By the end of Phase I, my group and I were feeling fairly confident in the work that we had created. However, upon getting our mark back, it was significantly lower than we expected, and we started to feel the pain of problem-based learning. This caused us to rethink our entire plan for Phase II.

Due to the feedback received in Phase I, we decided to keep the problem statement of lacking food security in Halifax. However, we decided to approach food security in a different manner, looking at it through the lens of education, community, economy, and food assistance programs rather than lack of accessibility, lack of knowledge, and lack of production. For this reason it caused it to fall a bit behind on our planned timeline for writing Phase II, as we changed our approach a week into working on Phase II.

While this was frustrating at first, upon changing the approach, we all felt better about the formation of Phase II. To write the report, we used the same technique as last time, each assigning ourselves to write one section around 1500-2000 words.

We then left an entire week to edit the full report with all the individual components. While this was …show more content…
Another issue that came up was that because we were trying to make it sound like one person wrote it, using similar language and writing style throughout the whole report. It was hard to distinguish whether as a group we were creating a hybrid writing style blending the four individual ones, or if it was one or two people that mostly imposed their writing styles on all other sections. We generally tried to be democratic with word choices. Therefore, if two people said the same thing in different ways, we usually went with the way that was used most throughout the report. Overall though the editing process seemed to flow a bit better than in Phase I, as we were more comfortable with each other and our individual writing