Criterion C: Critical Thinking

(Strands: Research, Analysis and Discussion and evaluation)

“Research” here refers to a critical engagement with a contemporary political issue through relevant approaches, techniques and sources.

Students must be able to construct, present and support effectively a specific argument or position that provides their response or answer to the research question. This argument will be developed through an analysis of the research material, including consideration of the value and limitations of this material.

Additionally, students must demonstrate that the knowledge gained from their selected approaches, techniques and sources can then be analysed and, on the basis of this analysis, an argument can be formed and a conclusion(s) to the research question reached.

The points contained in the analysis must, at all times, be supported by specific, relevant material chosen from the student’s research. Throughout the essay, the thoughts and ideas students present must relate to the analysis of the research question. The inclusion of thoughts or ideas that are not relevant will detract from the value of the analysis and limit the student’s ability to score well on this criterion.

Students should not present essays that are wholly or largely narrative or descriptive in nature. These do not provide any evidence of analytical skills and will not score well.

In global politics, the development of a reasoned argument based on research may start with a student stating their position in relation to the question posed. This position must then be supported by evidence and developed into a reasoned argument, which culminates in conclusion(s) being given.

Personal views should not simply be stated without being supported by reference to the research material. When constructing an argument in global politics, it is crucial that students seek to achieve a balance by presenting conflicting views in an impartial way before reaching a conclusion.

A conclusion summarizes the student’s response to the research question. This conclusion must be consistent with the position and evidence presented in the essay. The conclusion may not include material that has not been discussed in the body of the essay. However, questions that have arisen as a result of the research and may be suitable for further study may be included in the conclusion.

An integral part of the analysis of the evidence and the development of a reasoned argument is that an evaluation of the relative value and limitations of the selected approaches, techniques and sources is made. This evaluation should not be contained in a separate section of the essay but should be integrated into the text where it provides useful insight relative to an approach, technique or source that the student is referring to.

Because global politics issues are often contested and it is common for biased views to be presented, students must pay particular attention to the evaluation of sources. They should avoid unjustified and subjective value judgments, and instead be able to evaluate views using the theoretical and conceptual frames of the subject.

If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered, no more than three marks can be awarded for this criterion. This applies to global politics essays where the issue is not contemporary. (“Contemporary” is defined here as an issue that is relevant during the student’s lifetime.)

Overall Criterion Expectations: To what extent have critical-thinking skills been used to analyse and evaluate the research undertaken?

Total Marks Available: 12

Marks 10–12

The research is excellent.

• The research is appropriate to the research question and its application is consistently relevant.

Analysis is excellent.

• The research is analysed effectively and clearly focused on the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research does not significantly detract from the quality of the overall analysis.
• Conclusions to individual points of analysis are effectively supported by the evidence.

Discussion/evaluation is excellent

• An effective and focused reasoned argument is developed from the research with a conclusion reflective of the evidence presented
• This reasoned argument is well structured and coherent; any minor inconsistencies do not hinder the strength of the overall argument or the final or summative conclusion.
• The research has been critically evaluated.

Marks 7-9

The research is good.

• The majority of the research is appropriate and its application is clearly relevant to the research question.

Analysis is good.

• The research is analysed in a way that is clearly relevant to the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research rarely detracts from the quality of the overall analysis.
• Conclusions to individual points of analysis are supported by the evidence but here are some minor inconsistencies.

Discussion/evaluation is good.

• An effective reasoned argument is developed from the research, with a conclusion supported by the evidence presented.
• The reasoned argument is clearly structured and coherent and supported by a final or summative conclusion; minor inconsistencies may hinder the strength of the overall argument.
• The research has been evaluated, and this is partially critical.

Marks 4-6

The research is adequate.

• Some research presented is appropriate and its application is partially relevant to the Research question.
• Analysis is adequate.

Analysis is adequate.

• There is analysis but this is only partially relevant to the research question; the inclusion of irrelevant research detracts from the quality of the argument.
• Any conclusions to individual points of analysis are only partially supported by the evidence.

Discussion/evaluation is adequate.

• An argument explains the research but the reasoning contains inconsistencies.
• The argument may lack clarity and coherence but this does not significantly hinder understanding.
• Where there is final or summative conclusion, this is only partially consistent with the arguments/evidence presented.
• The research has been evaluated but not critically.

Marks 1-3

The research is limited.

• The research presented is limited and its application is not clearly relevant to the RQ.

Analysis is limited.

• There is limited analysis.
• Where there are conclusions to individual points of anlaysis these are limited and not consistent with the evidence.

Discussion/evaluation is limited.

• An argument is outlined but this is limited, incomplete, descriptive or narrative in nature.
• The construction of an argument is unclear and/or incoherent in structure hindering understanding.
• Where there is a final conclusion, it is limited and not consistent with the arguments/evidence presented.
• There is an attempt to evaluate the research, but this is superficial.

If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than three marks can be awarded for this criterion.

Critical thinking

This criterion assesses the extent to which critical-thinking skills have been used to analyse and evaluate the research undertaken.

1. The appropriateness of sources/methods in terms of how they have been used in the development of the argument presented.

2. The analysis of the research is effective and focused on the research question.

3. The discussion of the research develops a clear and coherent reasoned argument in relation to the research question.

4. There is a critical evaluation of the arguments presented in the essay.

5. Unlikely or unexpected outcomes can also demonstrate critical thinking

From the Principal Examiner: This was (and will continue to be) the most complex criterion for students. Only a few reached the higher marks. Many essays were descriptive, and critical thinking was almost always absent. Students must be helped in understanding that an essay is not merely a good description of the topic, but an engaged critical analysis and argument must feature heavily. Research skills were generally good but essays lacked theoretical framework and a good distinction between facts and theory. Good critical thinking involves a link between theory and facts. If most of the essay is descriptive (facts) critical thinking will be lacking. Essays must be built on a good theoretical framework that should not be isolated in a special chapter of its own, but the argument should be a sustained balance of facts and analysis. Laws by themselves (treaties, declarations, constitutions, acts and so on) are not a theoretical framework. What scholars said about laws can be. There must be credible, academic sources in an essay, in order to build a strong theoretical framework. If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject (Global Politics) no more than 3 marks can be awarded for this criterion and is a significant penalty.