Question 4

From the Global Politics Guide: The fourth question will test 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.

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, analyse and mould 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 source 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
  • Analyse, or better stated, Answer the question
  • Use the Sources and your own Knowledge

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

Length: 30 minutes - you'll note that the timing suggestions only add up to 1 hour and 5 minutes. This attempts to account for additional factors such as 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 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.

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, in our sample question it 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” is 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 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 “complex global issues” beyond sustainability.

Relevant and accurate knowledge is demonstrated, there is 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 markbands. 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 to 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 an think, “not a great example for this question” or “I’m not seeing how this is relevant”. This is where the you may not meet the “appropriate examples” expectation.

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

This was the general comment from the examiner on the response, the student scored a 9/10: "Very good focus on demands of the question, both in terms of concepts and commend term. Good use of additional relevant global issues. Counterclaims are explored. Very good use own knowledge and examples. Did not use the sources to the extent required to gain full marks."

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.

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 candidate’s own knowledge and the sources in order to develop their thesis.