NUS–UGA Telecollaboration 2026

Student Portfolio Evidence Submission · To be completed after your oral presentation

Complete this form after your oral presentation to provide documentary evidence that complements and extends what you demonstrated in person. Group sections (B–F) are shared — teammates can see your written answers and any files you attach. Section G is individual and private. You can upload supporting documents to any question.
Complete Section A to begin

Identify yourself to begin

Enter the last 3 characters of your matriculation number and select your group. Your name and previous answers will load automatically.

Your code is the final 3 characters of your student ID (the two digits and check letter at the end).

 · 
✔ You have a previous submission. Submitting again will update your existing entry.
👤

A. Your Details

Pre-filled from login — correct any errors here.

Individual

NUS teammates auto-filled from the roster — please add your UGA partners too, e.g. "Marie Dupont (UGA)"

📋

B. Meeting Log

Evidence for Criterion 1.1 — Documentation

Group section Criterion 1
📌 What assessors look for — Criterion 1.1 DocumentationEach entry should include the date, duration, who attended, key points discussed, and decisions made. Aim for at least 3–4 meetings. Concrete details matter more than length.
Your entry (if different from your groupmates')
⚖️

C. Evidence of Balanced Participation

Evidence for Criterion 1.2 — Balance

Group section Criterion 1
📌 What assessors look for — Criterion 1.2 BalanceShow that both NUS and UGA partners contributed actively — not just equally, but visibly. Name specific people and specific tasks. It's fine to mention periods of unequal participation as long as you explain how it was addressed.
Your entry (if different from your groupmates')

Who initiated meetings? Who led drafting? Who gave feedback? Be specific about both NUS and UGA contributions.

0 / 800
0 / 400

WhatsApp / Slack / email — frequency, who initiated, typical response times

0 / 400
✏️

D. Revision Evidence (Before & After)

Evidence for Criterion 1.3 — Traceability and Criterion 2.1 — Responsiveness

Group section Criterion 1 Criterion 2
📌 What assessors look for — Criteria 1.3 & 2.1Each example needs a clear "Before" and "After" plus the partner question or comment that triggered it. The best examples show real dialogue — quote your partner if you can. 2 strong examples beat 5 vague ones.
Your entry (if different from your groupmates')
🌐

E. Cultural Adaptation & Nuance

Evidence for Criterion 2.2 — Adaptation and Criterion 2.3 — Nuance

Group section Criterion 2
📌 What assessors look for — Criteria 2.2 & 2.3For Adaptation: describe a moment where your partner's question revealed something you had assumed was obvious. For Nuance: show how your advice became more context-sensitive after dialogue — changed from a rule to a qualified recommendation.
Your entry (if different from your groupmates')

What was the assumption? How did their question reveal it? How did you rewrite that section?

0 / 600

Did you change a firm rule into something more contextual? What triggered it?

0 / 600
🤝

F. Preface — Negotiated Knowledge

Evidence for Criterion 2.4 — Visible Negotiation

Group section Criterion 2
📌 What assessors look for — Criterion 2.4 Visible NegotiationThe preface must prove the guide was genuinely co-constructed. Tick all the elements that apply and describe the most concrete negotiation moment — who said what, what changed, and why it improved the guide.
Your entry (if different from your groupmates')

Be concrete: what was said, by whom, and how it changed the guide

0 / 500

You can attach the preface as a PDF or Word document for direct reference by the assessor.

💬

G. Individual Reflective Statement

Evidence for Criterion 3.2 — Dialogic Justification and 3.4 — Critical Reflection

Individual · Private Criterion 3

🔒 Private — only your assessor can see this section. Use it to reflect on your oral presentation and show evidence you may not have had time to demonstrate fully in person.

📌 What assessors look for — Criteria 3.2 & 3.4Be specific and honest. Name the partner, quote the feedback, and explain exactly what you changed and why. The "design decision" question rewards critical thinking — there's no wrong answer if you explain your reasoning.

Quote or paraphrase the feedback, say which section it affected, and explain your revision decision

0 / 700

Linguistic, logistical, conceptual, or interpersonal — be honest and specific

0 / 600

Demonstrates critical reflection-in-action (Criterion 3.4)

0 / 500

Attach any other evidence you want the assessor to see — e.g. annotated chat transcripts, annotated guide excerpts, etc.

0 / 400
✅

H. Pre-submission Checklist

Confirm before sending

✅

Submission received!

Your portfolio evidence and any uploaded files have been saved successfully.

Your assessor will review this to complement the grade from your oral presentation. Group sections are visible to your teammates; Section G is private.