Example Candidate Responses: (Standards Booklet)

w
w
w
.X
tr
me
eP
ap
er
s.c
om
Example Candidate Responses
(Standards Booklet)
Cambridge IGCSE®
Global Perspectives (US)
0426
Cambridge Secondary 2
Copyright Acknowledgements:
Source 2 © www.cartoonstock.com.
Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has
been sought and cleared where possible. Every reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES)
to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the publisher
will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity.
Cambridge International Examinations retains the copyright on all its publications. Registered Centres
are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use. However, we cannot give
permission to Centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use
within a Centre.
® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations.
© Cambridge International Examinations 2013

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
Assessment at a glance ........................................................................................................ 3
Component 3 – Written Paper .............................................................................................. 4

Question 1 ..................................................................................................................................................7
Question 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Question 3 ................................................................................................................................................29
Question 4 ................................................................................................................................................45
Introduction
Introduction
The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Component 3 of the Cambridge
IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) (0426) syllabus and to show how different levels of candidates’
performance relate to the subject’s curriculum and assessment objectives.
In this booklet a range of candidate responses has been chosen to exemplify grade A, grade C and grade
E level responses. Each response is accompanied by a brief commentary explaining the strengths and
weaknesses of the answers.
For ease of reference the following format has been adopted:
Question
Mark scheme
Example candidate
response
Examiner comment
Each question is followed by an extract of the mark scheme used by examiners. This, in turn, is followed by
examples of marked candidate responses, each with an examiner comment on performance. Comments are
given to indicate where and why marks were awarded, and how additional marks could have been obtained.
In this way, it is possible to understand what candidates have done to gain their marks and what they still
have to do to improve their grades.
Past papers, examiner reports and other teacher support materials are available on Teacher Support at
http://teachers.cie.org.uk
2 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Assessment at a glance
Assessment at a glance
For Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives, candidates take three compulsory components: Individual
Research, a Group Project and a Written Paper. Candidates are eligible for grades A* to G.
Component Weighting Raw Nature of

mark assessment
1 Individual Research
Candidates carry out research based on Internal
40% 80
two topic areas and submit an Individual Individual
Research report on each topic.
2 Group Project
The Group Project comprises two elements.
Group Element
Candidates collaborate to produce a plan
and carry out a group project based on
research into one topic area. The topic area
Internal
must be different from the topics studied for 30% 60 Group 33%
the Individual Research.
Individual 67%
Individual Element
Candidates evaluate the plan, process and
outcome of the group project as well as
their individual contributions to the project.
Candidates report on what they have learnt
from cross-cultural collaborations.
3 Written Paper 1 hour 15 minutes

The Written Paper consists of compulsory
questions based on a range of sources External
30% 60
provided with the paper. Individual
Sources will present global issues from a
range of perspectives.
Teachers are reminded that the full syllabus is available at www.cie.org.uk
Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 3

Component 3 – Written Paper
The Written Paper lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes.
Candidates answer compulsory, structured questions based on sources provided with the paper. Questions
require both short answers and longer responses, all in continuous prose.
The stimulus material provided with the Written Paper will be based on topics listed in the syllabus.
Candidates are assessed on their ability to:
• identify and analyse key issues

• distinguish between fact, opinion, prediction and value judgement
• identify and evaluate possible future scenarios and courses of action
• take into account different perspectives on issues
• make judgements based on evidence and on personal perspectives
• suggest a line of enquiry, outlining a possible approach to a research project
• evaluate sources, claims and the effectiveness of arguments
• develop a line of reasoning to support a judgement, decision or course of action
Nature of assessment
The Written Paper is an externally set assessment, marked by Cambridge.

Paper 3 Source Material (Resource Booklet)


Question 1

Mark scheme


Example candidate response – grade A
Examiner comment – grade A

1 (a) From the Source Material, the candidate was expected to identify three ways that the internet might
have a negative effect on thinking. This candidate correctly analysed the Source Material to identify
the following four ways:
• losing the ability to concentrate

• losing the ability to think about issues in detail
• thinking less clearly
• young people don’t think about important issues any more

The candidate gave four reasons, which was not necessary, as this went beyond the demands of
the question and only three marks were available. Candidates only need to respond to the demands
stated in the question; going beyond this only reduces the amount of time available for other
questions. Candidates were not awarded marks for ways that were not contained within the Source
Material.
Mark awarded = 3 out of 3
(b) From the Source Material, the candidate was expected to identify one way in which the internet can
help people to go beyond local perspectives. This candidate correctly analysed the Source Material
to identify the following way:
• helps people to think more internationally
The candidate added an additional way that was not contained in the Source Material: ‘the internet
enables you to communicate with people all around the world.’ As candidates were not awarded
marks for ways that were not contained within the Source Material this was unnecessary and has
the effect of reducing the amount of time available for other questions.
(c) From the Source Material, candidates were expected to identify two additional ways in which
the internet might have a positive effect on thinking, different from that given by the candidate in
their answer to Question 1b. This candidate correctly analysed the Source Material to identify the
following three ways:
• improve problem solving skills

• develops social thinking
• expands social networks
The candidate added an additional way beyond the demands of the question. Candidates only need
to respond to the demands of the question; going beyond this only reduces the amount of time
available for other questions. Candidates were not awarded marks for additional ways suggested
and ways that were not contained within the Source Material.
(d) From the Source Material, the candidate was expected to identify three different kinds of thinking.
This candidate correctly analysed the Source Material to identify the following kinds of thinking:
• knowing facts – knowledge

• knowing about how to do things – skills
• thinking about people and relationships – social thinking
The candidate tended to use their own words to answer the question, which is permissible. In this
type of question it is sufficient to simply quote the relevant example from the Source Material; this
saves time and ensures that the response is accurate and rewarded appropriately.

Example candidate response – grade C
Examiner comment – grade C

the following two ways:
• easily distracted
• brains filled with celebrity nonsense
The two ways are clearly stated, based on the language in the Source Material, which is a strength
of this answer. However the first bullet point could not be awarded as it does not clearly describe an
effect on thinking – ‘getting lost’ is unclear, or could be another way to describe distraction, which
would be a repeat of the way described in the third bullet point.

• socialising with people from different countries
The candidate used their own words to answer the question rather than quoting directly from the
Source Material. This is permissible, but candidates may be less likely to give the answer accurately.
(c) From the Source Material, candidates were expected to identify two additional ways in which the
internet might have a positive effect on thinking, different from that given by the candidate in their
answer to Question 1b.
The candidate correctly analysed the Source Material to identify the following way:
• it develops our ability to think and explore beyond our knowledge
The response would have benefited from greater clarity, but was just sufficient to be rewarded a
mark. The response could have been improved if an additional positive effect on thinking had been
correctly identified; the first bullet point was unclear as the nature or type of thinking developed by
learning from the internet was not specified.
• thinking less clearly/confused thinking

• problem solving
• thinking internationally
The response was clear and succinct, quoting directly from the Source Material.

Example candidate response – grade E
Examiner comment – grade E

the following way:
• easily distracted
The first and second bullet points essentially make the same point about distracting people from
their main tasks. The last bullet point does not relate to the Source Material and is unclear, so cannot
be rewarded.

The response could be improved by identifying a greater range of ways in which the internet might
affect thinking negatively, avoiding repetition and responding to the demands of the question to use
the Source Material.
• you can connect to people from all around the world to know their views
The candidate used their own words to answer the question rather than quoting directly from the
Source Material. This is permissible, but candidates may be less likely to give the answer accurately.
(c) From the Source Material, candidates were expected to identify two additional ways in which the
internet might have a positive effect on thinking, different from that given by the candidate in their
answer to Question 1b.
The candidate correctly analysed the Source Material to identify the following way:
• it develops our social skills
The response identified this way in which the internet affects thinking positively correctly, however
the first bullet point simply repeats the question in 1b and cannot be rewarded.
The response could be improved by identifying an additional way in which the internet affects
thinking positively from the Source Material, as outlined in the Mark Scheme.
• concentration
• develops skills
• social skills
The response was generally clear, taken directly from the Source Material. The second bullet point
was not a form of thinking and could not be rewarded.

Question 2

Mark scheme





2 (a) The candidate was expected to suggest a method for verifying or testing the claim that computer
games make young people less aware of important issues, for example in current affairs. This
question was designed to test candidates’ ability to identify evidence and suggest further lines of
enquiry to verify claims or statements about global issues, for example to test a hypothesis.
The candidate gave two briefly described suggestions to test the claim:
• ask the person for their evidence for making the claim so that it can be subject to evaluation

• conduct a survey with computer gamers about their understanding and following of important
issues, like elections
This response was just at Level 3 – a Strong Response. The response was clearly related to the
issue of the effect of computer games on young people’s awareness of important issues, and
referred appropriately to both variables. Although the explanations were not fully developed, the
presentation of two linked ways to test the claim merited reward at this level.
The response could have been improved by explaining how the evidence could have been evaluated
and the survey analysed, perhaps by describing the results that might be expected if the claim was
true.
(b) The candidate was expected to suggest a method for analysing the effect of a computer game
on problem solving skills; specifically to test the idea that computer games can increase problem
solving skills. This question was designed to test candidates’ ability to identify evidence and suggest
further lines of enquiry to verify claims or statements i.e. to test a claim or hypothesis.
This response contained a description and explanation of a method to test and evaluate the claim.
The response was clearly and explicitly related to the issue of the effect of computer games on
problem solving skills. The method suggested was to test the problem solving skills of people before
and after playing progressively harder computer games. The method of analysis and the way to
reach a conclusion was explained simply. This placed the answer in the level of a Strong Response.
Although the mark awarded was at the highest level, overall the response would have benefited
from an example of a problem solving task and a fuller, clearer description of how the results could
be used to test the claim, perhaps referring to numerical differences.
(c) The candidate was expected to identify and explain potential problems with the test they had
suggested in Question 2b. The question was designed to test candidates’ ability to evaluate
research methods, evidence and conclusions.
The candidate identified two potential problems with their test:
• finding a suitable problem solving task

• separating natural ability from the effect of playing computer games
The response contained simple descriptions of two possible problems. However there was little
attempt to explain the impact of the problems on the tests and making judgements about the claim.
As a result the mark awarded was at the level of a Reasonable Response.
To improve the response, the candidate might have explained these problems in more detail, for
example saying why finding a suitable test might be difficult, perhaps due to lack of personal
experience, developing tests that everyone could understand, creating tests which were valid and
reliable, or difficulties in standardising tests. Explaining the difficulty of assuming correlations mean
cause is another possible development of the latter part of the response.
(d) The candidate was expected to apply and examine the implications of the tests that they had
designed in their answers to Questions 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) to the disagreement between ‘keep_us_
free and no1gamer’ in Source 1. The question was designed to test candidates’ ability to interpret
and apply evidence to reach a conclusion.

The candidate referred to three ways in which the tests and the problems might solve the
disagreement:
• by providing firm evidence from investigations that was factual and not just opinion
• by showing which claims were actually correct to inform the debate
• to ensure that no ‘loop-holes’ or problems might create misinterpretations
The candidate described and explained how the tests related to the issues in question – that of
internet use and thinking about important issues, and the impact of computer games on problem
solving skills. This placed the answer in the level of a Strong Response. The first and third bullet
points were particularly strong and relevant issues in using evidence to verify claims or resolve
disagreements.
The second bullet point was a little generalised and would have benefited from referring directly to
the claims of each blogger to show how the evidence might have been interpreted to resolve the
disagreement. For example, ’If the test in Q2a shows that people who use computer games a lot
don’t know about important issues, then this proves that keep_us_free is right.’
Therefore, to reach the top of the Strong Response, the candidate needed to explain explicitly how
the results of the tests described in their previous answers related to the disagreement between the
two bloggers. The disagreement between the bloggers was treated implicitly and the significance of
evidence gathered from the tests and conclusions reached left unexplored. The answer might also
have explored further the difficulty of finding suitable tests, the problems of concluding causation
from correlation and intervening variables, as suggested in the answer to Question 2c. Though not
all of these suggestions would be necessary to reach the top of this level and achieve maximum
marks.


The candidate gave a briefly described suggestion to test the claim:
• surveying people on their use of computer games and knowledge of important issues facing the
world

This response was just at a level of a Reasonable Response. The response was related to the
issue of the effect of computer games on people’s awareness of important issues, and referred
appropriately to both variables. Although the explanation was not fully developed and the intended
focus on young people was implicit only, the presentation of a way to test the claim merited reward
at this level.
The response could have been improved by explaining how the evidence could have been evaluated
and the survey analysed, perhaps by describing the difference in the results that might be expected
if the claim was true. In addition examples of the type of questions to be asked, or of the nature of
the people invited to become participants, would also have been valuable.
This response contained a description and explanation of a method to test and evaluate the claim.
The response was related to the issue of the effect of computer games on problem solving skills.
The method suggested was to find people who had no experience of computer games, and then
test their problem solving skills before and after playing computer game. The nature of the problem
solving test, method of analysis and the way to reach a conclusion was not explained. Overall, the
explanation was not developed but the understanding and relevance of the method was sound; this
just placed the answer in the level of a Reasonable Response.
The response would have benefited from an example of a problem solving task and a fuller, clearer
description of how the results could be used to test the claim, perhaps referring to numerical
differences in test scores.
The candidate identified two related potential problems with their test:
• prior learning and ability in problem solving

• previous experience in the test
The response contained only a simple description of these possible problems. There was little
attempt to explain the impact of the problems on the test, comparing the children and making
judgements about the claim. As a result the mark awarded was just at the level of a Reasonable
Response.
To improve the response, the candidate might have explained these problems in more detail, for
example saying how prior ability might make comparison of the children and therefore the results
difficult to interpret. Explaining the difficulty of assuming that correlations mean a causal effect is
another possible development of the response.

The candidate simply suggests that the results will provide information (implying evidence) to show
who is right and wrong. There is no explanation of the way that the results could support or refute
their claims and potentially resolve the disagreement. The answer is asserted and generalised. This
placed the answer in the level of a Basic Response.
Therefore, to improve the answer and reach the higher levels of response, the candidate needed
to explain explicitly how the results of the tests described in their previous answers related to the
disagreement between the two bloggers. The disagreement between the bloggers was treated
implicitly and the significance of evidence gathered from the tests and conclusions reached
left unexplored. The answer might also have explored further the difficulty of prior learning and
experience of the test, as suggested in the answer to Question 2c.


The candidate simply described a suggestion to test the claim – observing students on-line to record
the type of sites visited; which may be ‘factual or gaming’. However the method of analysis and the
way to reach a conclusion on the claim was not explained and only implied. The response was very
generalised. This just placed the response in the level of a Basic Response.

The response could have been improved by addressing the question more explicitly, for example by
describing the sites more fully and explaining how evidence gathered might be evaluated and the
browsing data analysed in relation to the claim.
This response contained a simple description and some explanation of a method to test and evaluate
the claim. The response was related to the issue of the effect of computer games on problem
solving skills. The method suggested was to give computer games containing problems repeatedly
to people to solve; then measure how long it takes to solve the problem each time to see if the
problems are solved more quickly. The method of analysis and evaluation of the clam was therefore
described, albeit simply and with some elements left implicit.
Overall, the explanation was not developed fully though the understanding and relevance of the
method was reasonable; this just placed the response in the level of a Reasonable Response.
The response would have benefited from an explanation of the problem solving games and a fuller,
clearer description of how the results could be used to test the claim, perhaps explaining how to
measure the speed of problem solving and the implications of possible results.
The candidate identified one related potential problems with their test:
• the games may be too easy to develop problem solving skills
The response contained a simple description of this possible problem; however there was little
attempt to explain the impact of the problems on the test and making judgements about the claim.
As a result the mark awarded was at the level of a Basic Response.
To improve the response, the candidate might have explained this problem in more detail, for
example saying specifically why an easy game might not develop problem solving and make
reaching a conclusion difficult. Additional problems should also have been identified, for example:
• practical e.g. time and cost

• due to the nature/limitations of the research method
• due to access to information and participants e.g. gatekeepers
• from sampling
• from possible bias

The candidate did not address the question, but simply described some effects of the internet on
thinking. The answer did not contain any material worthy of credit
Therefore, to improve the answer and reach the higher levels of response, the candidate needed
to explain explicitly how the results of the tests described in their previous answers related to the
disagreement between the two bloggers. The answer might also have explored potential problems
with the test, as suggested in Q2c.
Question 3


Mark scheme







3 (a) Using the cartoon in Source 2, candidates were expected to explain why claims made online might
not be reliable. The question was designed to test candidates’ ability to evaluate claims and sources
of evidence, especially those which are internet based.
The candidate clearly identified and explained three reasons in simple terms:
• it is difficult to check the truth of internet claims

• anyone can say what they want
• there are few enforced rules to govern internet content
The range of reasons given just placed the answer at the level of a Strong Response. The response
would benefit from greater clarity and accuracy of expression. Nevertheless there was sufficient
explanation to justify a mark at this level.
Two reasons explained more fully would also be sufficient to gain maximum marks.
(b) Using the statement from Zafar_66 in Source 1, the candidate was expected to assess the reliability
of evidence that consisted of ‘a number of books’. The question was designed to test candidates’
ability to evaluate evidence.
The candidates suggested that ‘a number of books’ was not reliable, using the following arguments:
• the books may only be biased opinion

• more research should have been done to look at other perspectives
The response described these arguments simply with little explanation; the arguments tended to be
asserted and generalised. This placed the answer at the level of a Reasonable Response.
The range of arguments would have been sufficient to justify marks being awarded at the level of
a Strong Response if the descriptions had been accompanied by clear explanations, perhaps using
examples. The response would benefit from greater clarity and accuracy of expression. Two reasons
explained more fully would also be sufficient to gain maximum marks.
(c) The candidate was expected to compare and assess the reasoning within the statements made by
two different bloggers in Source 1 who were debating about the impact of the internet on thinking.
In order to do so candidates were asked to consider the arguments, reliability of evidence, and
the reasoning or values behind the argument to reach a considered conclusion about the relative
strength of the statements. The question was designed to test candidates’ ability to evaluate
argument and reasoning.
The candidate tended to discuss both the arguments made by each of the bloggers and the quality
of their reasoning and evidence. This was a strength of the response.
The candidate discussed a range of issues and compared both bloggers. Discussion included:
• the different types and amount of evidence used

• the balance of the arguments
• comparison of the arguments with the candidate’s own experience
• the consequences, causes and effects of the internet as asserted by the bloggers

• the reasonableness of the assertions made, for example of the extent to which the internet
distracts users
The candidate also compared the views of the bloggers to their own opinion. A number of
arguments were explored in a developed way. Developed points usually have at least two elements
and contain some extension, explanation, or exemplification.
The candidate referred specifically to the content of the bloggers statements in the Source Material,
which demonstrated a good use of evidence to support their own argument. The discussion was
balanced. There was a clear conclusion reached, based upon the weight of argument. This placed
the answer at the level of a Strong Response.
To place the answer at the highest level of a Very Good Response, the candidate might have
addressed the issues of the quality of the argument, for example tone and type of argument, and
the values of the bloggers. For example discussing the use of language, evidence, exemplification,
sources of bias and accuracy of data.


The candidate clearly identified and explained two reasons in simple terms:

• the information may not be true/deliberate misinformation

• the information may be opinion rather than fact
These reasons alone place the answer at the level of a Reasonable Response. However additional
examples and the problems explained simply just places the answer in the next Reasonable Level.
To improve the answer to reach the highest level of a Strong Response the candidate might have
suggested an additional reason for on-line claims being potentially unreliable. For example due to the
difficulty of checking on-line material and lack of supporting evidence.
The candidate suggested that ‘a number of books’ was unreliable, using the following arguments:
• the number of books is not stated

• which books were used is not stated
• there is no indication of fact or opinion
The first two reasons are acceptable; however the last bullet point is not clear and does not
necessarily relate to the key issue of the extent of the evidence and the content of the books
specifically. The response described the reasons simply with no explanation; the argument was
asserted and generalised. This placed the answer just at the level of a Reasonable Response.
The last part of the sentence potentially gave a reason for believing the evidence was unreliable for
the purpose; however the argument was unclear and no explanation for the assertion made by the
candidate was apparent, so this could not be credited.
The argument would have been sufficient to justify marks being awarded at the level of a
Reasonable Response if the description had been accompanied by fuller explanation, perhaps using
examples. Two reasons explained more fully would be sufficient to gain maximum marks.
(c) The candidate was expected to compare and assess the reasoning within the statements made
by two different bloggers in Source 1 who were debating the impact of the internet on thinking.
The candidate tended to focus on the evidence used by violet_blue, explaining that this was the
stronger argument, exploring several aspects, just in a developed way:
• violet_blue used more facts than keep_us_free

• violet_blue used more examples than keep_us_free
• violet_blue used more information and evidence than keep_us_free
• keep_us_free used more opinion, which was weaker evidence
The candidate was unafraid to quote from the Source Material, which demonstrated a good use
of evidence to support their own argument. The candidate did refer explicitly to material from both
bloggers; the discussion was therefore balanced. However the range of issues discussed was

relatively narrow and not developed fully. On balance, this placed the answer at the top level of a
Reasonable Response.
To improve the answer, the candidate should have addressed more issues on the quality of the
argument in addition to the arguments themselves, for example tone and type of argument, and
the values of the bloggers more fully. For example discussing the use of language, sources of bias
and accuracy of data. The addition of a final, clear conclusion, based upon the weight of argument,
would have been valuable.



The candidate clearly identified three reasons in simple terms:
• there is open access to post information online and anyone can use it
• researching on more than one site is needed
• people lie and don’t tell the truth online
Although the answer lacks clarity of expression at times, these reasons place the answer at the level
of a Strong Response.
To improve the answer the candidate might have developed the explanations further and more
clearly, perhaps by using examples.
The candidates suggested that ‘a number of books’ was unreliable, using the following argument:
• the number of books used is not clear
This reason was acceptable; but the explanation of the reason was simple with little development.
The first part of the response asserting that books are more reliable than the internet is not
necessarily true and could not be rewarded. At the end of the response the candidate suggests
that there will be books claiming that the internet is good, however the implications of this unclear
statement for the question are not discussed, so this could not be rewarded. Overall, there was just
sufficient material to place the answer at the level of a Basic Response.
The argument would have been sufficient to justify marks being awarded at the higher levels of
response if additional reasons had been identified, accompanied by fuller explanation, perhaps using
examples. Two reasons explained more fully would be sufficient to gain maximum marks.
Additional reasons for unreliability might be:
• books may be biased

• books may be misinterpreted
• the research in the book may not be high quality
(c) The candidate was expected to compare and assess the reasoning within the statements made by
two different bloggers in Source 1 who were debating about the impact of the internet on thinking.
In this response, the candidate did not address the question directly and did not discuss the
relative strengths of the argument of the two bloggers in a developed way. The response mainly

simply listed the issues raised by the bloggers but did not comment directly on the quality of their
arguments and reasoning.
Having listed the issues raised by the bloggers, the candidate briefly described their own personal
opinion on a few of these issues, especially the effect of the internet on learning and thinking. At the
end of the response the candidate asserted that both bloggers had made ‘good arguments’ and that
violet_blue’s was stronger, but without any explanation of this assertion. On balance, as the issues
raised by the bloggers had been identified and there was some limited commentary on these, the
answer was at the level of a Basic Response.
To improve the answer, the candidate should have addressed more issues on the quality of the
argument in addition to the arguments themselves, for example tone and type of argument, the
evidence used, and the values of the bloggers more fully. For example discussing the use of
language, sources of bias and accuracy of data. The addition of a more developed, final conclusion,
based upon the weight of argument, would have been valuable.

Question 4

Mark scheme




4 The candidate was expected to assess the impact of the internet on thinking and to justify their opinion
on the degree to which the effects are generally positive or negative. The candidate was also expected
to use the material found in the Sources, but avoid repeating or recycling without further development.
Other material may be introduced but was not necessary to gain full marks. The question was designed
to test candidates’ ability to develop a line of reasoning and evaluate.
The candidate argued mainly for the ‘positive’ impact of the internet on thinking, referring to a wide
range of issues:
• improves learning
• encourages social thinking and relationships
• supports communication and ‘keeping in touch’
• helps the elderly
• gives access to lots of data/information to inform learning
• promotes independence, especially in learning
These arguments were generally supported with examples and evidence, particularly from the
candidate’s personal experience, especially of learning at school.
The candidate also considered some negative aspects of the internet to give balance to the argument
and discussion, mainly including the dangers of the internet – e.g. addiction and security.
This placed the response at the highest level; it was quite well supported with logical reasoning and
made clear judgements about whether or not the impact of the internet on thinking was mainly positive
or negative. A clear, balanced assessment or conclusion was also reached.
The response might have been improved by reducing the number of issues raised and exploring fewer
in more detail, thereby showing greater depth of argument and reasoning, referring to more evidence to
support the points being made.



to use the material found in the Sources, but avoid simply repeating or recycling without further
development. Other material may be introduced but was not necessary to gain full marks. The question
was designed to test candidates’ ability to develop a line of reasoning and evaluate.
The candidate argued mainly for the ‘positive’ impact of the internet on thinking, referring only to several
issues:
• increased access to new knowledge and skills, for example from Wikipedia
• the potential of educational sites for learning and school work e.g. projects and practicals
• improvement to thinking skills and concentration
These arguments were simply supported with some examples from the candidate’s personal
experience, for example of using the internet for recipes. The candidate attempted to provide a balanced
argument, but tended to leave the negative aspects of the internet undeveloped, generalised and
asserted.
Overall the range of the arguments was reasonable; and there was some development within the
response as a whole. This placed the response within the level of a Reasonable Response.
The response might have been improved by increasing the number of issues raised, particularly negative
aspects of the internet, and exploring them in more detail, thereby showing greater depth of argument
and reasoning, referring to more evidence to support the points being made. Greater balance of
argument and a clear judgement with a more developed conclusion would also be helpful.



to use the material found in the Sources, but avoid simply repeating or recycling without further
development. Other material may be introduced but was not necessary to gain full marks. The question
was designed to test candidates’ ability to develop a line of reasoning and evaluate.
The candidate argued only for the ‘positive’ impact of the internet, referring to a range of ways in which
the internet might improve or help thinking. However these were presented in a ‘list-like’ way with very
little or no development and explanation; they were mainly recycled from the Source Material.
The candidate did not attempt to provide a balanced argument. There was no conclusion. Overall, this
placed the response within the Basic Level.
The response might have been improved by increasing the number of issues raised, particularly negative
aspects of the internet, and exploring them in more detail, thereby showing greater depth of argument
and reasoning, referring to more evidence to support the points being made. Greater balance of
argument and a clear judgement with a more developed conclusion would also have been helpful.

Cambridge International Examinations
1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1223 553554 Fax: +44 (0)1223 553558
Email: info@cie.org.uk www.cie.org.uk
® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations.
© Cambridge International Examinations 2013 v1 3Y05
*6208851373*

Example Candidate Responses: (Standards Booklet)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example Candidate Responses: (Standards Booklet)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

w

® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations.

© Cambridge International Examinations 2013

Assessment at a glance ........................................................................................................ 3

Component 3 – Written Paper .............................................................................................. 4

For ease of reference the following format has been adopted:

2 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Component Weighting Raw Nature of

3 Written Paper 1 hour 15 minutes

Teachers are reminded that the full syllabus is available at www.cie.org.uk

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 3

Component 3 – Written Paper

The Written Paper lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Candidates are assessed on their ability to:

• identify and analyse key issues

The Written Paper is an externally set assessment, marked by Cambridge.

4 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Paper 3 Source Material (Resource Booklet)

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 5

6 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 7

8 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 9

Example candidate response – grade A

Examiner comment – grade A

• losing the ability to concentrate

10 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Mark awarded = 3 out of 3

• helps people to think more internationally

Mark awarded = 1 out of 1

• improve problem solving skills

Mark awarded = 2 out of 2

• knowing facts – knowledge

Mark awarded = 3 out of 3

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 11

Example candidate response – grade C

Examiner comment – grade C

Mark awarded = 2 out of 3

12 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

• socialising with people from different countries

Mark awarded = 1 out of 1

• it develops our ability to think and explore beyond our knowledge

Mark awarded = 1 out of 2

• thinking less clearly/confused thinking

Mark awarded = 3 out of 3

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 13

Example candidate response – grade E

Examiner comment – grade E

14 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Mark awarded = 1 out of 3

Mark awarded = 1 out of 1

• it develops our social skills

Mark awarded = 1 out of 2

Mark awarded = 2 out of 3

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 15

16 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 17

18 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 19

20 Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426

Example candidate response – grade A

Examiner comment – grade A

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (US) 0426 21