w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
om
.c
s
er
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
w
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Paper 9777/01
Written Paper
General Comments
The overall standard of the paper saw a noticeable improvement compared with the previous year. The
passages proved accessible to candidates and there were very few examples of candidates who
misunderstood the arguments or views being put forward. There was also a noticeable improvement in the
way candidates used their time; most ensured that they left sufficient time for the final question and were
able to write quite lengthy answers. The questions on 9777/1 focus on reasoning skills and candidates
seemed much more able to apply these skills to the passages. Where critical thinking terminology was used,
it was usually applied to answer the question and not simply off-loaded, as had often been the case in 2009.
Many more candidates reached judgments, or at least wrote a conclusion in their answers to 1(b) and 2.
That too helped move them up the mark bands. Although the questions set do require candidates to work
very closely with the passages, there were still a significant number who quoted at excessive length. At
times, this did get in the way of their reasoning or their argument; candidates would be well advised that a
few well-chosen phrases are sufficient to support a point. At the other extreme, however, there were some
candidates who did not refer precisely to the passages, relying instead on sweeping generalisations or
unsupported assertions, neither of which can score highly either.
Question Specific Comments:
Question 1
(a)
A significant number of candidates scored full marks on this question. The key to a good answer
was to follow the instructions. The general argument that the passage was against GM crops was
obvious and was not rewarded. Candidates were required to summarise the main reasoning. This
did not require lengthy quotations from the passage. Rather, candidates needed to explain the
reasoning in their own words. Most were able to identify the damage that GM crops caused to the
environment and often went on to explain this fully by reference to the wildlife. This approach
gained two marks. If they identified a second piece of reasoning, most candidates were able to talk
about the impact on small farmers, although a number did not develop this and so remained at 1
mark. However, there were many who compared the decline of the small farmer with the growth in
agribusiness, which it was claimed was present in all areas of Britain. This gained the further mark.
Candidates did not need to evaluate the reasoning or comment on the argument put forward and
no credit was given for this approach. In the same way, a summary or paraphrasing of the whole
article was not required and this was approach was not given any credit either. A number of
candidates spent far too long on this introductory question.
(b)
The question asked how convincing was Juniper’s argument against GM crops. To access the
highest level, candidates needed to look at the strengths and weaknesses of his argument before
reaching a balanced conclusion. Candidates approached this task in a number of ways. At the
very highest level, candidates often examined each piece of his argument and discussed the
strengths and weaknesses of it before reaching a conclusion on that piece and then moving on to
the next piece. This then led to an overall conclusion or judgement being reached as to whether
the argument was convincing or not. This approach usually produced strong answers as each
conclusion followed directly from its previous paragraphs. A more popular approach was to
evaluate all the weaknesses and then all the strengths. This approach had two disadvantages: it
produced a list-like answer and it left the candidate’s view about any part of the argument very
unclear. Further, the conclusion then appeared to be bolted on the end and did not always reflect
the predominance that had been given to either the strengths or weakness in the body of the
answer.
1
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
A significant number of candidates did not produce a balanced answer by either of these formats,
or any other. Instead, they focused, often exclusively, on the weaknesses of the argument. If no
inference to any possible strength was made, answers were confined to a mark in the lowest level,
no matter how good the quality of their evaluation. Examiners did credit any hint of balance, which
would move an answer into the low Level 2, but too often there was none at all. Candidates must
be aware of the need to take a balanced approach, even if they wish to conclude that despite the
use, for example, of emotive language, the argument being made in a document is not convincing.
Candidates should support their arguments with precise reference to the relevant passage(s) and
avoid making sweeping and unsupported comments. There were a number who relied on very
generalised evaluative comments, for example, ‘Tony Juniper is from the Friends of the Earth and
is therefore bound to be biased’ or ‘it is from the BBC website and so will be reliable’. Another
important element that teachers should see their candidates understand is that when a passage is
evaluated, the answer explains whether each part is considered a strength or weakness.
Candidates must make themselves clear. It is not for the Examiner to second guess the
candidate’s view. It was certainly true that discussing any possible strengths of the document was
a greater challenge than discussing the weaknesses. Areas that were considered, even if it was
concluded they were not strengths, included: the GM crop trial, the emotive language used, the
impact GM crops are having on the environment. Some candidates suggested that his overall
argument was logical, although they often concluded that the absence of any consideration of a
counter-argument weakened his case. There was a great deal that candidates could consider and
it was not expected that every issue would be dealt with. What mattered was the quality of the
analysis and, vitally, that this was balanced in its approach, even if the conclusion was that his
argument was not convincing or that although on the surface it appeared to be convincing, closer
examination of the premises undermined it.
Question 2
It was pleasing to see a considerable improvement in the standard of the answers to this type of question
from the work seen in 2009. Candidates will always be required to use two documents in their answers to
this sort of question and it is essential that they know that this task involves much more than a simple
comparison of the content. It was this that had characterised most answers in the previous year, but this
time there were far fewer answers restricted to the lowest level by doing only this. However, there were still
a number who, having started by evaluating the perspectives, lapsed into a simple comparison of the
content. As with Question 1(b), there was a wide range of material available to candidates to use and it was
not expected that all issues would be discussed. What mattered was the quality of the evaluation and
conclusion or judgement that was reached.
In order to move beyond the lowest level, candidates needed to consider not only the content, but to assess
critically the arguments put forward in the two documents. This required a balanced approach between the
two and not an over-reliance on Document 2, although it was to be expected that references to this one were
likely to be more frequent. At the highest level, candidates made a point-by-point comparison and reached a
judgement at the end of each paragraph about whether the perspective in Document 2 challenged that in
Document 1, before going on at the end of the essay to reach an overall judgement. As with Question 1(b),
sweeping generalisations and assertions, unsupported from the passages, should be avoided if an answer is
to score in at least Level 2. Many answers started from a general survey of the arguments and view points
of the two passages, and then went on to make an evaluative comparison of issues such as the origin and
purpose of the documents. This frequently resulted in the conclusion that both documents had their
limitations. There was often a consideration of the evidence presented to support the arguments offered.
This produced some interesting comments as although Document 1 was sweeping in its approach and
lacked precise statistical support, some answers also pointed out that Document 2 also made sweeping
comments such as ‘these areas provide food and shelter for wildlife.’ There was also comparison of the
impact that the two passages perceived GM crops to be having and many argued that both passages
appealed to emotions, with the first talking about the impact on the environment while the second considered
the health benefits and economic gains for developing nations that GM crops would bring. Many then
concluded that this latter point might convince many of the advantages of GM as these benefits might be
considered to be more important than the damage to wildlife suggested in Document 1. A significant number
of candidates considered the different perspectives being put forward in the two passages and suggested
that the two documents did not always deal with the same issues, or that the focus of Document 1 was on
Britain whereas Document 2 placed the development of GM crops in a global perspective and argued that
this might explain the different conclusions that were reached by each document’s author.
2
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
It was pleasing that many candidates were able to evaluate comparatively the arguments being put forward
and then to reach a conclusion. This is an area that should be focused on by teachers. Many conclusions
were very brief and did not always follow logically from the arguments that had been put forward in the
previous paragraphs. Examiners do want to know what the candidate thinks, but this must be based on
evaluation of the documents and not simply the candidate’s personal view with little or no reference made to
the evidence given in the passages. Candidates may suggest that there is important evidence that has not
considered by either passage, but it is not necessary for candidates to bring in any ‘own knowledge’ and an
answer can be unbalanced if too much time is devoted to this. If candidates are looking to improve their
performance on this element of the paper, many would be well advised to spend longer planning and think of
the areas that they are going to consider so that they make a more structured argument. First, the passages
need to be dealt with in a comparative manner and not sequentially, but there was very little evidence of this
approach. Second, candidates do need to evaluate the evidence and perspectives being put forward and,
as with 1(b), it does not matter whether the approach uses critical thinking terminology or not. What is much
more important is that the material is linked back to the question and a judgement is reached about how
far/how successfully (or whatever the question has asked) the perspective in one challenges the perspective
in the other. A significant number of answers did evaluate the perspectives, but then failed to reach a
conclusion as to whether the challenge was successful or not. As a minimum, a concluding sentence at the
end of each paragraph linking back to the question will help to keep an answer going in the right direction.
3
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
Paper 9777/02
Essay
Question Setting
Effective question-setting is crucial. Candidates need to choose their own topics and craft a question with
the guidance of their teachers. In this session, there were some questions which were not appropriate, and
these limited candidates' achievement. A series of questions seen this session, with comments to show why
they work or do not work, has been added as the last section of this document to illustrate this point.
For this syllabus, candidates should use sources with opportunities to compare and discuss genuinely
different global perspectives.
Length of Essays
There is a 1500-word limit, and work is checked for length. Examiners always stop reading at 1500 words
(syllabus p. 24), and writing more will affect the mark that a candidate receives, especially as the ending
includes the evaluation. So Candidates should be reminded that they need to observe the word limit.
Some Candidates wrote considerably less than the word allowance. These essays did not have space for
arguments to be developed sufficiently for higher marks to be awarded.
Use of Sources
After the establishment of perspectives, the identification and critical evaluation of a suitable evidence base
is crucial. The purpose of academic research is to seek out and then test the strongest possible arguments.
Some candidates chose inappropriate sources and then commented on the limitations of the sources that
they themselves had chosen. This could not count as critical evaluation and could attract little reward.
Candidates should not rely on generic ‘received opinions’. At best these are of limited value, and because
they are not based on a process of reasoning and evaluation they cannot attract much reward (e.g. ‘The
Guardian is a respected newspaper, therefore reliable.’).
The skill of critically assessing sources and evidence needs to be taught specifically. Candidates should not
rely on speculation, generalisation and assertion. Candidates need to draw on a range of sources; if they
rely on one article the source base will be severely restricted.
At the other end of the performance scale, a characteristic of candidates achieving marks in Levels 4 and 5
was the sophistication of their evidence base. Argumentative articles from broadsheet newspapers and
professional journals such as The Economist or New Scientist are the obvious and appropriate starting point
for all candidates, and the best choice for teaching purposes because of their restricted length and ease of
exemplification. Candidates in higher levels ranged further than this, sometimes using articles from
academic journals or essays from book collections on other themes. These required careful and intelligent
selection. In other cases, essays on ethics engaged directly with the writings of one or more key ethical
philosophers alongside articles making more general arguments on the topic being considered. It is not, of
course, compulsory for sources of these types to be used, and indeed they may not be appropriate for the
majority of candidates. However, those who had been guided in this direction found it easier to locate clearly
conceptualised terms, to demonstrate their skills of selection from a substantial source base and to engage
with a genuine debate between perspectives whose world-views are each extensively supported by strong
argument and evidence. Candidates able to deal with this level of material produced some sophisticated
and toughly argued essays.
4
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Structure of Work
Essay structure proved to be one of the clearest differentiators between levels of achievement. Candidates
who clearly established the opposing perspectives at the outset (perhaps after some brief initial
contextualisation) and kept a clear focus on the terms of their question thereafter, reached at least Level 3.
Typical reasons for candidates remaining in Level 2 were:
●
●
●
●
●
●
too much description or background material;
too much general data as opposed to data sharply focused on the support of the argument;
not identifying a minimum of two clear perspectives;
not differentiating between a perspective and a source, or view;
not maintaining focus on the development of an argument;
not setting a question which was open to higher levels of interpretation.
Essays tended to be significantly more successful when candidates followed a structure and that structure
reflected the mark scheme. In doing so, typically, answers:
●
●
●
●
●
●
clearly established and defined perspectives at the outset;
established the global nature of the question and its wider implications;
conceptualised the issues at work in the clash of perspectives, giving a basis for analysis;
selected appropriate sources and parts of sources and used that conceptual framework in order to
analyse them;
had a sense of the dynamic interplay between perspectives, especially in terms of how they used the
key concepts, avoiding false dichotomies;
gave due weight to the conclusion and followed the successive stages necessary for success:
considering implications, reflecting on one’s own perspective, then using that reflection in a
supported conclusion which acknowledges limitations and any suitable areas for further research.
The best did this in an analytical and evaluative way within their conceptual framework.
Referencing and Citation
This is a skills-based paper and these skills are looked for in all answers; at a high level, they are essential.
Most notably a bibliography is required (see syllabus pp.13, 24). A large minority of candidates omitted this
requirement and so, as specified by the marking scheme, could not gain the highest mark of the level that
their essay merited.
Candidates may need explanation of why referencing and citation are required, and how a thoughtful
approach to this can help them to strengthen their evidence base, treat evidence more critically, and reach
more developed and supported conclusions. For example, a number of weaker essays referred to
arguments and evidence, but did not link this to specific sources in their referencing system. This made it
hard for the Examiner to identify the basis of the claim being made by the candidate, as well as making it
hard for the candidate to evaluate the specific nature of the evidence being drawn upon. More effective
essays chose a specific bibliographic system and used that to identify a variety of appropriate types of
source, to identify and reflect upon the full context of sources (in terms of date, authorship and publication),
and to indicate precisely their selection from each source to support individual claims.
Administration and Presentation
Centre administration was good, for the most part.
It is very important that work is presented clearly and that all work is identifiable, for obvious reasons.
Centres should ensure that:
•
•
•
cover sheets and attendance registers are supplied;
files are labelled correctly in accordance with the instructions;
every piece of work is clearly identified with its Centre name and number and candidate name and
number.
5
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Choosing an effective question
Candidates need to be supported by their teachers in:
●
●
●
●
●
formulating questions that are clearly focused on an issue which is global and yet capable of being
explored effectively within the space of 1500 words;
creating questions which have a clear single focus;
understanding the nature of evaluation in this context;
understanding how to identify further research questions;
understanding what is needed for personal reflection.
The best questions are those which clearly invite a global response, e.g.
Is Nuclear Power the best option to energy supply problems?
Have globalisation and supranational organisations left the nation state obsolete?
To what extent is capital punishment ever a justifiable response by the state?
Is voluntary euthanasia ever acceptable?
In these four examples the debate is clear and specific, and a conclusion can be reached in response to the
question. The debate is also anchored by some key terms which can be picked out, provide focus and can
be conceptualised. What follows is a compendium of questions where rephrasing would be helpful. It will be
noted that, in most cases, the topic chosen was potentially good, but the question itself made it more difficult
to address the assessment objectives. There are also some examples of good practice, often addressing
the same topics.
Is cryonics only an option for the rich as well as an immoral use of resources?
This is two questions. The candidate is therefore forced to address all the objectives twice within the
constraints of the word limit.
Do you agree that individuals, businesses and governments will respond to the need to reduce their
greenhouse emissions? What will the effect of this be and do we have the responsibility to tackle
climate change?'
This is three questions at once so the problem is compounded; the task cannot be completed in the
space allowed.
What are the key policies in attempting to tackle over population and how effective are they?
Here the problem is less serious, because there must be some scene-setting. But What are the most
effective ways to tackle over-population? would lead to a more effective essay structure.
Some questions have stems which tend to push the candidate away from the AOs:
What are the advantages and disadvantages ...
is a question asking for a descriptive focus.
Explore the argument ...
though less descriptive, invites a response to an imperative, and will not naturally lead to the clear
establishment of perspectives.
What are your thoughts on ...
is vague and invites only the candidate’s perspective.
Can the rate of climate change be reduced or the effects limited by cutting CO2 emissions?
A question like this does generate a focused debate, but one that ends up being too technical to
explore different perspectives well. Questions can be too specific.
Whose problem is poverty?
Some questions were too big, and not specific enough, like this one which presented too many
challenges to answer within the compass of 1500 words.
6
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
How is humanity trying to prove the existence of God?’
This is problematic because it calls for explanation rather than argument, so meeting the assessment
criteria effectively is difficult.
Is cryonics only for the wealthy?
This could produce only a one-way answer given the enormous cost of cryonics. Changing 'is' to a
'should' might have gone some way towards improving this question by focusing on the ethical issues
rather than practicalities.
Is it time that we came to terms with the fact that global warming is occurring and that we should tackle
the problem now?'
caused problems because it is too polemical, which made it difficult for the candidate to develop a
balance of perspectives.
Do economic interests solely dictate global interference by the USA?
presents a similar problem as it leads too easily into a number of assumptions about the influence of
the US and its justifiability that similarly make it hard to locate different perspectives.
Do the benefits of x outweigh the disadvantages?
is a type of question that is rarely successful because it tends to become very broad and,
consequently, hard for the candidate to focus conceptually.
What should be the role of architecture in a globalised world?
leaves the candidate with an unnecessarily hard task defining and approaching the concept of
globalisation before s/he can address a difficult question.
Statements, not questions
Titles not framed as questions but as statements usually caused difficulties, e.g. 'Global warming: fact or
fiction’. Some questions create a potentially false dichotomy which makes it difficult for the candidate to
engage in a subtle and explorative comparison of perspectives. In this case also, the question has not been
stated explicitly, which makes it easier for the candidate’s focus to drift.
Peep Show or Ultimate Security’? [on body-scanning x-ray machines at airports]
This was not well chosen because rhetorically framed phrases such as this do not encourage critical
focus.
The impact of e-waste on the planet.
Posing this as a statement makes it hard to produce an argumentative as opposed to a descriptive
response.
Questions that are not global in their significance
There are questions which are well-framed, neutral in tone and clearly invite a comparison of perspectives,
but then fall down because those perspectives are not global, e.g.
To what extent should the Basques’ ancient history determine their right to independence?
Was it right to abandon the third runway at Heathrow?
In addition, To What Extent Have Communist Policies Affected China’s Rapid Rise as an Economic Power?
was difficult for the candidate to manage because while it could be set well in a global perspective, it was all
too easy to treat it purely as a local or national question. The same was true of Has post-Cold War US
foreign policy been ethical, particularly in relation to intervention in Somalia? because the candidate had to
make a conscious effort to keep the focus global throughout the essay.
7
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
Paper 9777/03
Presentation
In general, performance was good this session. Almost all candidates worked hard to present a reasoned
case which considered different perspectives and made critical use of research evidence. Work was spread
across the full range of marks, with some outstanding performances.
Candidates need to ensure they use the information in the Resource Booklet to answer a question.
The strongest candidates had clearly done significant research on their chosen issue. They had reflected on
the topic and on the various different perspectives, and had used research evidence critically to support their
line of reasoning. They came to a conclusion which clearly followed from their reasoning, and presented a
personal perspective which was clearly a result of deep thought about the issues and engagement with the
arguments, evidence and perspectives they had investigated. Their work showed control of the material and
arguments. The very best candidates were also able to bear an audience in mind, and made sure their
presentation was written appropriately in this connection.
Some candidates tended to present one set of arguments in a fairly descriptive way, then present another
set of arguments, then give their personal opinion. There needs to be an indication that a consideration of
the arguments had affected these candidates’ personal opinions, and a line of reasoning that carried through
from the beginning to the end.
The overriding theme of the Resource Booklet was belief, with references to cultural, religious, scientific and
economic beliefs. The strongest candidates tested their own beliefs in the light of their research and
reflected on the issues and on their own beliefs. This was most clear where candidates chose to talk about
religious beliefs. A number of candidates who had firm beliefs (generally scientific-atheist, Christian or
Islamic) explained that they had learned about other beliefs and, whilst they retained their own, they had
tested them, and perhaps found a synthesis. Candidates needed to ensure they applied their learning to
their own beliefs.
Some candidates took a rather formulaic approach to assessing the credibility of sources which relied on
limited criteria, and did not consider the nature of the claims they were assessing, or the strength of the
arguments they were discussing. For example, some candidates rejected Dawkins’ ideas because they felt
the author is biased as a known atheist scientist so clearly he wouldn’t accept God. When assessing an
argument like this, it is worth bearing in mind any possible bias, and evaluating the argument on its own
merits. A bias does not make Dawkins’ argument necessarily weak. Similarly, some candidates rejected the
Big Bang theory because ‘it’s only a theory, it can’t be proven,’ and then accepted the thesis of a creator
either without question or based on the authority of God’s word – but as it was the existence of that God they
were questioning, this was logically unsatisfactory. A number of candidates equated ‘hypothesis’ and
‘theory’ with ‘guess’. Candidates must make critical use of research material and go beyond superficial
comments about bias and reputation.
Candidates set their own questions for this component of GPR. Many succeeded in framing strong
questions which gave them a good basis for presenting a reasoned case in answer to the question.
Successful questions included:
●
●
●
●
●
Does humankind require organised religion to live a spiritual life?
Does evolution disprove creationism?
To what extent can science explain religious phenomena?
Can scientists refute intelligent design?
To what extent are the foundations of orthodox economics undermined by observations made in
behavioural economics?
8
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Candidates should be supported by their teachers in:
●
●
identifying the main issues and research strands in the Resource Booklet;
refining a suitable question / issue.
Advice for centres
Research ethics
Not all candidates appeared to have a firm grasp of research ethics or the need to attribute the work they
had taken to support their own work rather than in place of their own work. They should make sure they add
attributions in brackets to their Power Point slides,. On accompanying notes, they need to use quotation
marks and a bracket giving the source that material was taken from. This is good practice and must be
adhered to.
Submission and organisation of work
Examiners found it very helpful where Centres submitted a folder for each Centre which contained a
separate folder for each candidate’s work. However, there were some problems with submission of work.
The work must be submitted in an approved file format and on time.
All pieces of a candidate’s work must be labelled clearly so it can be easily located.
The file should only contain the work being submitted and not any previous versions.
Files should be labelled using underscores to separate the elements, as is clearly set out on the submission
Instructions: 9777_03_0610_3016_01 can easily be seen to be the first piece of work submitted by candidate
3016 for the June 2010 session of 9777/03.
Candidates must include their name, candidate number, Centre name and Centre number within every piece
of work they submit, as well as labelling every file appropriately.
9
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
Paper 9777/04
Independent Research Report
General Comments
There was excellent management by Centres and candidates of this first session of the Independent
Research Project.
Candidates and teachers engaged with the range of processes to a high standard. Candidates
•
•
•
devised suitable subjects and developed questions which were practicable and would lead to critical
evaluation of a range of evidence;
responded to the advice given by the CIE advisers and, in some cases, modified their original ideas;
planned and conducted research independently and teachers assessed and reported on how well
they had done this.
In educational terms there was obviously enormous value in carrying through GPR to its conclusion and
using the skills developed in the first three papers in a research report that anticipates university work and
equips candidates with essential skills.
Choice of Question
The majority of candidates who used the Outline Proposal Form (OPF) advisory service were assisted by
having a second opinion, and it is very strongly recommended that all proposed questions are sent in for
comment. Candidates do not have to take advice, but it may lead them to more reflection. If a question is
unsuitable, then it is better to bring this to light at the planning stage than at the end of the process.
A good range of questions from different disciplines was seen, reflecting the interests of individual
candidates. Centres need to make sure that the IRR’s criteria are met. Something that engages a candidate
may not necessarily lead to a report which can give access to much conceptual discussion or a wide enough
range of evidence; it is here that a delicate balance should be kept when offering advice between
maintaining the candidate’s enthusiasm while pointing out the limitations inherent in a proposed question.
Some questions were excellent in themselves and offered great opportunities for intellectual discussion.
Centres need to make sure they are also suitable for a particular candidate. A complex investigation into the
philosophy of science, for example, depends on a candidate being able to use words very carefully and
precisely. The Centre’s advice and guidance in the early stages of planning is crucial, therefore and it may
be useful to bear certain criteria in mind:
●
●
●
●
●
Is there a real debate or is the question going to lead to explanation and/or demonstration of one point of
view only? How much opportunity to explore perspectives is there?
Is there a range of appropriate evidence? Or, is the candidate going to fall back on, say, a few
websites?
Is the issue pitched at the appropriate intellectual level for the candidate?
If the subject is one that does engage the candidate’s interest, will s/he be able to stand back from it and
offer a critical view of the arguments, or will it lead her/him into an extended polemic?
If the title is derived from A Level or Pre-U study of another subject, will the candidate be able to work to
meet the criteria in the IRR mark scheme as opposed to the assessment criteria of that other subject?
Most candidates set themselves a suitable question which offered opportunities for discussion. A question
is essential for the IRR for the candidate to investigate and answer.
10
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Marking: the Assessment Objectives
AO1 It was very helpful where Centres justified the marks they gave for this by a detailed use of the
appropriate record sheet, and this aspect of the assessment worked well. It was easy to see why marks had
been awarded and Centres were sometimes very direct about the reasons why good marks had or had not
been given. There were a few discrepancies between comments and marks, most obviously when the
candidate had needed a fair amount of help, but had been awarded marks in the top band. It would be
helpful if Centres looked carefully at the match between mark and comment to ensure consistency.
AO2 This AO gave rise to some disagreements by Moderators with the marks given by Centres.
Candidates need to be aware of the continuity between Global Perspectives and the IRR, and the
expectation that a critical approach towards evidence is to be carried on and extended. IRRs need to be
evidence-based and evidence needs to be assessed across GPR as this is one central theme. A case, for
example, that video gaming is harmful could be assembled by reference to various hostile websites, a
newspaper such as The Daily Mail and the personal experience of frustrated parents, or a suicide in China
apparently induced by an excessive devotion to gaming. How convincing would these sources be? The
Critical Path encourages a discriminating approach to the masses of information available in the modern
world. Understanding views, explaining them and selecting evidence are all essential, and decision making
must be based on assessment of evidence. The ability to evaluate the theories is the skill that needs to be
developed. Centre marking needs to identify how well the evaluation of evidence is sustained and there
must be a critical use of evidence for higher marks to be awarded. Some Centres need to consider their
approach to assessing this.
AO3 Concerns argument and in most cases there was agreement about this between teachers and
Moderators. There was generally a clear sense of different views being engaged with and a debate being
considered. Centres should remember that analysis must take place and not just descriptive writing. Offering
a description of the views of various religions on euthanasia, even if supported by references to evidence, is
not demonstrating higher level skills. It is not necessary to write lengthy explanations, or long accounts of
the background to historical investigations, before starting any analysis. It is better to offer shorter work
which is consistently analytical rather than long descriptions. The IRR is being written for a specialist reader
– the teacher – who needs to know the view of the candidate, not the main facts of the topic.
Teachers are also urged to reward arguments which pay attention to alternatives rather than only
demonstrating a particular point of view. Special attention should also be paid to concluding sections to
ensure that the final view offered is consistent with what has gone before. At this level, and following on from
the demands of the three Global Perspectives components, there should be some reflection on the research
and an awareness both of its limitations and how further research might extend or modify conclusions.
There needs to be a sense of continuity between GP and the IRR, and reflection is fundamental and integral
to the process of research. This aspect needs to run through the whole two-year course.
AO4 Communication must be clear throughout; the same standards apply whatever the first language of the
candidate.
Marking must take into account whether a coherent argument had been communicated and how well it has
been communicated, as well as the accuracy of the writing. Centres should give full justification in their
comments when awarding very high AO4 marks.
AO5 It would be helpful here if teachers could indicate why work went beyond what would be expected at
Level 3 and could explain what criteria were being used to award marks. If a candidate picks a complex
topic, but in the IRR only describes different theories, thought needs to be given as to how much of an
intellectual challenge the IRR has been. If a standard A Level topic has been chosen, or a matter of general
interest which could be discussed at a modest level, then thought should be given as to how the Level 3
criteria have been met. It is possible to take rather an everyday topic, but to see its wider implications, use
demanding sources, explore concepts and come up with a piece of work which demonstrates a strong
analysis which goes well beyond Level 3 demands. It is important to consider the depth of the work
carefully.
With reference to marking style, there were some very helpful and clear comments which showed a good
understanding of the marking criteria and were related to the criteria. There is no need to write ‘A02/3,
A03/1’, etc. on the work, and it is appropriate to write ‘critical eval. of evidence’ or ‘no support for this view’
or ‘good cross referencing of sources’, and so on. Though it is understandable that teachers may want to
write comments such as ‘an interesting point’, it is more helpful to marker and Moderator to write ‘good point
to support argument’ or ‘shows insight’. As mentioned above, the points made in the margin should be
11
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives and Independent Research June 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
consistent with the overall mark. If marks are changed in internal standardisation, then it would be helpful to
see why.
To summarise, the marking was on the whole well-founded on the criteria and internal standardisation was
conducted to a high standard. There was clear assessment of some difficult elements, such as candidate
independence and commitment, and the standard of work produced was often impressive - scholarly and
analytical. The choice of topics was often varied and highly interesting, and Examiners hope that many
candidates were proud of their achievements and are now confident that they will be able to tackle whatever
university demands of them in terms of independent research. Reflection on performance is an integral part
of development and any suggestions for improvement are made in the context of a great deal of
commitment, thought and success by candidates and teachers.
12
© UCLES 2010