w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND IRR
w
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9777/01
Written
General Comments
The overall standard was sound and there were some encouraging developments in candidate’s responses.
Most noticeably, a higher proportion of answers showed an ability to evaluate both the strengths and
weaknesses of a passage. This allowed more answers to access higher levels of the mark bands.
Comments on Individual Questions
Question 1
Many answers were able to identify two elements concerning the alternatives to fossil fuels that the USA
could learn from wartime Germany. Where candidates were unable to do this it was because they
concentrated their answer on the very early part of the document, limiting their response to a comment about
using coal to produce synthetic fuels. This could have been developed by pointing comparing US overreliance on the Middle East with German reliance on Russia or areas of eastern Europe for oil. Some
answers also suggested that the US could use this synthetic fuel to power its transport network in the same
way that the Germans had and this was also acceptable.
Question 2
(a)
Better answers did exactly what the questions required: summarise the evidence from the whole of
the document. This usually involved reference to the scale of Germany’s achievement using coal,
before going on to consider the US oil reserves and the cost of oil from the Middle East. Some
candidates did not draw their information from the whole of the document and this limited the mark
they could achieve. Instead, they chose to focus only on the first part and write about the success
of Germany’s synthetic oil production during the Second World War. Weaker answers also relied
heavily on copying out lengthy sections of the passage and ignoring the command ‘summarise’.
This approach has two detrimental impacts; firstly candidates are ignoring the command
‘summarise’ and secondly they are limiting the time they have available for the questions that carry
the greater number of marks.
(b)
The improvement in the quality of responses to this type of question was very noticeable. There
were many more responses which adopted a more balanced approach and considered both the
strengths and weaknesses of the Document and this represented a considerable development from
the summer when many answers looked at only one area. At the very top, there were candidates
who then went on to reach a judgement about the passage as a whole. The quality of the
evaluation deployed was also often of a higher quality as candidates avoided generalised
comments about the authorship, origin or purpose of the passage. Candidates were often able to
link the evaluation to the actual question and not leave their comments in isolation. The better
answers focused on a few areas of the passage and usually considered both the strengths and
weaknesses of the part under consideration and then reached a judgment about that piece of
evidence and its usefulness, before considering their next piece. The conclusions of these types of
approach then went on to reach an overall judgement about the evidence in the document, based
on what had been said before.
Candidates usually focused on about three or four parts of the document. This was perfectly
acceptable and allowed them to access the full mark range if the quality of the evaluation was of a
high level. Other candidates needed to develop the depth of their evaluative comments and aim to
be more balanced in their assessment of the evidence under consideration, particularly avoiding
sweeping comments such as those concerning authorship or purpose of the passage and why it
would make the evidence more or less reliable. These answers were less well supported by
1
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
analysis and either made simplistic comments or showed an unwillingness to go beyond the
obvious.
Question 3
Candidates were able to identify the different perspectives offered by the two documents about the
alternative to fossil fuels and this gave them a sound base from which to develop an answer. Most
responses to this question focused on a comparison of the content of the two documents. The quality of this
comparison was sometimes quite high and candidates made good use of the details contained within the
documents and were able to make valid points. Even when candidates compare the content they do need to
link their comparison back to the actual question set and they could do worse than simply state whether the
evidence supports or challenges the evidence presented in Document 1 as this ensures that they remain
focused on the actual question set. This will also allow candidates to reach an overall judgement about
Document 2, a feature that was all too frequently absent from many answers. The better answers were
characterised by a good conclusion and this is an area that Centres would be well advised to give some
attention to. A good conclusion, linked closely to the question can lift an answer into the next level.
Weaker answers often ignored a conclusion and Examiners were left wondering whether the candidate
thought that Document 2 challenged or reinforced Document 1. There were very few answers that went
beyond this and candidates do need to evaluate the evidence being presented in order to reach a conclusion
as to whether Document 2 challenges or reinforces Document 1. The mark scheme shows very clearly that
candidates will not be able to reach the very top level unless there is evaluation and this was usually the
issue on which even better candidates fell down.
At the lower levels, candidates need to be more precise in their references to the evidence they are
discussing, whether it is statistical or otherwise as this helps to make clear the point they are making and
again avoids the sweeping generalisations commented upon in Question 2. There were a number of
answers that were too brief and this meant that issues were not considered or, if they were discussed, were
done so at a very superficial level.
The final question is the most challenging on the paper and candidates need to allow themselves enough
time to develop fully their ideas. They need also to develop their evaluative skills for the task: comparing the
both documents and making a judgement based on that evaluation as to whether Document 2 supports or
challenges the perspective presented in Document 1. There will always be a variety of issues that
candidates can evaluate comparatively to help them make a series of interim judgements before reaching an
overall conclusion: e.g. language, supporting detail, statistics, authorship and purpose. Issues such as these
provide an ideal way to organise the material and, if candidates are unsure where to start, will provide the
structure need for an answer to this type of question.
Some points for teachers to work on with candidates
Answers could improve if
• the length of answers takes into account the number of marks available so that time is used sensibly
in the examination. A significant number wrote too much for the earlier questions [e.g. Q2(a)] and so
did not allow themselves sufficient time to deal in sufficient detail with those questions which carried
the higher number of marks.
• documents are read carefully so that candidates do not rely on a rather general or superficial reading
– because that will inevitably result in the subtle nuances being missed.
• closer attention is paid to the command stems in questions. If a question asks candidates to
summarise, as was asked in Question 2(a), they do not need to write out large amounts of the
passage. Instead, they should be looking to put the relevant material into their own words (and if
want to use quotations, they should be kept brief and to a minimum).
• in the final question the passages are evaluated against each other. If the comparison is only of the
content of the two passages, few marks can be scored.
2
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U Short Course
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND IRR
Paper 9777/02
Essay
A number of strong essays were seen this session. To assist teachers and candidates, the guidance below
highlights elements that were no so effective.
Question Setting
Candidates choose their own questions, with the advice of their teachers. This is both a challenge and an
opportunity. We stress again the importance of the teacher’s role in the choice of question. This is not only
legitimate guidance, for many candidates it is essential.
In this session, there was again a minority of ill-chosen questions. The appendix to the June 2010 Principal
Examiner’s Report gives thorough guidance on this, and Centres are urged to study it and draw it to the
attention of candidates. (for ease of reference, it has been reproduced at the end of this report). Some
candidates attempted to address multiple or vague questions which did not make any easier the writing of
effective answers.
The importance of Global Perspectives in the question
Most candidates chose questions which lent themselves to global treatment, though there were a few
exceptions. A minority also demonstrated a lack of respect for viewpoints uncongenial to the candidate. An
answer which is partisan throughout fails to address a core requirement of the syllabus: to empathise with
and engage with different global perspectives. A candidate cannot be successful with a one-sided answer.
It might be easier for candidates to attempt questions on topics about which they are genuinely unsure of the
answer, seeing the merits of differing positions. If the conclusion comes down emphatically on one side of a
debate it is possible the choice of question is flawed. At the very least, there needs to be reflection. A
suggested question for the candidate to bear in mind is “what circumstances, perspective or background
would have led me to hold his opinion/perform this action of which I so strongly disapprove (from my
perspective)?”
Use of Sources
After the establishment of perspectives, the identification and critical evaluation of a suitable evidence base
is crucial. Some Centres had clearly taught their candidates carefully and successfully the skills of assessing
sources and evidence critically. What was pleasing was to see that all candidates this session had moved
beyond the simplistic comparison of sources seen in some previous essays.
The purpose of academic research is to seek out but then test the strongest possible arguments. Most
candidates were aware of the need to choose effectively and there was some goo practice. Weaker
candidates tended to fall back on generic, stock evaluative comments. At best these were of limited value –
the author is a member of the US armed forces, so has expertise, this is an organisation representing the
nuclear industry so it’s views will be positive – though showing an awareness of the need to address the
evidence base. Nearly all candidates succeeded in moving beyond source to perspective. This was very
encouraging.
Structure of Work
Essay structure is one of the clearest differentiators between levels of achievement. As long as candidates
clearly establish the opposing perspectives at the outset (perhaps after some brief initial contextualisation)
and kept a clear focus on the terms of their question thereafter, it is hard for them not to be able to access at
least Level 3. Many did this effectively. From that point, they were limited only by their ability to evaluate, to
reflect and to develop a strong conclusion.
3
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U Short Course
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Typical shortcomings which led to candidates remaining rooted in Level 2 were:
●
●
●
●
●
●
excessive description or background material;
excessive general data as opposed to data sharply focused on the support of the argument –
passages of material only semi-relevant to the question set;
failure to identify a minimum of two clear perspectives: writing, in effect, a general essay on the topic;
failure to differentiate between a perspective and a source, or view, though this is less common,
implying, perhaps that the Inset to centres is bearing fruit;
failure to maintain focus on the development of an argument;
failure to set a question which was open to higher level interpretation. Here some Centres could
clearly have helped more.
Essays tended to be significantly more successful when candidates followed a structure.
typically,
●
●
●
●
●
●
In doing so,
they clearly established and defined perspectives at the outset;
they also established the global nature of the question and its wider implications later on;
they conceptualised the issues at work in the clash of perspectives giving a basis for analysis;
the strongest candidates selected appropriate sources and parts of sources and used that
conceptual framework in order to analyse them;
the strongest also had a sense of the dynamic interplay between perspectives, especially in terms of
how they used the key concepts. There were no false dichotomies;
better candidates also gave due weight to the conclusion and followed the successive stages set
down in the mark scheme: considering implications, reflecting on one’s own perspective, then using
that reflection in a supported conclusion which acknowledged 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
Every answer but one included a bibliography. All were good reflections of the content of the essays: it was
very good to see that none were just “bolted on”. Some were thin, however, and in each case this was
reflected in the essay itself. Candidates have plenty of time to read and research for this paper, and they
should be encouraged to do so. Wikipedia may a very good starting point, but it is unlikely to be an
appropriate final point in rigorous research of any detail.
Length of Essays
No essay exceeded the limit this session. Teachers are, nonetheless, asked to make sure that their
candidates know that the word limit is checked and enforced.
A proportion of candidates wrote considerably less than the word allowance. These essays invariably failed
to develop their arguments sufficiently and suffered accordingly. It is possible to address all the assessment
objectives in 1500 words, and candidates need to use all the space that they are allowed.
Administration and Presentation
Centre administration was good, for the most part. All files were correctly labelled for submission to MoveIT.
This was extremely helpful and it cannot be stressed too much how important this is. Every essays had on it
the Centre name and candidate number. Nearly all essays were clearly labelled with the candidate’s name.
One Centre, however, submitted work without any candidate numbers, and one of its essays was completely
anonymous. How is the Examiner to know whose work such a piece is?
Most Centres submitted their work on time; several a little early (which was very helpful). Several, however,
did not and had to be chased for the work. Work submitted late cannot advantage candidates.
Several Centres also had to be chased to submit the cover sheet which authenticates a candidate’s work.
That too cannot assist the candidates concerned.
4
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U Short Course
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Appendix: choosing a good question
Teachers are encouraged to support their candidates 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;
the nature of evaluation in this context;
how to identify further research questions;
the meaning of personal reflection in practice.
What follows is a compendium of common mistakes made in the phrasing of questions. It will be noted that
in most cases the topic chosen was potentially very 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 in fact 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, and therefore the problem is compounded. In short this cannot be done in
the space allowed.
What are the key policies in attempting to tackle over population and how effective are they? Here the
problem is slightly less severe, 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 is inviting a response to an imperative, and will not
naturally lead to the clear establishment of perspectives.
● 'What are your thoughts on...' is vague and inviting only the candidate’s perspective.
● “……” most dangerous of all. The candidate launches into an essay without posing any question at
all. Only if the Examiner was able quickly to identify a question and see perspectives explored could
this response move beyond Level 1.
'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 fully explore different
perspectives. Questions can be too specific.
‘Whose problem is poverty?’ Some questions were too big, and not specific enough like this one which
simply presented too many challenges to answer within the compass of 1500 words.
‘How is humanity trying to prove the existence of God?’ This question is problematic not because of its
scope, but rather because it calls for explanation rather than argument:
Some questions could only produce a factual answer: 'Is cryonics only for the wealthy?' Plainly it is given the
enormous cost. Changing the 'is' to a 'should' might have gone some way towards improving this question.
It does not help a candidate to develop a balance of perspectives if a question is too polemical: 'Is it time that
we came to terms with the fact that global warming is occurring and that we should tackle the problem now?'
‘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 then to locate different perspectives.
5
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U Short Course
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
‘do the benefits of x outweigh the disadvantages’ This type of question is rarely successful because it tends
to become very broad and consequently hard for the candidate to focus conceptually, as opposed to simply
listing benefits and disadvantages.
‘What should be the role of architecture in a globalised world?’ is a little unfocused, and leaves the candidate
with an unnecessarily hard task defining and approaching the concept of globalisation and then addressing a
difficult question.
Titles not framed as questions 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 to drift from focus on it.
‘Peep Show or Ultimate Security’ (on body-scanning x-ray machines at airports) 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.
There are questions which are well-framed, neutral in tone and clearly inviting a comparison of perspectives,
but potentially failing to ensure that those perspectives are global:
To what extent should the Basques’ ancient history determine their right to independence?
Was it right to abandon the third runway at Heathrow?
Should the red panda be left to face extinction?
To what extent is deforestation contributing to global warming?
‘To What Extent Have Communist Policies Affected China’s Rapid Rise as an Economic Power?’ These
questions are dangerous. They can be answered using global perspectives, but it is possible to treat them
purely locally, as national, or regional issues.
Has post Cold War US foreign policy been ethical, particularly in relation to intervention in Somalia? This too
needs a conscious effort at a global approach.
The best questions are those which can clearly invite a global response:
Is Nuclear Power the Best Option? Though again, the slightly vague phrasing might lead to an underfocused essay.
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 all of these cases 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.
6
© UCLES 2010
Cambridge Pre-U Short Course
9777 Global perspectives and IRR November 2010
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND IRR
Paper 9777/03
Presentation
General comments
Performance was pleasing. It was especially good to note that a significant proportion of candidates
provided audio or video files in addition to written notes. The best embedded those files in their presentation
rather than sending them in as free-standing adjuncts.
Many candidates chose questions which related well to issues in the pre-release resources booklet and
which were clearly questions of global significance. There were some very interesting explanations by
candidates about how a question related to the resource booklet. That was very helpful. There were also
some very sound explorations of the global incidence of a problem, such as violence against women or gun
crime. In future, candidates might profit from considering the global significance and implications of
problems as well as their geographic distribution.
The most common questions chosen by candidates related to the subjects of non-lethal weapons, gun crime
and/or violence against women. Against those, a small number of candidates chose rather to discuss the
role or success of the UN or picked up on issues in the pre-release documents to do with managing
international relations.
Teachers are encouraged to remind their candidates that a presentation needs to have a clear structure. A
presentation must make a reasoned case and consider seriously different perspectives. The most
successful candidates had thought deeply and incisively, engaging with their chosen issue and with various
different perspectives, reflecting seriously, evaluating source material carefully in order to help them answer
their question, and producing coherent reasoning to support their ultimate view. These candidates tended to
find compromise solutions, but they were also able to answer counter-argument effectively, showing why
they did not accept an alternative view rather than simply disagreeing or juxtaposing alternatives.
Successful candidates researched their chosen issue beyond the initial stimulus of the resource material,
selected appropriate sources to quote, evaluated these sources on their merits and the quality of the
reasoning, and used them to support their own reasoning. These candidates avoided formulaic comments
about credibility which disregarded anything the source actually said.
Administration
Most Centres submitted their presentations by the deadline, but that was not true in every case. The
deadline is not a starting point for submission. It carries the same great weight as the date for a written
examination.
Most Centres were very helpful in following carefully the Instructions about labelling and identifying
presentations. If files are not labelled appropriately, it is self-evident that a candidate’s chances are
jeopardised. It goes without saying that every piece of work submitted needs to show the candidate’s name
and number as well as the Centre’s name and number. If a series of different wma files are submitted
without a single candidate name or number, how is an Examiner to know who is to be credited?
7
© UCLES 2010