Question 4

From the Global Politics Guide: The fourth question will test the evaluation of sources and contextual knowledge. Students should synthesize and evaluate evidence from the sources and their study of the prescribed content and key concepts of the course. Students should organize the material into a clear, logical, and coherent response.

The remaining command terms for AO3: Synthesis and Evaluation are: "discuss", "evaluate", "examine", "justify", and "to what extent". Question 4 will be asked using one of these command terms as part of the prompt. The commonality between all five is that you are being asked to do an analysis of a general global political issue.

Marks: As noted at the bottom of the mark scheme, this question is out of 10 marks and marked using a rubric (below).

Length: 35 minutes - you'll note that the timing suggestions add up to 1 hour and 15 minutes. This doesn't attempt to account for additional factors such as the transition between questions, moving to a second writing booklet, etc. as well as a second read of the sources (you should be able to read through all of the sources once during your five minutes of reading time at the start of the exam).

Structure:

• Brief introduction indicating how do you plan to address the question. Two-three sentences, maximum.

• Two to four body paragraphs depending on the time you have left. One (or two if you have time) on the reasons why you agree with the question/prompt and one (or two, if you have time) on the reasons your disagree.

• A brief concluding paragraph summarizing the main ideas of the points you made and the reason why you believe one of the arguments is stronger than the other.

SAMPLE QUESTION 4: “The challenge of addressing complex global issues is changing the relationships of power among actors in global politics.” With reference to all of the Sources and your own knowledge, to what extent do you agree with this claim?

• The first thing to notice about this question is that it is focused on Power. Each Paper 1 will focus on one of the four units, which will be obvious by the time you get to this question, but it is on question four that you will have to display the bulk of your own knowledge on the unit.

• This is a mini-essay and, simply put, you need to fully and explicitly answer the question (i.e. more than one sentence at a time). This is really the only major piece of advice for this question and it is almost always the major issue as it relates to any essay writing for high school students. If you address, analyze, and mold your response around the question that is being asked, you will do well. (Note below the requisite use of sources and own knowledge as well as different perspectives too).

• Blend your own knowledge and the sources together as part of each point you make.

• Do your best to use all of the sources with a firm minimum of three.

• Always use DASK when writing your response to this question:

  • Ensure you look at the question from Different perspectives

  • Analyze, or better stated, Answer the question

  • Use the Sources and your own Knowledge

The response is clearly focused and shows a high degree of understanding of the demands of the question.

The first part of the descriptor that is unique to the 9-10 level are “clearly” (the 7-8 level simply says “is focused”) and “high degree” whereas the 7-8 level says “good”. Developing a response that is “clearly focused” on the question has a lot to do with strong writing skills. Essentially, it is clear throughout your response that what you are saying is clearly linked/focused on the question that is being asked (sound familiar?). Never will the examiner be asking him/herself, “what point in the writer trying to make” or “how does this connect to the question that was asked”?

A response that shows not just a “good” but a “high degree” of understanding of the demands of the question means that the student is very aware of all of the aspects that should be discussed given the question that is being asked and possibly even a nuanced response. For example, our sample question, asks “The challenge of addressing complex global issues is changing the relationships of power among actors in global politics.” With reference to Sources A to D and your own knowledge, to what extent do you agree with this claim?” A high degree of understanding of the demands of this question would include:

• Recognizing that this question revolves around power issues meaning that you would likely highlight how economic, military, and relational power can operate in hard, soft, smart, and sharp power contexts.

• Identifying that “actors” are not exclusively states and address the role of IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, etc.

• You might suggest as part of your analysis that issues are no more complex than they’ve ever been and, as a result, the extent of your agreement with the statement is limited.

• You would likely need to understand that the key concepts of interdependence, globalization, and sovereignty will need to be explored and integrated into your response.

• Given that the sources are focused on sustainability issues that will play a central role, but you’d need to be able to expand your analysis of “complex global issues” beyond sustainability.

Relevant and accurate knowledge is demonstrated, there is an effective synthesis of own knowledge and source material, with appropriate examples integrated.

The “relevant” part of “relevant and accurate knowledge” is also an important consideration for the examiner. Just doing an information dump or name/term dropping on all things related to power isn’t going to get you into the higher mark bands. The information needs to be directly and clearly related to the question being asked (as always). Being able to do this is also going to highlight that you have a “high degree of awareness of the demands of the question” too.

Of course, the information needs to not only be “relevant” but also “accurate”. The poor and often inaccurate use of realism, liberalism, and what constitutes soft or hard power is pervasive in Global Politics responses so don’t dismiss how often we see inaccurate knowledge.

When the top band is asking for an “effective synthesis of own knowledge and source material” essentially we are looking for you to not only be able to use the sources in your responses but also integrate your own knowledge alongside your use of the sources. Can you use both a source and seamlessly integrate your own knowledge into the point you are trying to make and do all of this synthesis “effectively”?. By effectively we mean did your synthesis effectively enable you to take another step forward in making a good point in your response to the question. Finally, the “with appropriate examples integrated” is quite likely going to be connected to your own knowledge. Do the examples you chose relate well to the question that is being asked? Are you within the “lifetime of the student” rule? Sometimes examiners will look at an example a student has used and think, “not a great example for this question” or “I’m not seeing how this is relevant”. This is where you may not meet the “appropriate examples” expectation.  

Counterclaims, or different views on the question, are explored and evaluated.

The descriptor asks for claims and counterclaims or simply a different perspective, either is fine. An alternative perspective doesn’t have to be the exact opposite of your previous point, a different viewpoint is also fine.  Also, note that we are asking for different views “on the question”. The “on the question” part makes linking it back to what the question is asking very important.

Remember, that each claim and each counterclaim needs to not only be explained or “explored” but each point must also be “evaluated”. To hit the top band, you need to evaluate the quality of the argument or point you have made. What makes this argument particularly strong or, where are there weaknesses in the argument? We are not just looking for you to be able to offer different perspectives, we also want you to evaluate the validity of the perspectives and ultimately draw a conclusion to the question that is being asked.

Why it might be important to look at things from different perspectives

The importance of knowing you might be wrong - BBC Reel  

In general, this question was answered well, and candidates showed good knowledge of theory and examples of development.

Candidates should remember that question 4 is a mini-essay and does require the structure and evidence of higher-order thinking to achieve the highest marks.

The Structure should include a clear introduction and conclusion, a relevant thesis in reaction to the question, and the skills of evaluation, which can be evidenced by views and counterclaims.

The best answers synthesised both candidates' own knowledge and the sources in order to develop their thesis.