analyse and evaluate sources and/or processes to support research, arguments and perspectives

IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) – Research, Analysis & Evaluation

1. Quick‑scan of the syllabus (2025‑2027)

Syllabus Requirement	What the notes cover	What still needs attention
Assessment Objectives (AO1 Research/analysis/evaluation, AO2 Reflection, AO3 Communication & Collaboration)	AO1 – detailed (source types, 4 Cs, data analysis, methodology) AO2 – reflective‑paragraph checklist and template added AO3 – communication & collaboration checklist, visual‑aid guidance	None – fully addressed
Component 1 – Written Exam (source‑based questions)	Exam format table, timing plan, SBQ example, exam‑type‑to‑AO mapping	None – fully addressed
Component 2 – Individual Report (1500‑2000 words)	Report blueprint, word‑count breakdown, Harvard‑style guide, reflective paragraph template	None – fully addressed
Component 3 – Team Project + Reflective Paper (750‑1000 words)	Phase overview, planning‑document checklist, evidence‑of‑action options, reflective‑paper rubric (AO1‑AO3), teamwork checklist	None – fully addressed
Approved topic list & sustainability focus	Full list (see section 9) and guidance on embedding a sustainability lens	None – fully addressed
Assessment weighting & mark‑scheme language	AO weightings (68 % AO1, 16 % AO2, 16 % AO3) plus key mark‑scheme phrasing for each AO	None – fully addressed
Academic honesty / coursework supervision	Plagiarism policy, referencing conventions, teacher‑signature declaration	None – fully addressed

2. Assessment Objectives (what you must demonstrate)

1. AO1 – Research, analysis and evaluation (68 % of total marks)
   • Identify, select and evaluate appropriate sources.
   • Analyse quantitative and qualitative data; assess reliability and validity of processes.
   • Use evidence to build a balanced, well‑structured argument.
   • Typical mark‑scheme language: “demonstrates thorough evaluation of sources”, “provides reliable and valid data analysis”, “constructs a coherent argument with appropriate evidence”.
2. AO2 – Reflection (16 % of total marks)
   • Reflect on the research journey, personal learning and the impact of the project.
   • Identify strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements.
   • For the team project, evaluate your contribution and the effectiveness of teamwork.
   • Typical mark‑scheme language: “provides insightful reflection on learning”, “identifies realistic improvements”, “critically evaluates own and team performance”.
3. AO3 – Communication & Collaboration (16 % of total marks)
   • Present ideas clearly, using appropriate terminology, structure and visual aids.
   • Demonstrate collaborative skills – planning, sharing responsibilities, reaching consensus.
   • Typical mark‑scheme language: “communicates ideas with clarity and appropriate terminology”, “uses visual representations effectively”, “shows evidence of effective collaboration”.

3. Sources – types, evaluation & practical checklist

3.1 Types of sources

• Primary – original data or first‑hand accounts (interviews, surveys, experiments, observations).
• Secondary – analysis or interpretation of primary data (peer‑reviewed journal articles, government reports, reputable news).
• Tertiary – summaries of secondary material (textbooks, encyclopaedias, fact‑files).

3.2 Evaluation criteria – the “4 Cs”

Criterion	What to look for	Key student questions
Credibility	Author’s qualifications, institutional affiliation, peer‑review status, publisher reputation	Who produced the source? What expertise do they have? Is it peer‑reviewed?
Relevance	Direct link to the research question or issue; level of detail	Does the information answer part of my question? Is it specific enough?
Bias / Perspective	Evidence of agenda, cultural or ideological slant; missing viewpoints	Is the source trying to persuade? Whose voice is missing?
Currency	Publication date, data freshness, applicability to current context	When was it published? Are the data still valid today?

3.3 Student source‑evaluation checklist

• Identify the source type (primary, secondary, tertiary).
• Assess each of the 4 Cs using the table above.
• Record any limitations (sample size, geographic scope, language barriers).
• Write a brief evaluation paragraph (≈80 words) that links the assessment to a specific claim.
• Record full bibliographic details for referencing (author, year, title, publisher, URL, accessed date).
• Decide how the source will support a particular claim in your argument.

4. Analysing Data & Evaluating Processes

4.1 Data‑analysis workflow (5 steps)

1. Organise – import data into tables or spreadsheets; label variables clearly.
2. Explore – look for patterns, trends, outliers; use descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode).
3. Contextualise – consider cultural, economic, environmental factors that may explain the patterns.
4. Cross‑check – compare findings with at least two independent sources to test consistency.
5. Visualise – create graphs, pie charts, or mind‑maps that highlight the most important trends.

4.2 Methodology appraisal – reliability & validity

• Reliability – would the same method give similar results if repeated? Look for standardised procedures and clear documentation.
• Validity – does the method actually measure what it claims? Distinguish between face, construct and internal validity.
• Sampling – is the sample size adequate? Is it random, stratified, or purposive? Is it representative of the target population?
• Ethical considerations – informed consent, anonymity, risk assessment, data protection.

4.3 Teacher’s process‑evaluation checklist

Aspect	What to check	Mark‑scheme language
Design	Clear research question; method chosen is appropriate and justified	“Methodology is appropriate and justified”
Reliability	Evidence of repeatability; standardised data‑collection procedures	“Evidence of reliable data collection”
Validity	Alignment between instrument and construct; avoidance of leading questions	“Valid measurement of the intended variable”
Sampling	Clear description of sampling technique; demographic breakdown	“Sample is representative of the target population”
Ethics	Signed consent forms, confidentiality statements, risk mitigation documented	“Ethical procedures are fully documented”

5. Building a Coherent Argument (AO1 & AO3)

1. Claim – a concise, arguable statement directly linked to the research question.
2. Evidence – at least two credible, relevant sources per claim; include quantitative data where possible.
3. Explanation – show how the evidence supports the claim (cause‑effect, correlation, trend).
4. Counter‑argument – present an opposing perspective, evaluate its strength, then rebut it.
5. Conclusion – synthesize findings, highlight implications, and (for the report) propose a single realistic course of action.

Argument‑structure template (for reports, essays & reflective papers)

Paragraph 1 – Introduction
    • Context & significance
    • Research question
    • Brief outline of perspectives

Paragraph 2‑n – Body (repeat for each perspective)
    • Claim
    • Evidence (in‑text citation)
    • Explanation/analysis
    • Counter‑argument & rebuttal

Final paragraph – Conclusion & Recommendation
    • Summarise main points
    • Evaluate overall strengths & limitations
    • One specific, evidence‑based recommendation

6. Component 1 – Written Exam (30 % of total, 1 hour 25 minutes)

6.1 Exam question types & AO mapping

Question type	What is required	Relevant AO(s)	Typical mark allocation
Structured source‑based question (SBQ)	Evaluate 2‑3 extracts, analyse data, construct a short argument (≈150‑200 words)	AO1 + AO3	10 marks each (40 marks total)
Extended response (≈300 words)	Synthesize information from several sources, discuss different perspectives, reach a balanced conclusion	AO1 + AO3	15 marks (one question)
Synthesis/Reflection question	Reflect on the reliability of the data and the implications for policy or action	AO1 + AO2	15 marks (one question)

6.2 Suggested timing plan (1 h 25 min total)

1. Read all four question stems and associated sources – 5 min.
2. Choose the order you will answer (usually start with the question you feel most confident about) – 2 min.
3. For each question:
   • Read the extracts in detail & underline key facts – 3 min.
   • Quick 4 C evaluation (credibility, relevance, bias, currency) – 2 min.
   • Plan answer (claim, evidence, analysis, link) – 2 min.
   • Write the response – 8 min.
4. Final review of all answers – 5 min** (check spelling, citation format, word count).

6.3 General exam tips

• All information needed is in the provided sources – no external knowledge required.
• Use the 4 Cs as a rapid filter; you do not need a full paragraph for each criterion.
• Write in formal academic style; avoid first‑person pronouns except in the brief reflection question.
• Label any data you create (e.g., “Figure 1: …”) and refer to it in the text.
• Allocate marks mentally – a 10‑mark question needs roughly 10‑12 sentences of quality content.

6.4 Practice SBQ (example)

Prompt: The extracts below discuss the impact of fast‑fashion on the environment. Using the sources, evaluate the reliability of the data and construct an argument about whether fast‑fashion should be regulated.

• Source A – Peer‑reviewed article (2023) reporting carbon‑footprint figures from a life‑cycle analysis of 50 garment brands.
• Source B – Company press release (2024) claiming “eco‑friendly” production methods and a 10 % reduction in water use.
• Source C – NGO infographic (2022) showing textile‑waste statistics for the period 2018‑2022.

Suggested answer steps (≈180 words):

1. State claim: “Fast‑fashion should be regulated because its environmental impact is substantial and current industry claims are unreliable.”
2. Evaluate credibility: A = high (peer‑reviewed, clear methodology); B = low (self‑reported, marketing bias); C = moderate (NGO, but data sourced from government waste reports).
3. Analyse data: compare carbon‑footprint numbers from A with waste trends in C; note inconsistency with B’s claim.
4. Present counter‑argument: “The industry argues that innovations are reducing impact.” Briefly acknowledge but show that evidence from A and C outweighs B’s self‑report.
5. Conclude with recommendation: “Introduce mandatory life‑cycle reporting and a tax on garments exceeding a defined carbon threshold.”

7. Component 2 – Individual Report (1500‑2000 words, 68 % AO1, 16 % AO2, 16 % AO3)

7.1 Report Blueprint (word‑count guide)

Section	Word‑count (approx.)	Key content
Title page & declaration	–	Research question, candidate name, date, teacher’s signature
Table of contents	–	Automatic numbering (optional)
Introduction	200‑250	Context, significance, clear research question, brief outline of perspectives
Methodology	150‑200	Source‑selection criteria, data‑collection process, reliability/validity appraisal (4 Cs)
Analysis & Evaluation	600‑750	Apply 4 Cs, analyse data (tables/graphs), compare at least two perspectives, include counter‑arguments
Discussion	300‑350	Interpret findings, address limitations, link back to research question
Recommendation	150‑200	One realistic, evidence‑based action (global, local or personal)
Conclusion	100‑150	Summarise key points, restate significance
References	–	Harvard style (see 7.3)
Appendices (optional)	–	Questionnaires, raw data, extra charts
Reflective paragraph (AO2)	≈150	What you learned about source selection, challenges faced, skills developed (first‑person allowed)

7.2 Methodology guidance (AO1)

• State the research question in bold.
• Explain how you chose sources: e.g., “A systematic search of Google Scholar (keywords…) yielded 12 peer‑reviewed articles; the three most recent with > 10 citations were selected.”
• Briefly apply the 4 Cs to each source (≈30 words per source).
• Justify any primary data you collected (survey design, sample size, ethical consent).

7.3 Harvard‑style referencing (quick guide)

In‑text citation: (Author Year) for paraphrase, (Author Year, p. xx) for a direct quote ≤ 40 words.

Reference list entry examples:

Journal article:
Smith, J. 2023. “Life‑cycle assessment of fast‑fashion garments.” *Journal of Sustainable Textiles*, 12(2), pp. 45‑62.

Report:
World Bank. 2022. *Global Waste Management Outlook*. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/... (Accessed 3 Oct 2025).

Website:
UN ESCO. 2024. “Education for Sustainable Development.” Available at: https://unesco.org/education/sd (Accessed 10 Jan 2026).

7.4 Reflective paragraph template (AO2)

During the research phase I discovered that evaluating source credibility required more than checking the author’s qualifications; I also had to consider the peer‑review process and potential funding bias. The biggest challenge was locating recent primary data on ___, which I overcame by contacting ___ and using a snowball‑sampling technique. This project improved my critical‑thinking skills, especially when comparing conflicting statistics, and enhanced my ability to present data visually using Excel.

8. Component 3 – Team Project & Personal Reflective Paper (30 % total, AO2 + AO3)

8.1 Project phases

1. Planning document (500 words) – research question, division of labour, timeline, resources, success criteria.
2. Action phase – carry out a real‑world activity (e.g., community survey, awareness campaign, mini‑experiment).
3. Evidence portfolio – photos, screenshots, data logs, meeting minutes, consent forms.
4. Team report (optional – teacher may require a brief 300‑word synthesis).
5. Personal reflective paper (750‑1000 words) – evaluate your contribution, teamwork, learning outcomes, and link to AO2 & AO3 criteria.

8.2 Planning‑document checklist (300‑400 words)

• Chosen topic (from approved list) and specific issue.
• Clear, focused research question.
• Roles and responsibilities (see 8.3).
• Timeline with milestones (research, data collection, action, evaluation).
• Resources required (equipment, contacts, budget).
• Success criteria (how you will know the project has met its aims).
• Risk & ethical considerations (consent, safety, data protection).

8.3 Suggested team roles (adaptable)

Role	Key responsibilities (AO3 focus)
Project Leader	Coordinate tasks, monitor deadlines, ensure final product meets AO3 criteria (clear communication, proper referencing).
Research Officer	Identify, evaluate and record sources; maintain the reference list.
Data Analyst	Collect, code and visualise data; check reliability/validity.
Communications Officer	Design posters, slides or videos; manage social‑media updates; ensure visual aids follow AO3 guidelines.
Ethics & Evaluation Officer	Prepare consent forms, record ethical approvals, evaluate the whole process against the 4 Cs and reliability criteria.

8.4 Evidence of Action – allowed formats (5 marks total)

• Poster (maximum 1 A2 page) – 1 mark.
• Short video (≤ 10 minutes) – 1 mark.
• Community‑survey results (summary table + 200‑word narrative) – 1 mark.
• Mini‑experiment write‑up (method, results, conclusion – ≤ 300 words) – 1 mark.
• Digital campaign analytics (screenshots of reach, engagement – ≤ 150 words) – 1 mark.

Choose any combination that adds up to 5 marks; each piece must be clearly labelled and referenced.

8.5 Reflective‑paper rubric (aligned to AO1‑AO3)

Level	AO1 – Research & Evaluation (max 5 marks)	AO2 – Reflection (max 5 marks)	AO3 – Communication & Collaboration (max 5 marks)
5 – Excellent	Critically evaluates a wide range of sources; links evidence to claims with clear justification.	Deep, insightful reflection on learning, challenges and future improvement; uses specific examples.	Exceptionally clear structure, effective visual aids, demonstrates leadership and constructive teamwork.
4 – Very good	Evaluates several sources with minor gaps; evidence generally supports claims.	Clear reflection with good examples; identifies realistic improvements.	Well‑structured, good use of visuals, shows effective collaboration.
3 – Good	Evaluates a limited range of sources; some links between evidence and claim are weak.	Reflection is present but superficial; limited insight into personal development.	Logical structure but limited visual support; teamwork described in general terms.
2 – Sufficient	Few sources evaluated; evaluation lacks depth.	Reflection is brief and generic.	Basic structure, minimal visual aid, teamwork not clearly demonstrated.
1 – Limited	No clear evaluation of sources; claims unsupported.	Little or no reflection.	Poor organisation, no visual aids, no evidence of collaboration.

8.6 Collaboration checklist (AO3)

• All members contributed to the planning document (evidence: signed task‑sheet).
• Regular meetings recorded (date, agenda, decisions).
• Conflicts resolved through consensus or teacher mediation; note the process.
• Final product shows consistent style, citation format and visual design across all team outputs.
• Each member reflects on their specific contribution in the personal reflective paper.

9. Approved Topic List & Embedding a Sustainability Lens

Cambridge provides a list of 20+ approved issues (e.g., “Plastic pollution”, “Access to clean water”, “Digital divide”, “Gender inequality”). The full list is available on the Cambridge website – 0457 Topic List.

How to embed sustainability:

• Identify the three pillars (environmental, social, economic) that relate to your issue.
• When selecting sources, ensure at least one source addresses each pillar.
• In the analysis section, discuss trade‑offs (e.g., economic growth vs. environmental impact) and propose a solution that balances the three.
• Use the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a framework – reference the relevant SDG numbers in your recommendation.

10. Academic Honesty & Supervision

• All sources must be referenced; failure to do so results in a zero for AO1.
• Paraphrase correctly; use quotation marks for direct quotes ≤ 40 words and provide a page reference.
• Plagiarism detection software will be used on all written components.
• The teacher must sign the declaration on the title page confirming supervision and that the work is the candidate’s own.
• Any breach of the Cambridge Academic Honesty Policy will be reported to the examination board and may lead to disciplinary action.