This paper is based on research conducted at the Technical Teachers Training College, Dhaka, Bangladesh and at the Hong Kong Institute of Education with students in pre. service and in-service teacher education programmes. The students ranged in age from their early twenties to early fifties and for the majority learning in a second language was problematic at best and disastrous for some. The objective was to positively motivate students as they were introduced to membership of 'Quality Learning Teams' during their study of education and engineering modules.
The 'Team' philosophy involved taking the students from the traditional lecture style used extensively in both countries to active participative classes where quality learning is largely in the hands of the students themselves. For many the 'Team' philosophy helped students gain a much-enhanced appreciation of the topics under discussion. As in the jigsaw' approach to classroom teaching each member of the team learnt a specific point or skill they then assisted in the learning of their team members so that all gradually became familiar with the topics / skills given to that team. The jigsaw approach was also encouraged when each team was required to present their topic to the rest of the class. At the completion of the modules under study the students were surveyed and interviewed to provide data of the impact on their learning of the 'team' innovation introduced by their lecturers. Traditional methods in both Bangladesh and Hong Kong settings seldom involve teaming or quality cooperative learning.
The approach was particularly helpful for those whose elective was science, mathematics, design & technology, home economics, computer literacy and a number of engineering disciplines.

It has been a major issue that traditional assessment strategies contradict what we know about the nature of learning fostered by PBL The use of inappropriate assessment methods has been found to negate the effectiveness of PBL (Lai et al., 1997). In this study, students' perception of the subject Clothing Manufacture were compared and analysed in two different situations: 1) A partial PBL implementation in the 1998/99 semester with a final written examination; and 2) A full PBL implementation in the 1999/2000 semester using 100% continuous assessment. Students' perception of PBL is much better when using 100% continuous assessment than when using a final examination. 86% in the former said PBL is good and useful while 50% did so under the latter condition. Subjects of the former group were also asked for their preference on assessment methods. 98% of them preferred continuous assessment and 92% of them were satisfied with the different types of assessment methods and arrangements.

The small-group tutorial is one of the key features of problem-based /earning (PBL). The learning process within tutorials is regarded as important as know/e4ge acquisition. In spite of this, there has been little systematic evaluation of student learning process performance in tutorials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a questionnaire for the assessment of student tutorial performance, and to compare student and tutor evaluation of tutorial performance over time.
Fourteen tutors and 115 students enrolled in an undergraduate programme in Speech and Hearing Sciences completed an evaluation questionnaire. The questionnaire included 15 items, within five categories (group discussion skills and responsibilities, information skills, communication skills, critical thinking and reasoning skills, and self-assessment ski/Is). A five-point rating scale was used for each item, and descriptors were provided for the two extremes of the scales. The forms were completed at three time periods during one academic year. Item analysis was conducted to determine the reliability of the 15 questionnaire items. Following this analysis, summary scores from the questionnaire were calculated in order to examine the following questions: i) how reliable was the evaluation form in measuring student performance in tutorials?, ii) was there a correlation between tutor and student ratings and between ratings given in semester 1 and semester 2?, and iii) was there a change in performance, based on student and tutor evaluations, between the 1” and the 2 semester?
The results showed that the questionnaire was reliable, that correlations between tutor and students and across semesters were positive for all categories with the exception of self-assessment skills. Finally, it was found that year 2 ratings were lower than ratings for years 1 and 3 and that, overall, critical thinking and communication skills received the lowest ratings. The implications of these results for students learning