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