TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMA)
This assignment is worth 40% of the final mark for NIE352 Interdisciplinary ProblemSolving for Impact.
This is an individual assignment.
The cut-off date for this assignment is 31st Oct 2025, Week 12, Friday, 23:55 hours.
You are required to submit your assignment on the Canvas course site.
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.
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
ASSIGNMENT OBJECTIVES
This course breaks down interdisciplinary problem-solving into four stages of assessment: (1) formulating a problem; (2) gathering evidence; (3) analysing evidence; and (4) construct and evaluate an interdisciplinary solution.
The final product of this assignment is a reflection journal reflecting on ALL stages of the problem-solving process. A reflection journal is a medium for recording events and personal reflections during the problem-solving process.
This assignment allows students to reflect on assumptions and perspectives of different disciplines or professional expertise as they engage with interdisciplinary problem-solving. In the reflection journal, students should discuss the societal, disciplinary, and ethical implications of formulating a problem, gathering evidence in the field, and constructing a solution.
ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
A reflection journal is a medium that allows students to document and reflect on episodes during the problem-solving process. Reflection or reflective thinking, according to John Dewey (1933: 3), involves “turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration”. Reflective thinking thus enables us to rise above the impulsive and the routine in order to be “deliberate and intentional” with what we choose to observe, document, and analyse (Dewey, 1933: 17). The reflection journal works to mediate these moments of deliberation and intentionality. Through reflection, students will glean a deeper understanding of interdisciplinary problem-solving—its process, stakes, and difficulties.
This assignment comprises FOUR reflection journal entries, each reflecting on one stage of the interdisciplinary problem-solving process Each entry should focus on ONE episode in each stage that is significant to you and your experience of interdisciplinary problemsolving. An episode consists of an event or a sequence of events that, when taken together, can be considered complete in itself. The significance of an episode can be measured by event(s) that caused a change in you. Memory is crucial in recording episodes. Therefore, it is recommended to write the entry as soon as the experience of a significant episode occurs (Posner, 2009).
Below is a list of non-exhaustive questions that can help you sieve out significant episodes during each stage of the problem-solving process:
- Were there assumptions and perspectives of different disciplines that surprised you at any stage of the problem-solving process?
- Did any disciplinary biases crop up at any stage of the problem-solving process?
- Were there societal or ethical implications of the problem that troubled or surprised you?
- Were there societal or ethical implications of the solution that troubled or surprised you?
- Were there alternative ways of framing the problem?
- Were there alternative solutions to the problem?
The four journal entries will be accompanied by TWO photographs, ONE sketch, and ONE AI-generated image pertaining to the episode in question. Each entry will feature one of the above images with annotations that describe, explain, emphasise, elaborate, and/or comment on the content of the image in relation to the experience of interdisciplinary problem-solving.
Each entry should have the following components:
1. Heading
- Stage of problem-solving process
- Date and time of experience
2. Description and elaboration of episode – Where did the episode occur?
- Who is involved?
- What happened?
- What made the episode stand out to you?
3. Analysis of the episode
- What feelings or thoughts arose during the episode? Why do you think these thoughts or feelings arose?
- What questions were prompted by the episode? Do you have answers to these questions?
- What have you learnt about interdisciplinary problem-solving from this episode?
4. Annotated photograph, sketch, or AI-generated image – What do you see in the image?
- What stands out to you in the image?
- Why do these features stand out to you?
- How do these features relate to interdisciplinary problem-solving?
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
- This assignment will constitute 40% of your final grade.
- Your submission must comprise four journal entries, each no more than 500 words, excluding annotations and references.
- You may submit using APA or Chicago referencing styles. A list of cited material must be appended.
- Diagrams/illustrations/photos/charts must be properly captioned/credited.
- This assignment will be subject to checks through Turnitin.
- Use the “NIE Assignment Cover Page Template” as part of your submission.
- You are required to submit a declaration of original work by 31st Oct 2025, Week 12, Friday, 23:55 hours.
- You are required to upload TMA01 on the Canvas course site by 31st Oct 2025, Week 12, Friday, 23:55 hours.
- You may submit multiple versions over the period before the close of the folder – Instructors will only take into consideration the last version submitted before the deadline.
- Late submissions will be penalised.
CONSULTATIONS
Instructors are available for consultations (up to 10 minutes per student). Consultations are optional and not compulsory. Please email your instructors to arrange for a mutually agreeable date and time for consultations. This can be conducted in person or over zoom meetings.
REFERENCES
Dewey, John. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Posner, George. (2009) Field Experience: A Guide to Reflective Teaching. 7th Edition. Pearson.
Buy Custom Answer of This Assessment & Raise Your Grades
RUBRIC
| Criterion | Needs Work (F) | Borderline Pass (D/D+) | Fair (C/C+) | Good (B-/B/B+) | Exceptional (A-/A/A+) | Score |
| Significance and
Description of Episodes 20 marks
|
(0-7.5)
Journal entries lack clear or relevant episodes in interdisciplinary problem-solving. Descriptions are vague, superficial, or missing significant details. |
(8-9.5)
Journal entries include episodes that are somewhat relevant but lack clarity or depth. Descriptions are basic and may overlook important details or interdisciplinary context. |
(10-11.5)
Journal entries feature generally relevant episodes in interdisciplinary problem-solving, with some inconsistency. Some details are provided, and interdisciplinary aspects are acknowledged, though not fully developed. |
(12-14)
Journal entries feature relevant episodes in interdisciplinary problem-solving. Descriptions of episodes largely comprehensive and details are mostly significant. |
(15-20)
Journal entries feature meaningful and relevant episodes in interdisciplinary problem-solving. Descriptions of episodes are comprehensive and meticulous, and details are consistently significant |
|
| Analysis of Episodes:
Depth of Reflection 20 marks
|
(0-7.5)
The significance of episodes remains unclear and imprecise. Reflections remain at a descriptive level that lacks depth. |
(8-9.5)
Reflections show basic engagement with the episodes. The significance is mentioned but not well-developed. Understanding of the problem-solving process is limited or inconsistently demonstrated. |
(10-11.5)
Reflections demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the episodes and their significance. Some analysis is present, though it may be uneven or lack depth. The problem-solving process is acknowledged but not deeply explored. |
(12-14)
The significance of episodes is adequately explained with reasonable analysis. Reflections of episodes demonstrate promising insight into understanding of problem-solving process.
|
(15-20)
The significance of episodes is wellexplained and incisively analysed. Reflections of episodes demonstrate deep and insightful understanding of problem-solving process. |
| Analysis of Episodes: Engagement with
Interdisciplinarity 20 marks
|
(0-7.5)
Reflections show little to no engagement with interdisciplinarity. |
(8-9.5)
Reflections on interdisciplinarity in problem-solving process remain superficial and descriptive. |
(10-11.5)
Reflections demonstrate some engagement with interdisciplinary perspectives. |
(12-14)
Reflections on interdisciplinarity in problem-solving process are generally insightful, with minor inconsistencies.
|
(15-20)
Reflections on interdisciplinarity in problem-solving process are deep, insightful, and compelling. |
|
| Annotation of Images
20 marks
|
(0-7.5)
Images are poorly chosen or irrelevant. Annotations are unclear, superficial, or missing. There is no evident connection to interdisciplinary problem-solving. |
(8-9.5)
Annotated images feature images and annotations that may lack relevance or significance to interdisciplinary problem-solving. |
(10-11.5)
Images are generally relevant and support the problem-solving process. Annotations provide basic explanations and show some engagement with interdisciplinary perspectives, though integration may be uneven. |
(12-14)
Annotated images are well-selected and clearly relevant. Annotations are informative and demonstrate thoughtful engagement with interdisciplinary problem-solving, with some minor inconsistencies. |
(15-20)
Annotated images feature meaningful and relevant images. Annotations are clear, detailed, and demonstrate insightful engagement with interdisciplinary problem-solving. |
|
| Use of Appropriate
Sources and Evidence 10 marks
|
(0-3.5)
Sources lack relevance to the journal entries. The entries use these sources in an ineffective manner. |
(4-4.5)
Some sources are relevant, but their selection or use lacks consistency or depth. Sources may be used in a limited or superficial way, with weak connections to the journal content. |
(5-5.5)
Sources are generally appropriate and support the journal entries. There is some effort to integrate sources, though the use may be uneven or lack critical engagement. |
(6-7)
Sources are mostly relevant to the journal entries. The entries use these sources in a mostly effective manner.
|
(8-10)
Sources are highly and consistently relevant to the journal entries. The entries use these sources in a highly effective and convincing manner. |
| Grammar
5 marks |
(0-1.9)
Full of errors in grammar, punctuation, or spelling |
(2-2.4)
Contains many errors in grammar, punctuation, or spelling |
(2.5-2.9)
Contains some errors in grammar, punctuation, or spelling |
(3-3.5)
Almost no errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling |
(3.8-5)
Completely free of errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling |
|
| References
5 marks |
(0-1.9)
Full of errors and/or missing references |
(2-2.4)
Contains many errors and/or missing references |
(2.5-2.9)
Contains some errors and/or missing references |
(3-3.5)
Almost no errors and/or missing references
|
(3.8-5)
Completely free of errors and/or missing references |
|
| Final Grade |
—- END OF ASSIGNMENT GUIDE —-
