Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives: Team Project — Practice Questions

These are original practice questions written in the style of Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) assessment objectives. They are not taken from any past paper and are not endorsed by Cambridge International.

Use these questions alongside the Component 3 – Team Project study guide and revision notes.

Section A

1. State the total marks for the Team Project, and its percentage weighting toward the qualification. [2]

2. Name the three separate pieces of evidence the Team Project produces. [3]

3. State the word limit for the Explanation of Research and Planning, and for the Reflective Paper. [2]

4. State how many marks the Reflective Paper carries out of the component’s 70 total. [1]

Section B

5. A team submits a Reflective Paper of 1400 words, believing the extra length demonstrates more thorough reflection.

(a) Explain what will actually happen to the marking of this paper. [2] (b) Suggest what the team should have done instead. [1]

6. A team submits, as its Evidence of Action, photographs of their planning meetings and a copy of their research notes.

(a) Explain why this submission is unlikely to score well. [2] (b) Suggest what the team should submit instead. [2]

7. Two candidates on the same team both contributed to a successful project, but one communicated clearly, shared ideas, and helped resolve a disagreement, while the other completed their individual research but rarely engaged with the rest of the team.

(a) Explain why these two candidates might receive different Collaboration marks despite being on the same successful team. [2] (b) Name two behaviours the syllabus lists as evidence of good collaboration. [2]

8. A candidate writes their Reflective Paper as a description of what the team did, week by week, without discussing what they personally learned or how effective the action was.

(a) Explain why this approach is likely to score poorly. [2] (b) State the three things a strong Reflective Paper should include. [3]

9. Explain why the Explanation of Research and Planning is described as “built up in three stages” rather than written once at the end of the project. [2]

10. Explain why understanding exactly which parts of Component 3 are marked identically for every team member, and which are marked individually, matters for how a candidate should approach their own contribution to the project. [3]

---

Answers

1. 70 marks [1], worth 35% of the qualification [1].

2. The Explanation of Research and Planning, the Evidence of Action, and the individual Reflective Paper [3].

3. The Explanation of Research and Planning is 300–400 words; the Reflective Paper is 750–1000 words [2].

4. 45 marks [1].

5. (a) The paper will only be marked on its first 1000 words; anything written beyond that point cannot be credited, regardless of its quality [2]. (b) The team should have drafted the Reflective Paper to fit within the 750–1000 word limit from the start, treating the limit as a hard cap rather than a rough guide [1].

6. (a) This submission is unlikely to score well because the syllabus is explicit that Evidence of Action must show what the team actually did, not evidence of research or planning meetings [2]. (b) The team should submit material that shows the action itself being carried out — for example, posters, leaflets, web pages, a video (up to 10 minutes), presentations, or photographs of the event or activity itself [2].

7. (a) Because Collaboration marks include an individual component (5 of the 10 marks) assessed through teacher observation of each candidate’s actual behaviour during the project, so a candidate who engaged well with the team can receive a higher individual Collaboration mark than one who contributed research but did not engage collaboratively, even on the same successful team [2]. (b) Any two of: clear communication between team members; sharing and developing ideas; agreeing targets and deadlines; solving problems; being flexible when required; dividing tasks and recognising every member’s contribution; asking for and giving support when needed [2].

8. (a) This approach is likely to score poorly because a Reflective Paper that only describes what happened, without reflecting on personal learning or evaluating effectiveness, caps the achievable mark well below the top band [2]. (b) A summary of the candidate’s own research findings and how they were used by the team; reflection on what the candidate learned about the issue, teamwork and themselves; and an evaluation of how effective the action taken and the candidate’s own collaboration were [3].

9. Because the document is a strategic, working record that develops alongside the project itself — starting with topic and issue identification, then a plan of action and roles, and finally a review of any changes made — rather than a single retrospective summary written after the project has already finished [2].

10. Because the Explanation of Research and Planning and Evidence of Action are marked identically for every team member, while the Reflective Paper and part of the Collaboration mark are assessed individually, a candidate’s own final grade depends heavily on their personal reflection and their own observed collaborative behaviour, not just on the team’s shared output; understanding this should motivate genuine individual engagement throughout the project, not just contribution to the shared documents [3].

A note on exam technique for this topic

Because the Reflective Paper carries nearly two-thirds of this component’s marks and is assessed individually, it deserves at least as much dedicated attention as the shared team documents, even though the project itself is a collaborative effort. Draft its three required elements — research summary, personal learning, and evaluation of effectiveness — throughout the project rather than reconstructing them from memory in the final week, and treat every word and time limit as a hard cap from the start of drafting, since content beyond the limit cannot be credited no matter how strong it is. Remember too that Collaboration is observed behaviour, not an automatic team mark — genuine engagement with communication, problem solving and shared decision-making throughout the project protects marks that a strong final product alone cannot guarantee.