AICE Global Perspectives AS Level

AICE Global Perspectives AS Level contains 3 components, and this course AS/A level are required for AICE Diploma. 

Component 1: Written Exam

It's worth 45 marks (36% of the course), and consists of "three compulsory questions" from different sources/texts on the exam paper. The sources will show perspectives of a significant global issue. It is your job to analyze, show judgement, evaluate arguments, compare perspectives and see what strengths and weaknesses are in the texts. The exam will include an insert of two documents, a booklet for where you write, and what the questions might look like. 

The questions are always going to be the same layout. Question 1 will contain identify questions that can be looked for in the documents, Question 2 will tell you to assess the strengths and weaknesses of evidence in Document A/B (only the document they state), and Question 3 is to evaluate the arguments, perspectives and judgement of both Documents.

Here is the breakdown of the rubric, and what they look for in your answers to gain full marks! 

Question 1: (5 marks)

  Identify questions 

Question 2: (15 marks)

AO1(a) Identify evidence - 5 marks

  4 or more examples of type of evidence (EG)

AO1(b) Analyse strengths and weaknesses of evidence - 5 marks

  2 or more + (Strength of evidence recognized but with limited explanation)

  2 or more - (Weaknesses of evidence recognized but with limited explanation)

  2 or more EXP (Strength or weakness of evidence clearly explained)

Example:

The author supports his argument by giving authoritative evidence of a survey by world animal protection WAP of 10,900 people across the world which does include international tourists who had frequently visited South Africa. This survey also included South African citizens. The HSI survey also found objection to trophy hunting; the most important point is that people were asked of all races and gender groups, six language groups and a range of ages and household incomes both in rural and urban areas.

AO1(c) Evaluate evidence - 5 marks

  2 I or more (Evaluation of impact of evidence on argument/perspective)

  I J (Evaluation of impact of evidence on argument/perspective and includes judgement)

Example:

The document includes a number of both local and international sources, for example the Hunters register and the HSI Africa; this firstly negates any doubt regarding the source of statistics and this in turn makes the arguments more reliable and professional, due to the use of renowned and credible sources, improving the chance of acceptance and its impact on the readers who then have greater trust.

Question 3: (25 marks)

AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments - 5 marks

     3 C or more (Comparison of key components from both documents)

Example:

The authors of Document B work at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. This is a global organisation which makes it a strong source of information. And as the author works there, they must have expertise. Additionally, their expertise in the mountains makes them a relevant stakeholder to write about the issue of hunting and population of animals. However the author of Document A on the other hand is an investigative journalist and photographer. He is a research fellow at the Centre for Criminology; this shows the reader that he may not have relevant information about the topic which can reduce his credibility

AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives - 5 marks

     1 PE or more (Analyses by comparing and explaining perspectives in both documents)

Example:

The authors of Documents A and B present contrasting views on trophy hunting and wildlife conservation. In document A the author advocates for the banning of trophy hunting in South Africa in order to fulfill the goal of wildlife conservation in Africa while maintaining a good reputation for the African country. In contrast, the author of Document B argues that encouraging and giving control of trophy hunting to local residents of the Gilgit Baltistan area Pakistan would help conservative increase the population of ungulate wildlife such as the Siberian ibex.

AO1c Evaluate arguments - 5 marks

     4 or more EVAL (at least one or more per Doc) (EVAL = Evaluation of key components of argument - BALANCE reference to both documents)

Example:

Document A has made use of statistical data from international organisations for example, surveys by the World Animal Protection and Humane Society International Africa. This is a strength as they can support the author’s views and claims with data from internationally reliable organisations. On the other hand, Document B has also presented statistical information, but the author has not referred to the source of it, for example it is stated that the population of markhor in Gilgit Baltistan increased from 1900 in 2012 to 2800 in 2016. This is a relevant statistic which backs up the author’s view, however it is a weakness as no reference is provided. This does not enable the reader to check the source and whether or not it is true. This weakens the author's argument making it unlikely to be trusted.

AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective - 5 marks

     J or J^ intermediate and J in the final conclusion (J = supported judgement - with reasoning / J^ Partly supported judgement - with reasoning)

Example:

Overall, I believe Document B is much stronger and more convincing than Document A. Document B creates a connection with the readers by stating how animals are a source of income meat and hides, which allows readers to clearly understand the value of hunting the animals and creates a connection between the reader and the topic. Furthermore, Document B is a well-structured argument, as it starts with an introduction by Shah, that moves on to the history of trophy hunting in Pakistan presenting the proposal given and also giving qualitative data about the aftermath of this proposal. Document A on the other hand lacks any counter argument and even though it has secondary evidence from surveys, it is very narrowly focused and thus creates a certain kind of bias, whereas in contrast Document B does present a counter argument and also mentions how Shah’s work has been given much scrutiny. Therefore, Document B is stronger for showing a better structure a better connection with the readers and a solution for the issue

Communication - 5 marks

     Meets the descriptor - and contains no NAQ (Not answering the question)

Component 2: The Essay

Component 3: The Presentation + Reflection Paper

Extra: The Statement of Originality