# data[].attributes.headline
1. Are there any changes to the recommended hours for lower sec and upper sec? currently, according to the "school curriculum" chapter in the principal handbook, it is 105 mins to 120 mins for lower sec, 2 hr 20 to 2 hr 40 mins for upper sec. One reason why I am asking is because of a minor discrepancy between the recommended hour in the principal handbook and the latest GMP T&L guide.

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Are there any changes to the recommended hours for lower sec and upper sec? currently, according to the "school curriculum" chapter in the principal handbook, it is 105 mins to 120 mins for lower sec, 2 hr 20 to 2 hr 40 mins for upper sec. One reason why I am asking is because of a minor discrepancy between the recommended hour in the principal handbook and the latest GMP T&L guide.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. The expansion of the section on facilitation and questioning in the syllabus document is useful as conversation with students is a key component in our bags of tricks as coursework teachers. However,  it can often degenerate into a question and answer session instead of a true dialogue. In this context, do any of the courses in 2019 provide some training to the teachers in the facilitation and dialogic teaching skill?

# data[].attributes.subject
2. The expansion of the section on facilitation and questioning in the syllabus document is useful as conversation with students is a key component in our bags of tricks as coursework teachers. However,  it can often degenerate into a question and answer session instead of a true dialogue. In this context, do any of the courses in 2019 provide some training to the teachers in the facilitation and dialogic teaching skill?

# data[].attributes.headline
3. The reduction and specification of the hour is welcomed. But can I clarify if the total duration includes the march and June holidays? I remembered that it was mentioned, but it wasn't very clear about it.

# data[].attributes.subject
3. The reduction and specification of the hour is welcomed. But can I clarify if the total duration includes the march and June holidays? I remembered that it was mentioned, but it wasn't very clear about it.

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Given the two weeks difference between the submission dates .. can the internal marking dates be spread further apart as it might be difficult for the teachers to straddle two period of intensive marking if the submission of marks to SEAB is too close together.

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Given the two weeks difference between the submission dates .. can the internal marking dates be spread further apart as it might be difficult for the teachers to straddle two period of intensive marking if the submission of marks to SEAB is too close together.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Regarding the written paper, may we know how extensive will be the changes? I am totally supportive of the changes to application based questions but can I take it as something similar to the UK ACA design and technology paper?

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Regarding the written paper, may we know how extensive will be the changes? I am totally supportive of the changes to application based questions but can I take it as something similar to the UK ACA design and technology paper?

# data[].attributes.headline
6. Is it possible for SEAB to publish the exam paper and the answer scheme online for teachers, like what some other countries has been doing? I think we need better clarity about the expectations of the marking and the crafting of the marking scheme.

# data[].attributes.subject
6. Is it possible for SEAB to publish the exam paper and the answer scheme online for teachers, like what some other countries has been doing? I think we need better clarity about the expectations of the marking and the crafting of the marking scheme.

# data[].attributes.headline
7. As the prototype is described as "to encourage tinkering and experimentation for design functionality", can we take it as an extension of mock ups, akin to a working model that showcase a sort of proof of concept for the idea? However, the level and range of skill evident in the prototype appears to be still a factor, according to the descriptor "prototype reflects poor/ fair/ competent/ proficient making skill". what does this making skill entails? Logically, if we understand the prototype as it is commonly used in the design context. then I would have assumed that any making skill displayed should be relevant to the key aspect of the concept. E.g. if the artefact is a product that is required to grab something from a certain height, the key making skill will be in the accuracy of the extension and grabbing mechanism and its function, not on aesthetics. Can we be sure that when SEAB assess the artefact, blemishes and slight aesthetic defects will not be penalised? On the other hand, for an artefact where aesthetic is part of its core function, then finishing may play a bigger role, at least according to my understanding. Is that in fact the case?

# data[].attributes.subject
7. As the prototype is described as "to encourage tinkering and experimentation for design functionality", can we take it as an extension of mock ups, akin to a working model that showcase a sort of proof of concept for the idea? However, the level and range of skill evident in the prototype appears to be still a factor, according to the descriptor "prototype reflects poor/ fair/ competent/ proficient making skill". what does this making skill entails? Logically, if we understand the prototype as it is commonly used in the design context. then I would have assumed that any making skill displayed should be relevant to the key aspect of the concept. E.g. if the artefact is a product that is required to grab something from a certain height, the key making skill will be in the accuracy of the extension and grabbing mechanism and its function, not on aesthetics. Can we be sure that when SEAB assess the artefact, blemishes and slight aesthetic defects will not be penalised? On the other hand, for an artefact where aesthetic is part of its core function, then finishing may play a bigger role, at least according to my understanding. Is that in fact the case?

# data[].attributes.headline
1. Can we select a few criterion from the rubrics instead of one component (journal or artefact) from a coursework project for term 1 and 3 (term 2 as well for Sec 1 and 3)

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Can we select a few criterion from the rubrics instead of one component (journal or artefact) from a coursework project for term 1 and 3 (term 2 as well for Sec 1 and 3)

# data[].attributes.headline
2. I hear from CPO that for lower Sec DT and FCE lessons, we can have a WA as well as a MYE/ another WA (if we have 100% project based assessment). In this case, can I confirm that the MYE can include multiple component as well?

# data[].attributes.subject
2. I hear from CPO that for lower Sec DT and FCE lessons, we can have a WA as well as a MYE/ another WA (if we have 100% project based assessment). In this case, can I confirm that the MYE can include multiple component as well?

# data[].attributes.headline
3. For Sec 3, can the EOY WA include both the journal and artefact, as it does represent the entire year's work. Alternatively, can it be counted as part of EOY exam, since unlike other subjects, we only have one written paper but coursework is considered part of the O level examination.

# data[].attributes.subject
3. For Sec 3, can the EOY WA include both the journal and artefact, as it does represent the entire year's work. Alternatively, can it be counted as part of EOY exam, since unlike other subjects, we only have one written paper but coursework is considered part of the O level examination.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it necessary to have sub plans for every stages of the design process? Can a simple reflection good enough?