Scribd
Upload
44 views3 pages

Project Work 8809

This document provides an examiner's report on project work papers submitted for the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examination. It summarizes the key findings: - Most projects focused on managing risks or conflicts, with popular risk topics including business, technology, and social issues. Conflict topics included relationships and social/work disputes. - Stronger reports substantiated ideas with research, linked case studies clearly to proposed projects, and provided rationale for methodologies. Weaker reports had questionable case study relevance or tenuous links. - Better oral presentations were fluent, engaged audiences effectively through techniques like personal stories, and provided insightful answers to questions. Weaker candidates struggled with delivery or gave generic

Uploaded by

Vince Go
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views3 pages

Project Work 8809

This document provides an examiner's report on project work papers submitted for the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examination. It summarizes the key findings: - Most projects focused on managing risks or conflicts, with popular risk topics including business, technology, and social issues. Conflict topics included relationships and social/work disputes. - Stronger reports substantiated ideas with research, linked case studies clearly to proposed projects, and provided rationale for methodologies. Weaker reports had questionable case study relevance or tenuous links. - Better oral presentations were fluent, engaged audiences effectively through techniques like personal stories, and provided insightful answers to questions. Weaker candidates struggled with delivery or gave generic

Uploaded by

Vince Go
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

RESTRICTED

Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examination Higher 1


8809 Project Work 2011
Examiner Report

PROJECT WORK
Papers 8809/01, 8809/02 and 8809/03
Papers 1 – 3

Choice of Task

This year saw about two-thirds of the projects on Task 1 “Risk” and one third on Task 2 “Conflict”.

The choice of topics for “Risk” included managing business-related risks such as strategies to
guide financial risks for young entrepreneurs, going green in business, improving the businesses of
hyper-marts; technology-related risks such as development of nuclear energy in Singapore; and
social risks associated with the social media, open immigration policy, standing up against bullying,
etc.

The choice of topics for “Conflict” included managing conflicts between married couples, parent
and child, employers and domestic helpers, foreign workers and local workers, cyclists and
motorists on the road, etc.

Paper 1: Written Report

Substantiation of Ideas
Most reports contained main ideas which were well-supported by a good range of both primary
(interviews, surveys, pilot testing, etc.) and secondary research. In well-written reports, “risk” and
“conflict” were defined in context, with clear links made between case study and proposed project.
Clear rationale for choice of topic, case study, target audience, survey respondents and
interviewees etc. were also provided. In the weaker reports, the appropriateness of the case study
was questionable with tenuous links made to the proposed project.

Generation of Ideas
Reports with good performance on this criterion had innovative ideas that were sensible and
feasible, and showed insight in the implementation of proposals and tailored strategies to meet the
needs of the target audience. In a number of reports, novel plans, programmes, products arising
from gaps or problems observed in daily life were proposed. The weaker reports suggested future
improvements that were merely quantitative extensions, in terms of increasing the scope or scale
of a project.

Analysis and Evaluation of Ideas


Good reports on this criterion showed sound analysis of the case study, appropriate application of
lessons learnt to the proposed study and thoughtful evaluation. The weaker reports were
descriptive, considered the effectiveness of proposed strategies in a limited way, and dealt with
strengths and limitations of the project in a cursory manner. Some of these reports contained
mere assertions, flawed analysis, false assumptions and leaps in logic. In better reports, there
was analysis of interview and survey findings, whilst the weaker reports merely stated the findings.

Organisation of Ideas
The majority of the reports were generally coherent, with appropriate headings and sub-headings
to guide the reader. In the stronger reports, the key ideas for the project were clearly set out in the

1 @ UCLES 2011
RESTRICTED

introductory chapter. There was a logical progression in the development of the ideas and the
chapters and sections were well linked. However, in weaker reports, the organisation of ideas was
marred by excessive use of flow-charts and graphic organisers which were text-heavy in some
instances. Information presented in bullet points also often resulted in gaps in explanation and
development of ideas. Coherence was affected in reports which paid little attention to ensuring
links between different parts of the report. In particular, the figures, charts and inserts were often
not judiciously used, resulting in disruption to the flow of ideas and arguments in the reports.

Paper 2: Oral Presentation

Fluency and Clarity of Speech


The majority of the candidates were clear and intelligible in their speech. The better candidates
were fluent in their delivery and paid attention to appropriate pace voice modulation and stress
patterns. The weaker candidates generally did not enunciate their words clearly and spoke with
run-on sentences.

Awareness of Audience
The majority of the candidates performed well on this criterion. They employed a variety of
strategies such as the use of individual and collective pronouns and personal anecdotes to engage
audience. Stronger candidates were confident and in command of their delivery which came
across as spontaneous rather than recalled speech. The weaker candidates were more
preoccupied with delivery of their prepared speech, rather than creating and sustaining audience
engagement in their projects.

Response to Questions
This year, many more candidates were able to provide well-structured responses and detailed
elaboration of points which were pertinent to their project. Stronger candidates provided insightful
and in-depth answers, with considerations that were relevant and well thought out. The weaker
candidates gave simplistic responses which were generic, without meaningful links made to the
projects.

Effectiveness of Group Presentation


This year, many candidate groups had moved away from presentation slides that are text-heavy to
slides with concise text and authentic visuals (photos/graphics/illustrations) which could effectively
engage audience attention. Stronger groups were highly effective in communicating the key
messages of the project, with tight-knitted organisation of individual candidates’ segments to form
a highly coherent and cohesive group presentation. Candidate groups which used presentation
aids such as models, mock-ups, posters, etc. and took time to explain these aids were able to
produce a significant impact on the audience. The weaker candidate groups lacked enthusiasm
and the use of presentation aids were not helpful and were merely perfunctory.

Paper 3: Group Project File

Preliminary Ideas (PI)

 Generation of Ideas
The majority of the candidates were able to generate ideas on topics that were within their scope
of experience. The quality of work was varied ranging from those that presented numerous ideas
which were not sufficiently developed or modified to the chosen context, to those that were rich
with insightful or innovative ideas. Some candidates spent an unwarranted amount of time and
effort at this stage to produce near polished products. There were candidates who failed to keep
to the word limit especially when prototypes of brochures and detailed timetables etc. were
included.

2 @ UCLES 2011
RESTRICTED

 Analysis & Evaluation


Many candidates were able to analyse their ideas quite thoroughly although the ability to carry out
thoughtful evaluation was varied. The weaker candidates tended to omit consideration of the
feasibility and manageability of their proposed ideas.

Evaluation of Print and Non-Print Material (EoM)

 Generation of Ideas
It was observed that more candidates put in effort to research for articles that were well-written and
relevant to project. In stronger work, articles selected for evaluation were highly relevant and
provided good opportunities for candidates to generate ideas which were useful and sensible.

 Analysis & Evaluation


Many candidates demonstrated their skills in this criterion by establishing the reliability and
credibility of the material chosen. However, some candidates expended an excessive amount of
words on this aspect at the expense of the generation of ideas as well as the analysis and
evaluation of the generated ideas. Weaker candidates were unable to give a balanced treatment
in the analysis and evaluation of their ideas.

Insights and Reflections (I&R)

 Generation of Ideas
While stronger candidates offered ideas that were not only developed but also insightful, many
candidates were able to offer only very brief ideas to modify their projects, for instance, enlarging
or changing the profile of the target group.

 Analysis & Evaluation


Many more candidates were able to provide a more balanced analysis and evaluation of not only
the generic processes but also the strengths and limitations of their group project ideas. Stronger
candidates took this further by giving thoughtful personal insights and where new ideas were
given, these were thoughtfully analysed and evaluated.

3 @ UCLES 2011

You might also like