Plan a team project around a local problem with global relevance
Define one shared local problem, divide inquiry into distinct perspectives and collaborate towards evidence-based solutions.
Exam scope and assessment notes
This is original StudyForA teaching and fictional practice, not Cambridge text, an official question or an official mark scheme. The 2026–2028 syllabus calls the written exam Component 1; the 2029–2031 syllabus calls it Paper 1 and reports no significant teaching changes. Check the syllabus for the learner's exam year and follow teacher, centre and assessment-authenticity rules. StudyForA cannot authenticate assessed work, observe collaboration, award official marks or predict a grade.
Before you begin
- Identify whether the task concerns source analysis, essay writing, team assessment or the independent research report.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How many candidates must be in a Component 3 team?
What you will learn
- Form a team of two to five members
- Write a focused local problem statement with global relevance
- Assign distinct research perspectives and plan collaboration
One shared problem, distinct research
Component 3 requires a team of two to five candidates to identify a local problem with global relevance. The team states the shared problem in one statement, then each member researches a distinct perspective and proposes an evidence-based solution. A list of unrelated topics is not a coherent team project.
Collaboration is part of the learning
Agree roles, milestones, communication and how decisions will be recorded. Each candidate's assessed presentation and reflective paper are individual. StudyForA can help rehearse planning questions, but cannot participate in or verify the team's real collaboration. Follow teacher supervision, consent, safety and centre procedures.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research 9239 syllabus · 2026–2028 Version 3
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research 9239 syllabus update · 2026–2028
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research 9239 syllabus · 2029–2031 Version 1
- Cambridge International 9239 subject page and exam-series notice
Pause and explain
What should each team member do after agreeing the shared problem?
Worked example
A team notices food waste at a school. How can it make a project statement that allows distinct research?
Show the worked solution
- State the local problem without assuming the cause or solution.
- Connect the problem to a broader issue such as food systems or resource use.
- Assign distinct perspectives such as purchasing, student access and waste measurement.
Answer A focused statement could be: 'Our school discards edible food at lunchtime, and the team will investigate how purchasing, serving choices and student access contribute to this local problem.' One member might examine ordering records, another student choice and access, and another waste observations. The team must verify its scope with the teacher and gather evidence safely.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A team wants to 'solve climate change'. Narrow this into a local problem statement with global relevance and three distinct research perspectives.
Give me a hint
Choose a place and a manageable local decision; do not promise to solve the whole global issue.
Compare my reasoning
- Name a specific local setting and observable problem.
- Explain the global connection without overstating it.
- Allocate distinct perspectives that could inform workable solutions.
Example: 'Our school uses disposable cups at events; the team will investigate how purchasing, student access and waste handling affect the amount discarded.' The issue connects to wider resource use, but the team can study a defined school setting. Members could research procurement, user access and waste audits from distinct perspectives.
Look for these in your work
- Defines a local problem
- Explains global relevance
- Assigns distinct evidence roles
Two teammates plan to interview the same three friends, while a third will design a solution before research. Suggest a better team plan.
Give me a hint
Separate roles by perspective and gather evidence before choosing the solution.
Compare my reasoning
- Agree one shared problem statement.
- Assign complementary research perspectives and suitable evidence.
- Set a check-in where evidence is compared before individual solutions are formed.
The team should first agree one focused problem statement, then allocate complementary roles—for example, affected users, service records and implementation constraints. They should avoid relying only on the same friends, obtain teacher approval for any participant research and compare findings before deciding what solutions the evidence supports.
Look for these in your work
- Creates one shared focus
- Uses complementary evidence roles
- Researches before selecting solutions
A team disagrees about whether to study a school garden or food waste. What decision rule could help it choose a feasible project?
Give me a hint
Use a neutral criterion tied to evidence, safety, time and global relevance.
Compare my reasoning
- List the questions each option could answer locally.
- Check evidence access, time, safety and centre approval.
- Choose the option with a manageable shared problem and distinct perspectives.
Compare each option against whether it defines a local problem, connects to a broader global issue, allows two to five candidates to research distinct perspectives, and can be investigated safely with approved evidence in the available time. The team should record why it chose the project and what it will not claim.
Look for these in your work
- Uses explicit feasibility criteria
- Checks safety and evidence access
- Chooses a coherent shared problem
Common mistakes
- Choosing a global slogan with no local problem to investigate
- Assigning every team member the same source search
- Treating a team-authored presentation as the individual candidate's assessed presentation
What can you explain now?
How many candidates must be in a Component 3 team?
Compare with the explanation
Two to five.
The syllabus specifies teams of two to five candidates.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Why does each member need a distinct research perspective in the team project?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.