Plan a school service project
| English | Chinese | Pinyin |
|---|---|---|
| driving question/ˈdraɪvɪŋ ˈkwestʃn/ | 驱动性问题 | qū dòng xìng wèn tí |
| user/ˈjuːzə/ | 用户 | yòng hù |
| deliverable/dɪˈlɪvərəbl/ | 交付成果 | jiāo fù chéng guǒ |
| baseline/ˈbeɪslaɪn/ | 基线 | jī xiàn |
| success criterion/səkˈses kraɪˈtɪərɪən/ | 成功标准 | chéng gōng biāo zhǔn |
| constraints/kənˈstreɪnts/ | 约束条件 | yuē shù tiáo jiàn |
| milestone/ˈmaɪlstəʊn/ | 里程碑 | lǐ chéng bēi |
| dependency/dɪˈpendənsi/ | 前置条件 | qián zhì tiáo jiàn |
| project charter/ˈprɒdʒekt ˈtʃɑːtə/ | 项目章程 | xiàng mù zhāng chéng |
Start with a question that needs action
This is original GAC031-aligned practice for unit 3.2, School Service PBL Planning. It continues the fictional library project from unit 3.1. It is not an ACT assessment.
The team first writes: “How can we make the library better?” This driving question 驱动性问题 is too wide. It does not name a user 用户 or a problem the team could test. After speaking to students who need silence and students who need to discuss work, they rewrite it: “How can students find the right quiet or discussion area within two minutes during exam week?” Now they can make a sign system, ask people to use it, and see what happens.
A project is more than a poster. The poster is a possible deliverable 交付成果; helping students find an appropriate space is the aim. If a poster fails, the aim stays and the team can try a different solution.
“Make the library better” is so wide even a book cart could get lost in it.
Which driving question can the library team answer through a small project?
The second question names a user, a concrete difficulty and a result that a sign or other design can be tested against.
Find a starting point before setting a target
The team asks 20 volunteers who have not seen the proposed signs to find a suitable space. Nine do so in under two minutes. This baseline 基线 is a starting observation, not a judgement about every library user. The group sets a success criterion 成功标准: after a one-week sign trial, at least 16 of 20 new volunteers should find the right space within two minutes, using the same starting point and instructions.
The numbers are small. Even if 16 succeed, the team should say “our trial suggests the signs helped these testers,” not “the signs will help everyone.” They also ask one open question: “What made the choice difficult?” The answer may reveal a problem a stopwatch misses, such as an unclear room label.
The baseline was 9 of 20. The target is 16 of 20. How many MORE successful attempts does the target require in a group of 20?
16 − 9 = 7. This arithmetic describes the target difference, not proof that the signs caused an improvement.
Name constraints and get permission
The team has one week and a small materials budget. The librarian must approve locations before any sign goes up. Signs may not block exits or cover existing safety information. These are constraints 约束条件: limits the team must respect while designing. The team records them before buying materials, because a beautiful sign that cannot be put up is not a useful result.
They record counts and comments, but no names, photographs or personal timetables. Participation in the trial is voluntary. If somebody declines, the team thanks them and asks another person; it does not treat refusal as failure. Responsible planning includes how information is gathered, not just what will be built.
Do not announce a trial before the librarian agrees to it. “We can probably get permission later” is a risk, not a plan.
Which TWO requirements must the team respect before putting up signs?
Permission and safety are stated constraints. The project deliberately avoids personal names and must not rewrite its target after the trial.
Work backwards from the sharing date
A milestone 里程碑 is a checkable point in the project, not “work on signs.” The team writes a short plan:
| When | Milestone | Evidence that it is done |
|---|---|---|
| Days 1–2 | Ask users and record the baseline | Twenty timed attempts and brief anonymous notes |
| Day 3 | Sketch two sign options | Two readable sketches with proposed locations |
| Day 4 | Ask the librarian to check safety and placement | Approved locations or written changes needed |
| Day 5 | Put up the approved version | Signs in place; start time recorded |
| Days 6–7 | Run the same task with new volunteers | Twenty new attempts and comments |
| Day 8 | Share results and a revision proposal | A one-page summary with limits and next step |
The day-4 approval is a dependency 前置条件: the team cannot honestly mark day 5 complete without it. They assign one person to arrange the check, one to prepare the signs, and two to collect observations. Everyone knows who owns each task, but the whole group reviews the result.
Put the key milestones in the order that respects their dependencies.
The baseline informs the sketches; approval must precede posting; testing follows the actual change.
Put the plan on one page
The project charter 项目章程 is a short shared record: question → users → starting evidence → target → deliverable → constraints → milestones → roles → review date. Its purpose is to make a decision visible, not to predict every problem.
If the librarian rejects a sign location, the team revises the sketch before printing. If the trial reaches only 13 of 20, they do not change the target after seeing the result. They compare the nine-person baseline with the new result, read the comments, and decide what to test next. A result below the target can still teach the team something useful if the measurement and the limits are reported honestly.
Good planning says what the team will make, how a real user will try it, what must be approved, and what evidence will tell the team to revise.
If 16 of 20 new volunteers succeed, the team can claim the signs will help every library user.
A small volunteer trial supports a limited claim about these testers. It does not establish a result for every student or prove causation.