| Category | Assignment | Subject | Education |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Singapore University of Social Science (SUSS) | Module Title | NIE301 Learning with Communities |
| Assessment Type | Group-based Assignment (GBA02) |
|---|---|
| Academic Year | 2025/26 |
This assignment is worth 40% of the final mark for NIE301: Learning with Communities. The cut-off dates for this assignment are:
This is a group-based assignment. You should form a group of a maximum 6 members from your seminar group. Group will be formed in class in Week 1. Any changes to group members must be finalised by Week 2. You will complete both GBA01 and GBA02 in the same group.
Note to Students: You are to include the following particulars in your submission: Course Code, Title of the GBA, SUSS PI No., Your Name, and Submission Date.
For this part of the assignment, students are to document the work carried out for the Service-Learning initiative as well as the corresponding findings and insights. A copy of the report shall be shared with the respective community partner to solicit their feedback, which shall be considered in the assessment.
The report shall contain the following sections:
The report shall contain no more than 1,500 words (excluding the list of references). Where applicable, figures (e.g. photographs, illustrations, diagrams, graphs, flowcharts) are encouraged and should be appropriately captioned. Students are reminded to carefully format their reports to ensure readability. Clear and organised formatting not only enhances the overall presentation of the work but also makes it easier for the assessor to read and, therefore, evaluate your content fairly. Remember that effective communication through this report is a skill that extends beyond academics and into future professional endeavours.
The end product for the assignment shall be presented to your peers and community partners, using the format of an academic poster to showcase your work, findings and insights from the Service-Learning initiative you have implemented with your community partners.
Briefly, an academic poster is a visual representation of a project's key points. It contains concise annotations and figures (e.g. photos, graphs, charts etc.) printed on a large sheet to summarise the project’s objectives, approaches employed, results, discussion and conclusions. Academic posters are commonly used in educational settings (e.g. conferences and symposiums) to communicate complex information in a concise and visually engaging manner. They serve as a means for presenters to share their work and engage with an audience. Refer to Appendix I for some useful tips on poster making and presentation. More information will be shared in the poster format on the Announcements in Canvas.
Presenters will have 15 minutes to share their work with the course instructors and community partners. Feedback (Q&A: 10 minutes) from the respective community partners will also be sought to be considered in the assessment. The presentation shall take place in Week 5 of the next semester. The course instructor shall provide more details of the day, time, and venue as well as other pertinent information, including instructions for the submission and setting up of the poster.
Are You Looking Solution of NIE301 GBA02 Assignment
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentGroup collaboration is crucial for leveraging diverse perspectives, enhancing problem-solving skills, and fostering innovation. The purpose of introducing peer evaluation into this Service-Learning initiative is to promote accountability, encourage active participation, and provide valuable feedback. Peer evaluation allows group members to assess each other’s contributions, ensuring a fair distribution of work. It encourages self-reflection, helping participants identify their strengths and areas for improvement. This ultimately enhances the group's overall effectiveness and learning experience.
Use the Peer Evaluation form in Appendix II to evaluate your group mates. You will receive an evaluation from your group mates as you will give each of your group mates an evaluation based on your observation and working experience with each other.
Please submit your individual evaluation via Canvas by 13 February 2026, 2355 hrs. Your instructor will determine an appropriate score based on the feedback received.
| Criterion | Exceptional<br>(80%–100%) | Good<br>(65%–79%) | Fair<br>(50%–64%) | Borderline Pass<br>(40%–49%) | Needs Work<br>(<40%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i. Introduction and Motivation of the Initiative | A well-written introduction showing clear understanding of: • Social topic with relevant references/citations • Clear motivation, aims, and purposes of the initiative • Role of partner organisation aligned with TG theme |
Clearly written; good understanding of social topic with some references (may lack depth). Motivation and partner role addressed but less detailed. | Basic understanding of topic. References are limited, outdated, or poorly integrated. Motivation and partner role mentioned but superficial. | Minimal understanding of topic. References may be irrelevant or missing. Motivation and partner role barely addressed, vague. | Poor or unclear introduction. No understanding of topic. No relevant references. Motivation and partner role absent or misunderstood. |
| ii. Objectives and Approach | Objectives are clearly stated and fully meet SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). Approach is appropriate and well-justified. Provides a strong rationale for the approaches adopted in the initiative (e.g., community engagement continuum, ladder of participation), with clear reasons for the choices aligned with the objectives |
Objectives are clear and mostly meet SMART criteria; minor issues with clarity or feasibility. Approach is generally appropriate. gaps (e.g., one or two criteria only partially addressed). Provides a clear rationale for the chosen approaches, with explanations that generally show good alignment with the objectives. |
Objectives lack full clarity or specificity; only some SMART elements met. Approach is explained but lacks detail or logic. Provides a basic rationale for the approaches, but explanations are superficial, inconsistent, or only loosely connected to the objectives. |
Objectives are vague or incomplete; most SMART criteria not met. Approach is poorly explained or underdeveloped. Provides minimal rationale for the approaches, with reasons that are unclear, weakly connected, or not well explained. |
Objectives unclear, missing, or not SMART. Approach is inappropriate, unclear, or absent. Provides no rationale or incoherent explanations for the approaches, with no evident connection to the objectives. |
| iii. Results (outputs and outcomes) |
Lists and describes clearly the outputs and outcomes as a consequence of the activities carried out using the logic model. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the community-prioritised impact of the initiative, where the outputs and outcomes of the initiatives are clearly connected. |
Lists and describes clearly the outputs and outcomes as a consequence of the activities carried out using the logic model. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the community-prioritised impact of the initiative, where the outputs and outcomes of the initiatives are clearly connected. |
Identifies some outputs and outcomes, but descriptions are basic or partially unclear, and use of the logic model is inconsistent or incomplete. Demonstrates a partial understanding of community-prioritised impact; connections between outputs and outcomes are sometimes unclear or weak. |
Identifies some
outputs and outcomes,
but descriptions are
basic or partially
unclear, and use of the
logic model is
inconsistent or
incomplete.
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of
community-prioritised
impact; connections
between outputs and
outcomes are
sometimes unclear or
weak.
|
Fails to list or describe outputs and outcomes meaningfully, or does so with major inaccuracies, 5no clear use of a logic model. Demonstrates little or no understanding of community-prioritised impact; outputs and outcomes are not connected or entirely missing. |
| iv. Discussion |
Discusses challenges faced, how the group overcomes challenges, |
Discusses most challenges faced and generally explains how they were overcome, with a reasonable proposal for future engagement/work. Identifies limitations and suggests practical recommendations, though explanations may lack depth. Discusses community implications and future collaboration with good clarity but may not be fully comprehensive. Shows clear understanding of what success means, though reflections could be more detailed. |
Mentions some challenges, but explanations of how |
Mentions few or vague challenges, with little explanation of how they were addressed; proposals for future engagement are unclear or unrealistic. Barely discusses limitations and offers weak or impractical recommendations. Mentions community implications or future collaboration superficially, often without meaningful connection to the initiative. Minimal reflection on what success means.
|
Fails to meaningfully discuss challenges, how they were overcome, or makes no feasible proposal for future engagement/work. Does not address limitations or omits recommendations altogether. No discussion of potential community implications or future collaboration. No clear reflection on what success entails. |
| v. Conclusion |
Clearly articulate the key results and their significance with reference to their initiative. |
Explains key results clearly, with good reference to the initiative and significance mostly well-articulated, though minor details or depth may be lacking. |
Describes key results, but explanations may be basic or partially unclear, and significance is mentioned but not well developed; connections to the initiative may be inconsistent. |
Mentions a few results, but descriptions are vague or incomplete; significance is unclear or barely related to the initiative.
|
Fails to articulate key results or provides results that are inaccurate, irrelevant, or missing; does not explain significance in relation to the initiative. |
| vi. Clarity and Organisation | The report is exceptionally clear, well-structured, and logically organised. All required sections are included. Information flows seamlessly with clear headings and subheadings. | Clear and well-structured report with logical flow. Most required sections present; minor omissions. Headings/subheadings are mostly clear. | Report has basic clarity and structure. Some inconsistencies in organisation; some sections missing. Headings/subheadings may be unclear at times. | Report is poorly structured or unclear. Multiple required sections are incomplete or missing. Information flow is hard to follow. | Report is disorganised and unclear. Most or all required sections missing. No logical flow; headings/subheadings are absent or ineffective. |
| vii. Citation | Uses 3+ relevant peer-reviewed sources to provide specific definitions for key terms/strategies. Proper citation. | Uses at least 3 relevant peer-reviewed sources for generic definitions of key terms/strategies. Proper citation. | Uses at least 2 relevant peer-reviewed sources for generic definitions. Minor citation errors may exist. | Uses at least 1 relevant peer-reviewed source. May provide incomplete citations. Definitions are generic. | No use of sources or uses irrelevant/unreliable ones. Citation is incomplete or incorrect. ❗ Submissions with undeclared AI use or machine translations will receive no more than 1 mark. |
Buy Custom Answer Of NIE301 GBA02 Assignment & Raise Your Grades
Get A Free QuoteSingapore assignment help is now available for NIE301 Learning with Communities Group-based Assignment! Struggling with your Assessment? We've got you covered. Our experts provide affordable Online Assignment Help, ensuring 100% human-written content – no AI. Get A+ guaranteed, with plagiarism-free content and on-time delivery. We provide free assignment samples. Enjoy affordable, high-quality services and stress-free learning as you receive top-notch assistance with your assignments. Let us help you excel in your course!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
