Group A
Group A ran into some issues early on in their project. After having their proposal assessed by the instructor, they decided it was best to change their proposal from top to bottom in an effort to design a more practical and effective lab than they presented in their first proposal. It was also difficult for them to get in contact with their client as there was a long delay in the response time of their client. The combination of these issues set the group behind schedule and forced the group members to put a greater amount of effort and time into their project. Aside from their difficulties, the group enjoyed the fact that they were designing a lab for students, rather than completing a lab as a student which is what they usually do. Some of the group members had even taken the lab course as a student in their previous years, therefore it was interesting for them to see how a specific lab is created and completed as a designer and a student.
Group B
Group B found that it was challenging to remain unbiased in their service when considering that their community client is completely against the development of a mine near their community. Their client also requested information that the group did not have the resources or expertise to obtain. They overcame these issues by focusing on providing neutral and unbiased information that is readily accessible (i.e. similar campaigns that were successful in stopping industrial development). The CSL group also found it interesting to meet some of the members of their client group because of their client group’s different views and strong commitment to their cause. They enjoyed their trip to the community of their client group where they were able to present their findings to their client group and local community members.
Group C
Group C got the opportunity to travel to the community near the estuary where they had planned to perform fieldwork. An amusing experience that they had from their trip was that one of their group members got stuck in the mud while doing the fieldwork and had to be pulled out. The group enjoyed meeting the community locals and were pleased to learn about the history of the community while visiting different sights. Some of the group members are registered in a separate course which requires students to travel to another country to perform community work. Therefore they felt that working together on their MECH 410E CSL project prior to leaving the country and doing more community work would allow them to serve the community more effectively because they had a chance to better know one another, developed their ability to work as a team, and gained experience in serving a community.
Group D
Group D had one major issue with their project, and that was that their client was located in the developing country where the orphanage potentially would be built. The area where the client was located had no power or electricity, and the only way the client could access any emails would be by visiting a camp that had power and an internet connection. This did not allow Group D to properly communicate with their client and were forced to communicate with a client representative who is located in Canada and who had less information. On the other hand, the group enjoyed researching and learning about the developing country and claimed that it is something they would not have done in their free time. Some group members stated that conducting their CSL project brought light to the fact that they take many essential things in their lives for granted and their experience helped them more appreciate the basic things that they have, such as access to clean water and power and electricity.