Reflecting on my performance in English this year, I recognize both strengths and areas for improvement. While I have demonstrated a solid understanding of the material, I acknowledge that my effort levels fluctuated, impacting the overall outcome.

One aspect that stands out is my inconsistent effort throughout the course. There were times when I fully engaged with the material, participated actively in class discussions, and submitted assignments promptly. However, there were also instances where my effort waned, and I failed to maintain the same level of commitment. This inconsistency is an area where I believe I can improve. By establishing a more consistent work ethic, I can ensure a steady and positive trajectory in my academic performance.

Additionally, I received feedback on a few assessments where my scores were below expectations, with a few assessments earning a 60%. This signals to me that there is room for improvement in certain areas of the curriculum. To address this, I plan to focus on identifying my weaknesses and seeking additional support, whether through extra study sessions, collaborating with peers, or seeking guidance from the instructor. Understanding the specific areas where I struggled will enable me to target those areas with more focused efforts moving forward.

In moving forward, I am committed to enhancing my overall performance in English. This includes not only refining my understanding of the subject matter but also maintaining a consistent and dedicated approach to my studies. I recognize that improvement is a continuous process, and I am eager to implement these changes to achieve better outcomes in the future. I am confident that by addressing my effort levels and seeking assistance where needed, I can overcome the challenges I faced this year and excel in English.

The final stage of this task is to produce an e-portfolio entry to summaries the engineering process.

Your e-portfolio should have the following parts:

Share and Communicate:

Representation of the project: provide a brief summary of the project (maximum 100 words)

We aimed to create a building that could withstand earthquakes, using spaghetti sticks and bluetack as substitutes for real materials. To simulate the pressure, we added weight to the structure. We carefully built the model, making the spaghetti sticks strong and using bluetack to reinforce weak points. This project tested our understanding of how structures stay strong and encouraged us to find creative solutions. The final design showed that, even with unusual materials, we could make a strong earthquake-resistant building by working together and thinking creatively.

Overview of the engineering process: provide a brief overview of the engineering process.  What changes would you make to the process that would improve the outcome

The engineering process of building a spaghetti tower involves several key steps. First, there’s the planning phase, where the group discusses and outlines the design, considering factors like stability and earthquake resistance. Then, during the construction phase, the team assembles the tower using spaghetti sticks and reinforces weak points with bluetack. The testing phase involves subjecting the structure to weighted pressure to simulate seismic forces. Finally, there’s the evaluation phase, where the group assesses the tower’s performance and identifies areas for improvement.

To enhance future outcomes, the group might consider incorporating more detailed planning, allocating specific roles to each member, and experimenting with different reinforcement techniques. Additionally, documenting the entire process meticulously would enable the group to learn from each iteration and continuously refine their approach.

Teamwork and collaboration:

1. In our spaghetti tower project, Kenny spearheaded structural planning, meticulously outlining stability considerations. Mitch, with a hands-on approach, led the construction, deftly assembling the tower using spaghetti sticks. Sam took charge of the testing phase, applying weighted pressure for seismic simulation. Kenny’s analytical skills, Mitch’s practical expertise, and Sam’s precision in testing combined seamlessly. Kenny’s foresight ensured a robust design, Mitch’s craftsmanship brought it to life, and Sam’s testing validated its resilience. This collaborative synergy showcased how the diverse strengths of Kenny, Mitch, and Sam were integral to meeting the engineering challenge effectively.