w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
w
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9777/01
Written Paper
Key Messages
•
•
•
•
•
•
The amount of time spent answering each question should be allocated according to the number of
available marks.
The key skill needed to score high marks is that of evaluation, supported by precise reference to the
passage.
A ‘perspective’, can be political, economic or social or global versus local, it is not simply the view of
a passage.
Candidates need to answer the question set and focus on the key words in the question. Question 2
required an evaluation of the evidence but Question 3 required an evaluation of the reasoning.
Brief and relevant quotations from the Documents should be used to illustrate a point and to support
arguments.
The strongest candidates reached a supported judgement about the issue under consideration.
General Comments
The passages were accessible to the candidates shown by their engagement with the issues, arguments and
views being put forward. Candidates were able to reach judgements about the strengths or weaknesses of
the Document or Documents under consideration. There were very few candidates who ran out of time,
although the allocation of time is an important issue. There were a significant number of candidates who
wrote over a side for Question 1, whereas three lines would have been sufficient. As a result, some answers
to the final question were too brief and ideas were not fully developed. Stronger candidates selected
relevant and appropriate quotes from the Documents demonstrating that they had a secure grasp of the
arguments being considered.
Comments on Specific Questions
Question 1
Most candidates were able to gain all of the available marks for this question. When candidates are asked to
‘give’ or ‘identify’ reasons they do not also need to be explained or evaluated. Answers could be given in
three bullet points, a lengthy answer was not required. The reasons given should be different from each
other and fully based on the Document and not on candidates’ other knowledge about the topic. Most
candidates were able to point to some of the following: the failure of remittances to reach the most needy or
those who did migrate often came from the slightly better off groups, which again meant the poorest did not
benefit, the waste of some of the remittances on consumer goods, the brain drain and the decline in the
scale of remittances.
Question 2
Most candidates were able to offer some evaluation of either the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence.
Good answers considered both strengths and weaknesses and picked out the idea of the reliability of the
data, and a balanced argument within the Document. Many of the weaknesses relied on lack of evidence
within the Document but higher scoring candidates seemed to be able to see the intricacies of each part with
some evaluation. Evaluation needed to be developed, focused and supported by material from the
Document. Candidates do not need to evaluate against their own knowledge.
The World Bank, together with The Economist, figured highly within most answers, being pointed out as
reliable sources, but possibly with their own agenda. Some candidates were able to comment on the lack of
evidence provided to support the view that Poland and Mexico were big recipients, nor was evidence given
to support the claim that remittances are efficient, aid is wasted and that funds are not stolen. The strongest
1
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
responses included an overall judgement as to whether the strengths of the evidence outweighed the
weaknesses.
Question 3
This question required candidates to evaluate the reasoning rather than the evidence. If candidates focused
on the evidence, credit was given where possible, but candidates could not access the higher levels if
reasoning was not evaluated. There were some comments about the balance of the argument and the fact
that the author is willing to consider the wider implications of remittances. Most importantly, candidates
could comment on the views of critics. Effective answers reached a supported judgement about whether the
reasoning was strengthened because the author focused on one region or country and provided detailed
examples to support his case. When dealing with weaknesses, some candidates pointed out the reasoning
was undermined by the lack of precise evidence and also questioned whether an argument can be based on
the example of one country. A significant number of candidates discussed the reliability of the evidence put
forward by the President, questioning its purpose during an election campaign.
Question 4
Candidates are encouraged to spend time planning their answers to this question as there is a lot of material
that could be used and careful planning will give coherence and structure to their argument. This question
carried the highest number of marks and candidates needed to write extended answers which considered
both Documents but were not limited to a comparison of the content of the Documents.
Candidates who scored higher marks built on the skills they had deployed successfully in Questions 2 and 3.
Candidates appreciated the different perspectives offered by the two Documents, although some of the
higher level answers noted that economic and social perspectives were considered by both Documents,
whereas Document 2 offered a clearer political slant. Where candidates were able to develop the idea of
differing perspectives it was often on the global nature of Document 1 as opposed to the more regional or
even local nature of Document 2 and this opened up the opportunity for discussion as to whether Document
2 offered a different perspective, but also allowed the possibility of in-depth evaluation. Strong answers
included comments on the authors’ agendas, their political stance and the type of evidence they chose to
use in the Documents. They also highlighted the type of language used within the Documents, suggesting
that the author of Document 2, for example, wanted to emphasise the message more clearly by giving the
view that he had been there personally. In order to score highly, candidates needed to sustain their
evaluation and make a judgement as to whether the Document 2 did or did not offer a different perspective.
2
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 9777/02
Essay
Key messages
•
•
•
Choosing a good question is central to achieving success in this component.
Candidates need to analyse and evaluate the perspectives not just the sources.
The word limit is very important, as if the conclusion is lost the argument will be weakened.
General Comments
There was a variety of interesting and engaged essay questions which showed that candidates had entered
into the global, interrogative spirit of the specification. There were also some very promising attempts to
follow personal interests and use demanding sources, and real efforts to establish a global debate.
Stronger answers personally engaged with and reflected upon different ideas and perspectives, whereas
weaker answers tended to dismiss alternative views. It is important that candidates clearly identify the
perspectives within their sources and move beyond criticism of the sources, a key element of the
examination component.
Weaker essays lacked extent or depth of critical engagement. Most often this manifested itself in limiting the
evaluation of sources and evidence to questions of credibility. Stronger candidates either had already taken
credibility into account in their selection of evidence, or used the provenance of a source for critical purposes
in locating perspectives, alongside an interrogation of more detailed aspects of argument and evidence
within a perspective.
Essays were often the result of extended reflection and deep engagement with sources. Conclusions need
to sustain this reflection, as although well-supported, they tended to be too brief. Candidates are reminded
to produce a correctly structured bibliography. The bibliography is a key indication of whether there has
been wider reading, also evident from the essay.
A small number of essays were written on philosophical topics which while arguably universal are really
academic debate, not issues which raise contrasting interest or passion from people with differing global
perspectives. Moreover some of these, while well-written and well-argued, did not contain the personal
reflection and ideas for further research that are necessary criteria for success at the higher levels.
Finally, there are very good pedagogical reasons for teaching core topics and sources as a series of models
before allowing students to explore their own interests. However, the essay submitted should reflect the
student’s own research and self-development.
Essay titles
Many candidates were successful in choosing a question of global or universal significance and addressing it
appropriately. Centres are encouraged to support candidates in their choice of question. Candidates should
produce a title which is a question and can lead to the identification and consideration of two contrasting
perspectives as this is central to the assessment.
Successful candidates came up with focused questions which were answerable in a way that implied a
possible judgment between alternatives. The wording of questions needs to be considered carefully, for
example, 'Should we try to preserve dying languages?' opens up the issue of who the ‘we’ is here, and which
perspective the candidate is operating from. Many candidates identified and controlled such difficulties
within the essay itself.
3
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Candidates need to ensure questions can be answered within the word limit. The following titles are too
general, and need more specific focus so that they can be tackled within the word limit available and with
some detailed discussion:
Is religious freedom good for society?
Is religion a positive force in society?
The phrase “To what extent…” in a title invites a balanced overall assessment of the candidate’s view, rather
than the setting up and evaluation of different global perspectives. The following title would have been
improved by the removal of the phrase, ‘to what extent’, To what extent should capital punishment still be
used?
The following examples from this session may be helpful to teachers:
Water Vapour Is A Major Contributor To Global Warming, So Why Are We So Preoccupied With Reducing
Our Carbon Emissions?
This calls for explanation rather than debate.
Is climate change an entirely natural phenomenon and nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels?
There is a danger here of setting up an absolutist position which is difficult to defend
Should proscribed drugs be legalised?’
This is a little broad to produce a fully focused judgment.
Is it right to build a mosque near Ground Zero?
This is a focused, debate-driven question but not globally-focused.
Would the increase in pressure on people to die be a problem in our society if euthanasia was legalised?
This has the problem of making assumptions which produces some distortions in the focus of the question.
‘Journalistic’ titles which add assumptions or bias should be avoided, for example, With 43 World Records
broken in one championship, has FINA made the correct decision to ban the controversial swimsuits?
Submission of work
Centres should upload the work to MOVEit in one folder using the naming convention given in the
‘Instructions for submission of electronic work.’ In future sessions, all essays should be in Word, not Adobe
Reader, and each essay should be headed with name, candidate number and Centre number.
4
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 9777/03
Presentation
Key messages
●
●
●
●
Successful presentations fully engaged with issues and perspectives from the Resource Booklet.
Good answers included the candidate’s own reasoning.
In strong answers, thinking, reasoning and presentation skills were used to help address the
question.
Candidates should ensure that audio files and video files are properly embedded in their work, as
Examiners cannot open links to school systems.
General Comments
The strongest candidates reached a very high level of performance, synthesising a number of skills
successfully to present their own thoughtful, reasoned case. The most successful candidates had conducted
significant research on an issue they had chosen from the Resource Booklet. They had reflected on the
issue and on the various different perspectives, and had used research evidence critically to support their
own line of reasoning. These candidates came to a conclusion which genuinely followed from their
reasoning, and presented a personal perspective gained from deep thought about the issues. Their work
was characterised by a strong control of the material and arguments. The very best candidates were also
able to bear an audience in mind and differentiate their presentation from a piece of work intended to be read
rather than heard.
Candidates responded well to the general theme of technology, with most candidates choosing a variant on
one of four sub-themes: modern technology (Internet) changing our brains, the relationship between small
scale green technologies and economic progress, and technology in sport and censorship of the Internet.
Resource Booklet
Many candidates genuinely engaged with specific issues and lines of reasoning in the Resource Booklet.
These candidates framed relevant questions and kept issues from the Resource Booklet at the centre of their
presentations (supported by their own research and thinking). Successful questions included:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Is modern technology eroding humanity’s sense of identity?
Should performance enhancing drugs or technologies be allowed in sports?
Does technology take away from the spirit of sport?
Should governments place restrictions on the Internet?
To what extent do social media play an important role in modern day revolutions?
How far can (green) technology solve poverty?
A proportion of candidates could have improved their performance by rooting their presentation firmly in the
Resource Booklet. Presentations should be focused on specific issues in the Resource Booklet rather than
focused on generic issues. For example, Document 4 considers small scale green technologies in small
villages in developing countries, specifically with reference to women. This should not prompt generic
presentations about nuclear power, global warming or women’s rights. Candidates should avoid picking up
on a word or phrase and interpreting it out of the context of the document. For example, the phrase in
Document 1 that technology can sometimes be harmful in the context of technology and copyright issues
should not give rise to presentations on weapons technology.
Some candidates could have improved their performance by ensuring that their treatment of the material
remained relevant and related to the Resource Booklet. For example, it was reasonable to apply ethical
issues relating to technology in swimming raised in Document 6 to other sports. However, this should not
prompt discussions of video refereeing in football or the applications of hawkeye in cricket, without reference
5
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
to the specific issues contained in Document 6. Candidates are asked to show how their presentation
relates to the pre-release materials.
Reasoning and research
The most successful candidates produced their own arguments, making thoughtful use of relevant, credible
sources based in significant research to support their own thinking and coming to a conclusion which
followed from their reasoning and reflection. A significant number of candidates marshalled their arguments
very skilfully. These candidates considered documents, sources and evidence and wove them into their own
perspective. Candidates must reference their sources carefully and ensure that when quotations are used,
they support their work, rather than being given in place of their own work.
It is important that candidates show an understanding of the nature of the reasoning in a particular passage.
Successful candidates developed reasoning and did not rely on presenting ideas and information. Some
candidates could improve their performance by presenting their own reasoning rather than depending on
other people’s reasoning.
Engagement with sources is very important; candidates should consider the ideas and perspectives
expressed in the source, rather than giving excessive attention to credibility assessment and identification of
weaknesses in the argument. Candidates can show they have understood and learned from credibility
assessment by selecting relevant and credible materials during their research, therefore a lengthy discussion
of the credibility of each source is not necessary. Assessment of argument has some use in helping to
decide whether to accept someone’s conclusions, but again, it is not a major focus. In this task, candidates
should show that they make thoughtful and critical use of others’ lines of reasoning, rather than detailing
strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning. Statistics are not always needed to support an argument,
especially if the argument is ethical. If a candidate feels that statistics are needed to support reasoning, they
should research and find statistical evidence – whilst remembering that statistics are only one way of
supporting a claim, and that the use of statistics may conceal more than it reveals.
Clarifying key terms is a skill embedded in the critical path, which can be used to inform and direct a line of
reasoning. The strongest candidates questioned ambiguous or uncertain terms, considering different ways
they could be interpreted and the effect this might have on the argument. Terms only need to be defined
where doing so serves a real purpose. Some candidates defined technology as follows:
‘Technology is the making, usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of
organization in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose.’ (Wikipedia)
However, if candidates then proceeded to talk about the Internet and social media, a generic definition of
technology was not helpful to their argument.
Perspectives and engagement
The strongest candidates engaged sympathetically and intellectually with genuinely different perspectives,
and the thinking that underlies them. Generally, candidates considered arguments and counter-arguments
which expressed different views. Candidates are encouraged to consider perspectives rooted in different
world views.
Submission of work
Centres are asked to follow the ‘Instructions for submission of electronic work’ and only use the approved file
formats and label all work correctly. Candidates must include their names, candidate numbers and Centre
numbers within every piece of work they submit. Candidates should not put the Centre name on their work.
N It is advisable to build in a little leeway in case problems arise so that work can still be submitted by the
deadline even if difficulties with technology are experienced.
6
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 9777/04
Independent Research report
Key Messages
•
The critical evaluation of evidence and arguments is a key skill.
•
Candidates are encouraged to reflect on the research methods used and conclusions reached.
•
Questions should be considered very carefully and any advice from Cambridge taken into account,
as it is designed to assist candidates in addressing the Assessment Objectives. Candidates are able
to modify their original plans.
General Comments
Centre marking was generally focused on the assessment objectives. It is important for explanations of the
mark to be based on the language of the mark scheme and on the main elements in each assessment
objective. The explanations of the mark should reflect the marginal annotation about the use of evidence
and the coherence and depth of argument. If there has been little critical evaluation of research material
then this will be apparent in the comment made in the body of the report and an appropriate mark for A02 will
be given. Similarly if there is indication of description rather than analysis in the marginal comments and if
there is little indication of different perspectives being discussed, then a high mark will not be justified for
A03. If the marginal commentary has drawn attention to sustained evaluation of source material and a
strong and purposeful argument then it will be apparent that higher level marks are justified for A02 and A03.
Marginal annotation is a key element in reaching the correct overall mark for each assessment objective.
Candidates achieved better results when their questions allowed for sustained discussion and analysis and
when their reports were firmly based on a range of appropriate evidence. Initial planning of questions is a
very important element of this part of the examination and guidance is available from a Cambridge
consultant. Questions which lead to description and explanation rather than evaluation generally restrict
access to higher level marks. Questions which are not easily answerable from evidence available to
candidates can cause problems. The initial proposal should indicate the nature of the discussion to be
undertaken and identify broad perspectives. There should also be an indication of the sources envisaged. If
the only identified sources are text books or limited websites, the candidate is unlikely to access evidence of
appropriate intellectual challenge.
The most persuasive conclusions integrate evidence and argument and are linked to interim judgements
made on key issues during the course of the Report. Candidates use evidence effectively by focusing on
argument and analysis. Long literature reviews which include a variety of sources described and
commented on in turn do not promote sustained argument. Better answers use evidence effectively in the
course of sustained argument, considering different ways of looking at the topic and reaching a considered
view. The Report is a summation of skills and critical ways of thinking about important topics developed by
the Global Perspectives element of the course. Strong answers revealed continuity in supported critical
evaluation of evidence and arguments.
Candidates should be aware of the appropriate level at which they wish to work and this should inform their
choice of topic and their approach to it. The title need not be in itself complex as by exploring the
implications of the title and bringing a critical approach to evidence, an apparently simple title may be made
highly challenging. Conversely complicated titles and reports which aim at what seems a high intellectual
level can, through lack of clarity and understanding, work instead at a much lower level. It is part of the
interaction between students and tutors to decide on the level and the degree of complexity and challenge
that will inform the Reports. Students may begin research on questions and find that the evidence cannot
easily be found or is too challenging or students may decide to extend the depth of their investigation. There
7
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
is every reason then, in discussion with the tutor, to modify either title or approach. The process of research
and writing up can be seen as developmental rather than being over dominated by initial plans.
The Report will be the result of a great deal of thought and reflection if it is to be successful, worthwhile and
show intellectual integrity. It is important that this reflective process continues after the Report has been
largely completed and that candidates stand back from what they have written to reflect on the conclusions
and to see limitations or possibilities for further development. Reflection is part of the assessment criteria
and a vital component of the Report.
It is important for Centres to organise the process to include input by subject specialists wherever possible
as candidates often chose specialist academic topics. The role of the Research Report coordinators is
somewhat different from the role of the tutors. Where there was cooperation between the tutor and the
coordinator and effective standardization of marks, then there was generally much less disagreement about
marks at moderation.
In terms of standards achieved, there was a great deal of variation and very different types of report were
produced. At the top end there was impressive intellectual sophistication, assured use of evidence and an
understanding of the topic which exceeded the demands of normal Level 3 study. Candidates displayed
obvious interest in their topic at all levels. Better answers showed detailed research and a probing critical
approach which did not take views and evidence at face value. There was a sense that candidates had built
on GP and made a real progression towards higher level work, showing independence of mind and
confidence in reaching judgements.
Not all candidates achieved the same level of critical thought but most were aware of different perspectives
and used a range of evidence. The least convincing responses made simple comments on provenance.
While it is important to know the origin of evidence, decisions in real life are based on considering the basis
and validity of views and bringing to bear alternative knowledge. This element did not always figure strongly
and candidates need to develop these critical skills.
Strong answers were aware of the implications of their questions, offered clear definitions when appropriate
and made the reader confident of a strong sense of organisation and direction. Clarity of argument and
concern for the reader are important elements. Weaker work was characterised by excessive repetition and
unsupported assertions. Candidates are advised to make sure that this substantial piece of work is
effectively organised and reads clearly.
Most good answers dealt with background information deftly and economically and moved the reader swiftly
onto possible issues and debates. This type of clarity was apparent in cogent conclusions which followed
naturally from previous arguments. Candidates need to ensure that there is a conclusion linked back to
previous arguments and evidence. Good answers kept a tight control of examples; it is important for all
candidates not to let examples and case studies, however interesting, lead the report. Excessive description
of exemplifying material is not required.
Comments on Specific Assessment Objectives
Assessment Objective 1
This was based on tutors completing an assessment form and the comments were generally very helpful and
revealing. There was usually a clear link between the comments made and the mark awarded. The
assessment is based on how much help a candidate needs and how far he or she is capable of selfmotivated and independent study and brings a positive attitude to tutorials. There were many comments on
the maturity and enthusiasm of the learners.
Assessment Objective 2
This is mainly concerned with evidence, with candidates being able to select a range of evidence and to use
it with a critical sense and link it to arguments. Better answers showed a strong critical sense, for example
looking at the methodology of experiments or surveys before accepting their validity as evidence. Many
offered corroboration between sources or deployed contextual knowledge to assess evidence. It is important
for candidates to move beyond basic analysis. Statements such as ‘The BBC can always be relied on not to
be biased’ or ‘This comes from an A level text book which was written for students and so is true’ or ‘he is an
expert in his field and so this view can be trusted’ show some critical sense, but more searching evaluation is
8
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives June 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
needed to meet the demands of the higher level of the AO. Better answers considered assumptions behind
certain evidence, how it had been arrived at, whether it was supported by contextual knowledge. A view by a
government minister about a possible new coordinating strategic planning body was judged in terms not only
in the vested interest of the minister to retain control but the underlying assumption in his evidence that
strategic and operational organizations should be kept separate – a view that the candidate challenged. This
sort of thinking moved a long way from ‘he is a politician and cannot be trusted’ or ‘he is a Conservative and
therefore biased’. There is a distinction between sources which merely illustrate a point of view, sources
which are evaluated but at a limited and basic level and sources which are evaluated in more sophisticated
ways that show a progression from GP.
Assessment Objective 3
This is concerned primarily with the quality of the argument. Arguments are weakened by long descriptive
passages, assertions based on no evidence, inconsistencies and irrelevance. Candidates need to answer
their own question. If the topic is how far the patriotic justifications of Henry V in Shakespeare’s play are
valid for modern audiences, then the answer must consider modern audiences and not be focused only on
aspects of the play or theories of a just war. Candidates must be sure that what they have written is focused
on the question that they have chosen.
Candidates sometimes demonstrated a viewpoint – for example that there is no case against euthanasia and
that people must be free to choose. The argument is weakened if other perspectives have not been properly
considered. An aim of the GPR course is to ensure that judgements are made by considering and
understanding a range of views, in order to encourage important life skills including a sympathetic
understanding of and respect for different views. There are clear distinctions between description,
unsupported assertion, one-sided and limited advocacy and balanced and well-considered judgement.
Results were impressive when reflection was an integral part of the process, with candidates making a
deliberate effort to consider different perspectives, and to ensure that points were developed and supported.
Assessment Objective 4
There were few reports which had poor spelling and grammar. To achieve excellence in this objective,
candidates must convey their views clearly and assess evidence and arguments in a direct way that is
comprehensible. Centre marking should link communication with a strong sense of argument for higher
marks. Candidates, too, should ensure that their writing is always easily followed even if the subject matter
is complex. Centres are encouraged to offer comments on candidates’ contributions to tutorials, as this is
part of communication assessment.
Assessment Objective 5
The degree of intellectual challenge varied quite considerably. Sometimes there was over-reliance on
material from Level 3 qualifications with an essay not showing sufficient intellectual challenge beyond what
might have been expected at A-level. If an investigation into research into particle physics becomes a
summary of different websites and a discussion of whether science in general deserves government funding,
it is not making the most of the opportunity to demonstrate sufficient intellectual challenge. Candidates must
bear this element in mind when choosing questions – it might be possible to discuss whether English football
managers are better than foreign ones at a high conceptual level, but it presents real problems to a
candidate attempting to do so. A seemingly straightforward topic, such as whether we should sacrifice civil
liberties to suppress terrorism, in fact opened up a profound discussion on the role of the state and the
philosophical basis of liberty. Centres need to have a specialist to determine the level of intellectual
challenge in many academic topics.
9
© 2011