SACE Stage 2 Cross-disciplinary Studies study plan

Map the assessment requirements against all four domains to identify which tasks carry the most weight

Draft three candidate cross-disciplinary inquiry questions that genuinely require two or more disciplines to answer

Select one inquiry question and justify in writing why single-discipline approaches would be insufficient

Compile a working bibliography of at least eight sources spanning the chosen disciplines

Deconstruct the inquiry question into four sub-questions that each map to a specific discipline

Compare how two disciplines define and treat a shared concept, noting where terminology conflicts

Build a comparison table contrasting methods, evidence standards, and assumptions across the disciplines

Identify two concepts from each discipline that will need explicit explanation for a non-specialist reader

Synthesise findings from at least six sources into an integrated argument rather than a sequential summary

Generate three competing interpretations of the same evidence and evaluate the strength of each

Identify and articulate two assumptions underpinning your own inquiry approach

Draft a counterargument to your emerging position and respond to it in writing

Test the inquiry's central claim against the strongest available counter-evidence

Apply a structured creative-thinking technique to generate at least five alternative solutions or framings

Evaluate each alternative against feasibility, evidence, and disciplinary coherence

Revise the inquiry question if the evidence no longer supports the original framing

Structure the full argument into a logical sequence with explicit links between sections

Write a first complete draft of the inquiry response

Annotate the draft to flag every claim lacking evidence or citation

Solicit structured peer feedback using three specific prompts rather than a general request

Incorporate peer feedback selectively, documenting reasons for accepting or rejecting each comment

Rewrite two sections to improve clarity and reduce jargon for a non-specialist audience

Prepare a five-minute oral explanation of the inquiry for a listener outside both disciplines

Deliver the oral explanation and record two specific improvements identified from the listener's questions

Reflect in writing on how the two disciplines changed your initial assumptions

Evaluate your own inquiry process against three criteria: rigour, creativity, and integration

Proofread the full response for accuracy of citations and consistency of terminology

Rehearse and time a structured presentation of the inquiry and its limitations

Finalise the inquiry response with all citations verified against sources

Summarise the cross-disciplinary insight in three sentences that a general audience could follow

Complete two timed practice responses under exam conditions

Consolidate a one-page revision sheet linking each domain to your strongest evidence