Cambridge A-Level Global Perspectives: The Team Project — Revision Notes

Condensed for the final weeks. For the full explanation, use the Team Project study guide.

Format at a glance

• 40 marks, externally marked coursework. One of three compulsory AS components (alongside Written Exam and Essay).
• Teams of 2–5 (3–4 works best) identify a local problem with global relevance; teacher-formed, not self-selected.
• Collaborative research, but entirely individual assessment — team presentations are not accepted, only individual work.
• Each candidate produces: a presentation (30 marks) + a reflective paper (10 marks, max 800 words).

The problem statement

Broad enough for each member to research a distinct, contrasting perspective; specific enough to name a real place, group or situation, not an abstract global issue. Teachers support formulating it; the research direction and argument are the candidate’s own.

The presentation (30 marks)

Max 10 minutes. Either: (a) a live recording to an audience of 3+ including the class teacher, or (b) presentation software with a recorded voiceover — no live audience needed, but recorded in a quiet setting.

Assessed against AO1 (Research, analysis, evaluation) and AO3 (Communication):

• AO1: individual analysis of the problem, range of research, evaluation of sources, justification of the candidate’s own proposed solution.
• AO3: well-argued/organised presentation, effective visual use, audience-appropriate language.

Engaging to a non-specialist audience; audio/visual used purposefully, not extensively; references cited clearly. Work beyond 10 minutes is not assessed — timing matters as much as content.

Must submit alongside the recording: supporting audio/visual materials + a verbatim transcript.

The reflective paper (10 marks)

Max 800 words, assessed entirely against AO2 (Reflection). Covers: how effectively the team worked together (and what could improve), plus the candidate’s own learning (about the problem, research skills, presentation skills, or how collaboration shaped their views). Not a second presentation of findings — genuine process/collaboration reflection, not a restatement of the solution.

What gets submitted (4 items per candidate)

1. Recording (live or voiceover). 2. Supporting audio/visual materials. 3. Transcript. 4. Reflective paper. Plus a statement of originality; all electronic, by the Administrative Guide’s deadlines.

Teacher’s role — what’s allowed vs not

Allowed: helping understand the task, formulating a topic, developing ways to explore different perspectives, building organisational/referencing skills, developing clear oral arguments. Not allowed: detailed subject guidance, doing research for a candidate, writing/correcting notes, preparing any part of a presentation or transcript, suggesting amendments to the presentation or reflective paper.

Worked example: choosing a problem statement

A team wants to research “climate change” as their local problem with global relevance. This is too abstract to meet the syllabus’s expectation of a concrete, real local problem. A stronger problem statement narrows this to something specific and locally grounded, such as “flooding risk to a named coastal town from rising sea levels,” which still has clear global relevance (climate change, sea-level rise as a shared global issue) but is now specific enough that different team members can research genuinely distinct angles on it – one member might research the economic cost of flood defences for local businesses, another the effectiveness of different engineering solutions, another the social impact on residents needing to relocate. Each angle addresses the same underlying problem statement while producing a distinct, individually defensible research direction and proposed solution, which is exactly what the “broad enough for contrasting perspectives, specific enough to be concrete” balance is meant to produce.

Why AO1 should be prioritised over polish in preparation time

Because the presentation’s 30 marks are split across both AO1 (research, analysis, evaluation) and AO3 (communication), and AO1 covers four separate assessed elements (individual analysis, range of research, evaluation of sources, justification of the proposed solution) against AO3’s three, spending preparation time on genuinely researching and evaluating a range of sources – rather than polishing slides or rehearsing delivery beyond a reasonable level – reflects where more of the available marks actually sit. This does not mean communication doesn’t matter; a poorly delivered presentation of excellent research will still lose AO3 marks. It means candidates under time pressure should not sacrifice research depth for presentation polish, since research depth is where the larger share of marks is concentrated.

Exam traps

• Submitting a team presentation instead of individual work — only individual work is marked.
• A problem statement too vague to name a real place/group/situation (“local relevance” and “global relevance” must both be concrete).
• Running over the 10-minute limit — anything beyond it is simply not assessed.
• Treating the reflective paper as a second summary of research findings, instead of genuine reflection on collaboration and learning.
• Drafting the reflective paper before the presentation is finished, producing generic rather than genuinely earned reflection.
• Expecting the teacher to give detailed subject guidance or correct notes/drafts once research is under way.

Self-test

1. How many marks is the Team Project worth, and how are they split between the two pieces of work?
2. What team size does the syllabus suggest works best, and why?
3. Name the two assessment objectives the presentation is marked against.
4. What is the maximum length of the presentation, and what happens if a candidate exceeds it?
5. What is the reflective paper’s word limit, and which single assessment objective covers it?
6. Give two things a teacher is NOT allowed to do once research and preparation begin.

Answers: 1. 40 marks total: presentation 30 marks, reflective paper 10 marks. 2. Three or four members — large enough to generate genuinely different perspectives, small enough to reach agreement on what to research. 3. AO1 (Research, analysis and evaluation) and AO3 (Communication). 4. Maximum 10 minutes; work beyond the limit is simply not assessed. 5. Maximum 800 words; AO2 (Reflection). 6. Any two of: offering detailed subject guidance, carrying out research on the candidate’s behalf, writing or correcting any part of their notes, preparing any part of the presentation, producing any part of the transcript, or suggesting amendments to the presentation or reflective paper.