Harn Hua Ng's Portfolio in

Generate conceptual designs for three toys, each based on a fundamental physical principle. In addition, the following factors should be taken into consideration:

• Safety concerns for younger children
• Cost of manufacture
• Stimulate thinking for the child
• Having the feature of allowing group play

To begin, I sought inspiration from my childhood activities. I remember being fascinated by things like spinning tops, kaleidoscopes, magnets, water ripples and airplanes. Eventually I narrowed my designs down to

• A magnetically levitated top
• A chemically propelled boat
• A parachute
• An electromagnetic motor
• A windpipe for levitating a ball
  

With these in mind, I thought about their practicality, and started browsing through websites advertising children's toys, particularly ones that touted educational toys. I found that most, like the magnetic top had already been patented and produced on the commercial market in one form or another. Not satisfied, I sought the advice of a friend of mine who is a Physics Phd. student in CMU. We tried to see the world from the eyes of a five-year old (not that we don't do that often anyway), and he inspired some new ideas, which I later incorporated into my designs.

My three final designs are:

• An Electromagnetic Vehicle
• A Wave Simulator (I like this best because of its simple and yet fascinating design)
• A Ball Levitator

These are links to the scanned images of my designs, along with explanations of the toy.

The aim was to figure out which manufacturing process is best for the part we have been assigned. Our selection criteria was:

• Geometry of part
• Cost Shipping, labor, time, material
• Time (manufacturing)
• Research and labor
• Availability of equipment and material

For the details of our discussions, take a look at what we discussed in our meetings:

• 17 Feb 2000, 3pm, Hamburg Hall 2224 - Planning, delegate responsibilities
• 19 Feb 2000, 10:30am, Hunt Library Basement - Consolidate material
• 21 Feb 2000, 8pm, Cyert Hall Computer Cluster - Finalize presentation
• 22 Feb 2000, 3pm, Hamburg Hall 2224 - Improve/modify part
• 28 Feb 2000, 5pm, Hunt Library Basement - LaserCamm presentation
• 1 Mar 2000, 8pm, Baker Hall Cluster - LaserCamm Web report

Gathering of information was done mainly on the WWW. We also interviewed Professor Jack Beuth from the Mechanical Engineering Department about the processes, in particular SDM. Eventually we concluded that FDM is most suited for the Second Shaft and the Viewplate is best manufactured by LaserCamm. After presenting our findings in class on 22 Feb 2000, we were assigned LaserCamm as our "pet" process to do further research on and on which to come up with a detailed report. Currently we are in the midst of preparing the material for the report.
For the actual manufacturing of the part, unfortunately due to time constraints, the equipment and data files were not completed in time, hence our viewplate did not materialize.

Finally, the web report was done. We're now preparing to send the part to LaserCAMM Ltd. for manufacturing. Originally, Prof. Finger had in mind to make use of the LaserCAMM machine at Stanford University but we called up this company and the person said they could make a free sample for us. Hence we decided to give them a try.
Take a look at our web report at: http:www.cs.cmu.edu/~rapidproto/students/hng/Project2/lasercamm.html

Basically we are given a budget of $100 to design and build components for an activity that will eventually be set up in the University Center on Reading Day. Our activity should first of all, teach children about engineering (and not just science), and second, be able to engage a group of around 20 kids at one time. Some of the parts needed for our activity will be manufactured by one of the rapid prototyping processes such as FDM.

Sumeet, Ben and I divided our project into three parts:

1. Brainstorming: Generating the ideas and deciding on an activity.
2. Compiling a list of the materials that we'll need.
3. Proposing the idea to the class and get feedback from everyone.
4. Plan the budget allocated for each of the items.
5. Send our designs for rapid prototyping and manufacturing
6. Set up the activity for kids

Minutes for our meetings:

• 15 Mar 2000, 4:30pm, Baker Hall Cluster - Brainstorming for ideas

Initial idea: Impact control

Our initial idea was to divide the kids into groups and give them materials to build a wheeled vehicle which will carry an egg down a ramp and crash into a hard structure at the base. The aim of the game is for the egg to impact the wall and not break/crack.

This will teach the kids about friction and drag, and also exercise their creativity juices on how to build the vehicle using the materials we give them. The materials will be common everyday things like paper cups, twist ties, lids, and pencils.

For a detailed description of our proposal, please refer to our Project 3 webpage.

Other ideas we considered were:

• Building an electric motor and demonstrating its principles to the kids, but it wouldn't involve much participation on their part
• Letting them build a steam-propelled boat and racing it, but having water would be a little too messy for the classroom setting.

When we brought up the idea in class, the first thing that Prof. Finger told us was that we might be trying to teach the kids too many things. We should narrow our focus and teach them about either friction or improvisation of materials.

We met to create a function prototype for the activity, and came up with a simple vehicle consisting of the remains of a robot kit from previous classes and a partial egg-carton in which to mount the egg..

Some suggestions we received from our classmates:

• Building the vehicle might be too complicated for the kids
• Also, the activity should not be too time-consuming
• Provide decorative materials like streamers and crayons for the kids to dress up their vehicle
• Breaking eggs might not be a good idea as it creates a mess

So far, we've trimmed the idea and plan to give the kids a frame with some sort of object (based on feedback and comments, preferably not an egg). The aim of the project will still be to release the vehicle down a ramp and let it hit a brick at the bottom without causing damage to the mounted object. The children's task will be to select wheels of different shapes and sizes to attach onto the axle, plus maybe removing weights from the body of the vehicle to reduce the momentum..

1st Prototype:

After the first revision, we decided maybe we should explore other objectives of the vehicle other than breaking eggs. With the allotted budget of $100, we drew up the following list of materials and purchased them from the campus Art Store.

• Foam board for the wheels
• 2 sheets of Cardboard for the ramp
• Metal Hinges for the ramp
• Velcro strips for the wheels
• Thin wooden rods for the vehicle axles
• Alligator clips for keeping the wheels onto the axle

Cutting out an egg carton (Capacity of 4 eggs) t use as the vehicle frame, we pierced the axles through the carton. It was tough getting the axles into the carton exactly where we wanted them, because of the egg carton's awkward shape. Eventually we decide to tape the axles to the carton instead. Next step: the wheels; they were cut out from the foam board, and we found that it was hard to cut perfect circles - they ended up having very rough edges. Conclusion: we had to think of alternatives for the wheels.

At the same time, we worked on the documents:

• Activity sheet for the children
• Instructor's guide for teachers accompanying the children

More importantly, the aim of our activity was changed from making the vehicle slow down sufficiently so as not to break an egg to making it stop between 2 designated points.

To prepare for the first in-class test, we had to figure out an alternative for the wheels. Sumeet came up with a brilliant suggestion - that we buy a wooden rod and cut that into wheels. In the Mechanical Engineering Machine Shop, we did exactly that, and made 2 sets of wheels of different widths. The ramp was also constructed without much trouble.

The vehicle was ready for its first test-drive! Rolling it down the ramp, we found that wheels of different widths contributed negligible differences in friction.

In class, our classmates tested the prototype and offered suggestions on how to improve it.

• It was time-consuming for children to stick the materials on to the wheels
• Clay made a mess

Ben had a great idea -- use Velcro to stick materials onto wheels: half of the Velcro strip will be permanently fixed onto the wheels, and the other half will contain the material to be tested. So we set out to make 4 sets of 4 wheels for each of the materials:

• Sandpaper
• Rubber band
• String
• Velcro - the prickly part

Alas, during this process, some of the strips were not cut to the correct length and we had to redo them. Some wastage occurred at this stage.

In class, we had Gabe, Prof. Christina Amon's son, to help test our prototype. Gabe was quick-thinking and solved the problem by using clay to slow down the axle itself, and not the wheels. He made us realized that it was too time-consuming for the children to interchange the materials onto the wheels - again we had to think of another way. Also, the clay made a mess. Thanks, Gabe!

For this revision, we decided to make more sets of wheels, with the materials stuck on directly to them so the children won't have to interchange the Velcro strips as originally intended. Cutting up the remainder of the wooden rod, we made 4 more sets of wheels to the next in-class testing - Take Our Daughters to Work.

The day arrived and we set up Cars and Friction for the girls. Feeling slightly apprehensive, we conducted the activity for a number of participants.

Our first young "victim" : ) She managed to solve the problem using sandpaper for the wheels, and a little weight on the back axle.
Some children were frustrated at not being able to solve the problem, but to their credit, they persisted and accomplished it in the end.
Sometimes the wheels don't work too well, but in general things went well

The next step was to design the part which we had to make by a rapid prototype manufacturing process. Our eventual design was that of 4 cylindrical posts which acted as checkpoint markers. Creating it in IronCAD took just 20 minutes, and we sent it to Zach, the person in charge of the FDM machine. FDM was the best process for our part mainly because of its simplicity and availability.

Everything was done, more or less. Our activity was ready, our parts were complete, various groups have tested and evaluated our activity. Changes have been made where necessary. All that was left was to prepare for the Meeting of the Minds! Sumeet, Ben and I met up to complete the following:

• Design of poster - Having collected the foam board, we drew up a list of what to include, cross-checking that with Prof. Finger's list. Our poster was a simple one, consisting of 4 information sheets surrounding a replica of the toy car. We used what was left of the materials to construct a new car, but with the wheels fixed rigidly onto the frame. Around the car, we also pasted strips of the materials that we used - sandpaper, Velcro, rubber band and thread. Construction paper of various colors was added as a color base for different sections of the poster. The overall color scheme was black, red, blue and white.
• Manufactured part - Endproduct of FDM, the markers we designed turned out rather well! They looked exactly as their software version in IronCAD.
• Documents:
  • Activity Sheet
  • Instructor's Guide

D-Day!

We split up into 3 shifts; Sumeet took the first, me the second, and Ben the last. I was quite excited as I headed for the Connan Room, wondering if our activity would work, and whether the kids would enjoy it..... though the actual circumstances differed slightly in that there were few people visiting the Connan Room, probably because it was out of the way.
The entire event went by quietly. Unfortunately not too many people stopped by to play with our toy car, but the ones who did, seemed to like it.
It was also interesting to see the activities of the other groups, I especially liked the windtunnel and the recycled paper.

Throughout the design process, one thing stood out in our minds, and that was always to put ourselves in the participants' shoes. It was a good idea to have small groups of children in to test our activities, that helped a lot in our evaluation and improvement. At first we were rather tentative on several details such as the aim of the activity and the materials needed, and I'm glad we resolved that early in the process, otherwise a lot of time would have been wasted.

On hindsight, we could, and should have re-used the material from previous years' projects' in Room 2211. With the enormous amount allocated, we simply bought everything - perhaps a smaller budget should have been given : )

On the whole Project 3 was a good finalé to our class, because it was a substantial yet simple design process where we could interact with the people making use of our "product" and gauge their responses quickly.

Design a device to enable a fictional cartoon animal (a mole) , Role Mole, to keep track of his eyeglasses. It should satisfy the following criteria

• Not depend on any article of clothing, since animals do not wear clothes
• Be as chic as possible, in order for Role Mole to impress his date

From the start, I imposed additional restrictions on my design, namely;

• It should be as inconspicuous as possible
• It should protect the eyeglasses in the event of collision
• It should enable Role Mole to carry it anywhere without representing a hindrance
• I will not change the structure of normal eyeglasses (I considered having a pair that can be folded up into a bracelet or some accessory)

As I wear eyeglasses myself, I thought of the times when I would take them off, for example, when I'm playing sports, or when I want to take a shower. I thought that if a blindingly obvious solution was possible, someone would have created it already (not a very positive attitude, I know). The device would have to be a container that can protect the eyeglasses. How to keep it inconspicuous? Well since moles have fur, I can just use the principle behind Velcro and make the surface of the eyeglass container out of the prickly half of a Velcro strip!

So I took an old eyeglass case, making sure that the pattern of the exterior resembled (somewhat) the fur of a mole, and proceeded to modify it. First, I secured the prickly side of a Velcro strip around the case. I experimented with different knots and bindings to make it as tightly bound as possible, and I settled on using black duct tape. Then for testing purposes, I tied the other half of the Velcro strip to my arm, stuck the eyeglass case on it, and swung my arms around in every imaginable direction; thankfully, the case stayed put. (Except when I hit a chair by accident and the case was ripped off) Finally I wove a strand of twine into a simple rope and attached it to the case, for aesthetics. It was to reflect the rustic, down-to-earth nature of the good mole.

Afterwards, I evaluated my prototype, and these are the potential disadvantages:

• Ripping it off will be painful for Role Mole
• In tight situations, it might easily come off without Role Mole's knowledge

Here's a picture of me with my design.

The main obstacle in this assignment for me was the fact that eyeglasses have always been stored and carried around in cases (I am no exception), and no one has ever come up with a radically innovative method that solves the problem in question. Plus, the fact that we had to come up with an actual, physical prototype imposed constraints on materials and cost of the product. I had to rummage through my toolbox and the miscellaneous items around the apartment because I did not want to spend any money on building the prototype. The familiar technique of putting myself in the intended customer's shoes helped a lot, and enabled me to come up with the idea of using Velcro. On the whole it was nice to be designing something that could be useful for me as well.

Here are some of Garfield's criteria:

• The holder will be made out of cardboard. His owner, Jon, will provide you with the cardboard. Use as little cardboard as possible because the more money John saves, the more dessert he can buy for Garfield. Keep track of the amount of cardboard you use. (You only need to count the cardboard used in the final prototype.)
• Garfield does not like glue or tape. No glue or tape is allowed. Only cardboard.
• Garfield would like a classy, well-made holder too. There might be someone he wants to impress at the picnic.
• The holder should allow Garfield to have one free hand to hold Odie's leash.
• When Garfield and Odie are happy, they like to skip. Garfield does not want the cans too fall out if the holder is swung. Make certain the cans are secure no matter how the case swings (front to back or side to side).
• The picnic is coming up soon, so Garfield would like to have this holder by Thursday.

First, the essentials:

• Dimensions of a soda can:
  • Radius of bottom: 3.25cm (I'm more used to the metric system)
  • Height of can: 12.5cm
• Material specifications: Only Hammermill cardboard boxes are to be used
• Priority: Minimize amount of cardboard used

1. How did I frame the problem?

• Put myself in Garfield's shoes... what would a lazy cat like Garfield want?
• Has to look a little snazzy

2. What constraints, if any, did I add?

• Garfield has a small stature, so the container cannot be "deep".
• It shouldn't be a box-like structure, as it is not convenient for him to get drinks, especially since the weather is so warm

3. What was the source and evolution of your idea for your initial solution?

• Camping equipment

4. How did your design change as you constructed it?

• At first I wanted a box, since it's the easiest and safest way to do it.
• But I also wanted something original and different, so I spent a lot of time brainstorming and creating prototypes on scrap paper

5. Did your abilities and available materials change your solution?

• Realized that I didn't know how to construct various types of joints and that my handicraft skills were rather limited.
• No glue allowed, so I have to think in terms of joints, and preferably, minimize them

6. Did your initial solution make you see new possibilities?

• Definitely, perhaps there's a way to stack the cans so that the container is not so elongated.

Parts and their areas:

Total amount of cardboard used: 1038.8sq cm = 161.01sq in
I don't think I expressed all the above during my presentation because of lack of practice, so I should rehearse more for the next presentation.

An introduction to the age-old engineer's creed of, "breaking it, looking at it, and rebuilding it!" We were handed clockwork toys to de-assemble and reassemble. The toy I got was a clockwork leopard whose limbs could move when set in motion and could subsequently walk along the surface it was on.

The toys before dissection	After dissection

Using a small screwdriver, I removed the screws holding it together and gingerly separated the 2 halves of the casing. Within the toy leopard, pieces of plastic were positioned in place, with linking appendages to the main clockwork "motor". Looking at the entire layout, it was evident how they work together to operate the toy.

I was apprehensive at first about opening it up because I recalled a similar childhood experience where I was unable to put it together again! So I took extra care and made sure I remember exactly where each component laid before removing them for closer examination. The mechanisms were more complicated than expected, and I am amazed at the creativity of the inventors of clockwork mechanisms.

There are eight basic traits:

• Extroversion vs. Introversion
• Sensing vs. Intuition
• Thinking vs. Feeling
• Judging vs. Perceiving

And one's category falls under one of 12 permutations of the above traits, based on the results from the tests.

Apparently I am an INTJ - Introverted, intuitive, Thinking and Judging.
This associates me with such famous people as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ayn Rand. Together we are "The Masterminds" of our world.

More details can be obtained from the website, www.keirsey.com

As a group, design a freestanding frame made of newspaper, in which the entire team has to stand upright. The materials given were 10 sheets of newspapers per team member and a roll of masking tape. The aim was to come up with a set of detailed instructions for our design, which was to be built by another team, based on our instructions.
Some considerations:

• Robustness of structure - must withstand a slight push
• Aesthetics of design
• Minimal consumption of materials

Team members: Matt Denton, Will Hein, David Monsees, Harn Hua Ng, Bryan Weatherford

Will was definitely our best source of ideas. All of us had some sort of a "topframe supported by legs" structure in mind and after some discussion, we settled on a rectangular topframe with four legs which are attached to the corners and slightly splayed outwards. For me, I had an inkling that such a structure would work, but was otherwise rather vague where details such as optimization of design was concerned.

Processing:

We got down to work, starting with the rolling of sheets of newspapers to form the legs and frame required. In the process, we discovered that the paper quality of the Wall Street Journal was much better than that of the Tartan -- that definitely affected structural integrity. Also, their dimensions were different. This led to a differentiation of the components used for each part, for example, only using the Wall Street Journal for the legs because that added strength to the structure. Bryan documented the entire process, labeling each part as they were made and writing down instructions. It was quite hard to write down instructions because one had to pretend that he was reading it for the first time and then determine if it was perfectly accurate, without any ambiguities.

Click here to see our design and build processes. We're Section C, Team C, and we built Team D's design.

As for the building part, we changed one or two errors in their instructions, and managed to build it to their satisfaction. It helped that they were the least physically space-demanding group! Overall our design took 22 sheets of newspapers, and we helped reduce 10 sheets off Team D's specifications.

Team B built our design and it turned out that some of our instructions concerning support bars for the structure were unclear. They also had to improvise a little to modify our design. But it worked in the end.

The first thing that came to my mind when Prof. Finger was assigning groups was, of course, the discussion on group dynamics that we had the week before. Was it really effective? Apparently so, because we worked smoothly with few hitches or personality clashes : ) (No violence was done!) That may also have been due to the fact we were told that such group combinations are beneficial, but I think I've learnt something from it.
Besides building the structure, I realized that it isn't easy to neither write instructions or follow instructions written by others, because either party often assumes erroneously that certain details would be obvious to the reader. Every design can be improved, of course, and I was amazed to see the structure which was built out of only 4 sheets of newspapers!

Here are the materials given:

• A Hammermill cardboard box for each pair
  • The cardboard consisted of two layers sandwiching another corrugated piece, so that it is thicker and provides some cushioning.
• An exacto blade each
• A cutting board.
• A set square.
• A metal ruler with a cork base.
• Glue to hold the parts together.
• and of course, the set of instructions

To be honest, the instructions looked a little intimidating at first because of its length (2 pages) and verbosity: I wasn't confident of my handcrafting skills previously, and so I wondered how much I could contribute towards the construction. The fact that the sample cube that Prof. Finger passed around looked so well-crafted did not do wonders for my confidence : ).

Steps to build the cube:

• First we cut 6 cubes of sides 4 inches long out of our cardboard
  • Prof Finger gave some advice on cutting techniques such as cutting along the grain and making preliminary cuts on scrap cardboard to familiarize ourselves with the process.
  • The metal ruler and set square were used to make sure the cubes were outlined accurately
• For each of 4 sides, we had to cut out 1 of the sandwiching layers so that the inner corrugated layer became exposed. This was to make sure the sides would have a good fit when they were eventually glued together.
  • This part required much care and concentration, because if we sliced the cardboard with too much strength, the second layer would also be cut.
• After the delicate cutting process, Elayne and I assembled the cube by simply applying glue to the sides and sticking them together

I guess the point of the exercise was really to let us work according to a set of instruction and understand the importance of being able to follow instructions properly. By properly I mean, reading them thoroughly and making sure that along the way, nothing is overlooked. The exercise turned out to be enjoyable and not as daunting as I thought. Now I have a nice cube on my desk, thanks to Elayne - who kindly let me keep it!

Protect the egg and make it land on or as close as possible to the bull's-eye (on the ground below)!

We had three roles to play: Industrial Engineer, Materials Engineer and Functional Engineer; each of us were supposed to be one of the above, but it ended up that we shared the workload equally.

There were many possible ways of doing it, most of which were centered around encasing the egg in some protective material like Styrofoam peanuts or bubble wrap and then putting the "armored" egg into a container filled with yet more protective material. Both Matts and I pondered for quite some time, trying to calculate the best combination of materials that will protect the egg and be the most cost-effective.

Our design was quite simple: Get a ziplock bag, stuff it with paper shreddings and use that for the egg container. The egg itself is wedged in a folded paper bowl and stuffed into the ziplock bag. Finally to ensure that nothing happens to Mr Egg, a plastic bag is attached to the ziplock bag as a parachute.

To be honest, we weren't sure that the shredded paper would cushion the egg sufficiently, so we just hoped for the best.

Yes! Mr. Egg escaped unscathed! I was at the base of the building, nervously watching Matt drop the egg. It dropped, and unfortunately the wind caused our contraption to drift off-course and it ended up 5 ft from the bull's-eye, but at least the egg survived! On retrospect, the parachute might not have been necessary, for it caused the contraption to veer off from the target. In protecting the egg, we neglected the aerodynamics..

We formed impromptu groups, chose recipes from the list Prof. Finger gave and went about concocting them! They include:

• Ice-cream
• Chocolate cake
• Gummy worms
• Asphalt cookies
• Chocolate clay

"The keyword here is edible, not tasty...." - Foreword by Prof. Finger

Not much creativity was needed here, as instructions were given. All that was required was persistence in searching for the ingredients amidst the mass of cartons and packets, and a bit of ingenuity to improvise when certain ingredients were not available!

I've always wanted to bake a cake from scratch, so following the instructions, I mixed everything together in a bowl. The recipe was quite unusual in that no egg was required and one of the essential ingredients was vinegar! It was, of course, important not to put too much of that Some gaffes along the way involved my mistaking confectionery sugar for "normal" sugar, but I'm glad it turned out relatively nice.

The ice-cream was especially good, I had a great time. This was certainly a great experience because it proves that college-level engineering design classes can still provide the kind of simple fun that everyone needs once in a while. And the cake was a success - I gave it to my friends and academic advisor at a meeting afterwards and to date, they haven't suffered any adverse effects : )

Flashback to Activity 4, where we built the newspaper structure. In this 2nd take, we had a reduced amount of materials and had to think about redesigning our structure.

Team members: Matt Denton, Will Hein, Harn Hua Ng, Bryan Weatherford

Having done it once, it was easy to recall the deficiencies in our prior structure and improve on them. Basically we agreed that triangles provide the strongest structure, and drew up a A-frame sort of structure, where all four of us could fit without too much difficulty! The other significant design restrictions this time were that we couldn't use tape in tension and also couldn't stick tape to the floor.

Process:

We got down to work, rolling sheets of newspapers along their diagonals - another lesson learnt from the previous activity. Making markings on the floor with tape, we measured the dimensions of the structure that will fit all 4 of us and went about piecing it together.

As for the building part, somehow we were allocated a small quantity of newspapers than was required to make the other team's design. Quickly brainstorming, we changed their design, and managed to build it to their satisfaction. And yes, it helped that they were, again, the least physically space-demanding group! Overall our design took 13.25 sheets of newspapers.

Team D built our design and it turned out perfectly!

The entire exercise took a much much shorter time than the first time round, probably because we had done it before. Having knowledge of the materials and tape, we were able to eliminate potential design flaws and focus on the important aspects of the structure. It is evident that the design process becomes easier the second time round, and that much of design can be improved by this process of reevaluation.

Team members: Vaughn Coolman, Sumeet Garg, Harn Hua Ng, Todd Shamitko, Bryan Weatherford

For this segment, we had to think of scenarios in which the interaction between 2 parties could potentially be hurtful (psychologically) to either side. There were 3 levels of criticism, ranging from scathing to constructive, that we thought up.
Our scenarios were:

• Someone turning up late for a group meeting
• Someone doing the wrong task that he/she mistakenly believed was assigned to him/her

Both are incidents which occurred quite frequently in the life of a student.

The aim of this activity was hilarious! Some of the things we thought up were:

• Metal napkins
• Silent alarm clock
• Wooden watch
• Reusable Q-tips
• Personalized Toilet paper
• Moldable shaver
• Styrofoam bathing suits
• Beer-sicles / Lard-sicles

Process:

• Logical organization
• Repeat at appropriate points
• Smooth transitions aid understanding
• Answer questions as best as you can
• Thank the audience at the end

• Articulate words carefully
• Do not apologize!
• Speak at a suitable volume, and with an effective range in tone

• Maintain good eye contact with audience
• Monitor and adapt to audience's response
• Keep track of time

Every time we made a presentation in class, it was recorded on tape and afterwards we took the tape back home to view it on our own. Based on our self-assessment, we had to fill in a self-critique sheet like this.

Some of the main points to comment on were:

• Whether my presentation was logically organized
• Whether I brought up all the information that I had intended to present
• Whether I had expressed myself clearly

Lastly, we had to write down one aspect of our presentation that we could improve on. This was easy, but also painful to realize while watching myself on tape!

Some of my common mistakes are:

• Insufficient eye contact with the audience
• Omitting, in my haste and flustered state of mind, some details of my presentation
  • A good way to remedy this will be to practice more before the presentation

One concern I have is my accent. Because I'm not a native speaker of English, and an international student, I really don't know how much of my presentation my classmates are able to comprehend! In normal dialogue, sometime I have to repeat what I say in order for the other party to understand.