most students said they were more likely to go into an education-based job instead of a creativity-based job, unlike what they had said previously.

Overall, my group and I have said that the past semester was a beneficial experience for all of us and it has allowed each one of us many important skills. Personally, I would say that this project has been really eye-opening in terms of gender skews and gender equality and the lack of information around matters and topics like these. I feel as I have gained not only knowledge in subjects I didn’t have before but also gained a sense of pride that my group and I were actually able to help change some young girl’s views and add to their knowledge to make informed decisions about their education.

In the future, if we have the opportunity, we hope that we could possibly hold a series of these workshops and if we do decide to continue this elective in the future we do hope to build on this project. This would allow us to make a more significant and long-term impact on the younger students at ASC. Furthermore, if we were to do this, we would be better equipped with more experience and prior knowledge. I myself am planning to work with the staff and see if I can regularly hold these workshops to encourage the younger and upcoming generations.

Finally, I would like to give a big thanks to professors Rachel and Rekha who had offered their knowledge and time, which has assisted us throughout this semester. I would also like to extend my thanks to Ms. Catherine Donnelly, our classroom teacher who has guided us throughout this project and of course, our parents who have done nothing but been a huge support throughout this entire project.

Andrew Mallard- A Wrongfully Convicted Man

ANDREW MALLARD

In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence an impartial judiciary, and the right to legal representation. I studied the case of Andrew Mallard and analyzed how these principles were both upheld and violated in the case. After writing an essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay so that it was for online publication. This essay is the result of that editing process. It demonstrates my ability to take feedback, and refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.

Introduction to the Case: Andrew mallard was unfairly indicted for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence. He served 12 years of his 20-year sentence until the genuine murderer was tested and indicted. For this situation, not every one of the standards of equity was maintained, for example, being innocent until you are deemed innocent.

Case Details: Andrew Mallard was captured for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence on the 23rd of May 1994. After a few dubious meetings led by police, Mallard was captured. Mallard was living in the city after being delivered from the psychological emergency clinic after a mental meltdown. Mallard got the consideration of the police after he was discovered professing to be a cop. This is the thing that most probable drove them to utilize Mallard as a substitute for the Lawerence murder as he was at that point under doubt.

Equal to the Law: While being met for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence, Mallard was on a psychological foundation from a past mental meltdown. Mallard was stripped and beaten for 8 hours before being controlled into admitting to the homicide. Mallard was met without the presence of staff or facilitators of the medical clinic permitting the police to lie and control Mallard. This subverts the primary standard of equity, Equal to the law.

Right to a fair trial: The second rule of equity, the right to a reasonable trial. This was not maintained by the same token. Investigators retained proof in the trial that would have demonstrated Mallard’s honesty and innocence. This is not a fair trial as for it to be fair both parties should and would be able to present all available information. This was an obviously targeted case as they interviewed over 130 people and mainly suspected Mallard without much plausible evidence. They had even interviewed the real murder; Simon Rochford; who was then found guilty after the release of Mallard in 2006 (which he then received compensation of roughly 3.25 million dollars) but ultimately ended it all the same year. During the trial, investigators tried to say that Mallard used a wrench to slaughter Ms. Lawernce but was unable to provide proof of this and utilized their control of Mallard as a point of evidence.

The right to Appeal: The third guideline was not maintained either, the option to offer. All through his long-term sentence, mallard and others made a few claims to the courts for another preliminary anyway was more than once denied. This demonstration totally underminds the law that would hypothetically permit an unfairly sentenced man; like Mallard and Buttons; to be liberated.

Independent and impartial Judiciary: The last standard of equity is of the fair-minded and autonomous legal executive. This standard while not really sabotaged was debilitated because of the absence of data and proof given to the jury and judge. This rule likewise identifies with the rule ‘the privilege to a reasonable preliminary’, in such assuming this guideline is subverted or debilitated, promptly so is preliminary.

Summary/Conclusion: Andrew Mallard was an improperly indicted man who went through 12 years in prison for a wrongdoing he didn’t perpetrate. The standards of equity were not mainly maintained; only the principle of an impartial and independent judiciary was upheld; and as such took into account the honest Andrew Mallard to be improperly bolted away.

ANDREW MALLARD