use research to support judgements about arguments and perspectives

Research, Analysis and Evaluation – Cambridge A‑Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239)

1. Assessment Overview – Components, Marks & Weightings

Component	Task	Maximum Marks	Weight in Qualification	Key AO(s) Assessed
1. Written Exam (Paper 1)	Two essay‑style questions (one compulsory, one optional)	40	20 %	AO 1, AO 2, AO 3
2. Individual Research Report (Component 4)	5000 ± 10 % words, includes research log, proposal and bibliography	80	30 %	AO 1, AO 2, AO 3
3. Team Project (Component 3)	10‑minute oral presentation + 1500 ± 10 % word written summary	60	30 %	AO 1, AO 2, AO 3
4. Coursework – Research Log & Proposal (Component 4)	Log (minimum 10 entries) + proposal (≈ 800 words)	20	10 %	AO 2, AO 3

Assessment Objective Weightings (overall)

• AO 1 – Critical thinking & analysis: ≈ 65 %
• AO 2 – Reflection: ≈ 15 %
• AO 3 – Communication: ≈ 20 %

2. Aims & Core Skills

• Develop the ability to deconstruct existing arguments and to reconstruct balanced, evidence‑based judgements.
• Apply a systematic Critical Path that links research design, source evaluation, data analysis and reflection.
• Communicate findings effectively in written, visual and oral forms, adhering to academic conventions.
• Work collaboratively while respecting the defined teacher‑role limits.

3. Key Vocabulary (Cambridge terminology)

• Issue – A question or problem that can be examined from different perspectives.
• Global topic / theme – One of the official topics (see Section 13) that provides the context for the research.
• Perspective – A way of looking at an issue, shaped by cultural, economic, ideological or personal factors.
• Argument – A claim supported by evidence and reasoning.
• Assumption – An unstated belief that underpins an argument.
• Provenance – The origin, ownership and funding of a source; used to assess authority and bias.
• Deconstruction – Breaking an argument into claim, evidence, assumptions and perspective.
• Reconstruction – Designing research, collecting data, analysing it and building a new, balanced argument.

4. Command‑Word List (for essays, reports and presentations)

Command word	What is required?
Analyse	Identify components, examine relationships and explain significance.
Evaluate	Weigh strengths and weaknesses, consider alternatives, reach a justified judgement.
Compare	Identify similarities and differences, using a clear basis for comparison.
Contrast	Focus on differences between two or more items.
Discuss	Present a balanced view, consider multiple perspectives, and reach a conclusion.
Justify	Provide reasons and evidence to support a claim.
Critique	Provide a detailed assessment, highlighting both strengths and limitations.
Explain	Make clear the reasons or mechanisms behind a phenomenon.
Synthesise	Combine information from different sources to form a new understanding.

5. The Critical Path – From Deconstruction to Reconstruction

5.1 Deconstruction (What you analyse)

1. Identify the claim being made.
2. List the evidence used to support the claim.
3. Spot any assumptions or hidden premises.
4. Determine the perspective (who is speaking, why?).
5. Evaluate the source provenance (author, institution, funding, date).

5.2 Reconstruction (What you do)

1. Design research – Choose a method (quantitative, qualitative or mixed) that best answers the research question.
2. Select & evaluate sources – Apply the CRAAP test (Section 6).
3. Collect & organise data – Use tables, charts, thematic matrices or GIS maps as appropriate.
4. Analyse – Apply statistical tools, coding frameworks, or cost‑benefit analysis.
5. Synthesise – Combine evidence from different perspectives to form a balanced judgement.
6. Reflect – Consider the limits of the evidence and how the process has shaped your own view (Section 12).
7. Communicate – Present findings in the required format (written, visual, oral).

6. Evaluating Source Credibility – The CRAAP Test

Criterion	Key Questions	Indicators of High Quality
Currency	When was the information published or last updated?	Recent date; regular updates for fast‑moving topics (e.g., COVID‑19, climate data).
Relevance	Does the source directly address the research question?	Focused scope; aligns with the specific aspect of the argument.
Authority	Who is the author/organisation? What are their qualifications?	Peer‑reviewed journals; recognised experts; reputable bodies (UN, WHO, IRENA).
Accuracy	Is the information supported by evidence? Are references provided?	Clear methodology; citations; consistency with other reliable sources.
Purpose	Why was the source created? Is there evident bias?	Informative or scholarly intent; transparent funding; balanced tone.

7. Research Methods & Ethical Considerations (AO 2)

7.1 Method Types

• Quantitative – Surveys, experiments, statistical datasets; good for measuring magnitude, trends, testing hypotheses.
• Qualitative – Interviews, focus groups, content analysis, observations; ideal for exploring meanings, motivations, cultural contexts.
• Mixed‑methods – Combines both to triangulate findings and increase validity.

7.2 Ethical Checklist

• Obtain informed consent; protect anonymity where required.
• Consider power imbalances between researcher and participants.
• Store data securely and respect intellectual property.
• Declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.
• Include a brief “Ethics Statement” (≈ 150 words) in the research report.

8. Analysing Data – From Raw Numbers to Insight

1. Organise data in tables, spreadsheets or thematic matrices.
2. Identify patterns, trends, outliers or recurring themes.
3. Apply appropriate analytical tools:
   • Quantitative – mean, median, mode, standard deviation, confidence intervals, regression, chi‑square.
   • Qualitative – coding, thematic clustering, discourse analysis, narrative mapping.
4. Consider alternative explanations and assess reliability.

Example – 95 % Confidence Interval for a Survey

If 60 % of 400 respondents support renewable energy, the confidence interval is:

$$CI = \hat{p} \pm z\sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})}{n}}$$

where $\hat{p}=0.60$, $z=1.96$, $n=400$ → $CI = 0.60 \pm 0.048$ (≈ 55.2 % to 64.8 %).

9. Constructing Judgements – Linking Evidence to Claims

• State a clear claim. Use precise language (e.g., “Investing in solar power reduces CO₂ emissions more than wind in Sub‑Saharan Africa”).
• Link each piece of evidence. Cite the source and explain its relevance.
• Explain significance. Show how the evidence supports or challenges the claim (logical reasoning, quantitative comparison, or thematic connection).
• Address counter‑arguments. Present an opposing perspective, evaluate its merit, and rebut or integrate it.
• Identify limitations. Discuss sample size, data age, methodological constraints or potential bias.

10. Structured Argument – Suggested Layout (AO 3)

1. Introduction (≈ 150 words) – Define the issue, name the global topic(s), and present the central claim.
2. Methodology (≈ 300 words) – Justify the research design, data‑collection methods and ethical safeguards.
3. Evidence Section (≈ 1200 words) – Present quantitative tables/graphs and qualitative excerpts with Harvard or APA citations.
4. Analysis (≈ 800 words) – Interpret the evidence, include calculations or thematic links, and compare perspectives.
5. Counter‑Perspective (≈ 400 words) – Summarise an opposing view, evaluate its evidence, and explain why your claim remains stronger (or modify the claim).
6. Conclusion (≈ 150 words) – Synthesize the overall argument, restate how evidence underpins the claim, and suggest broader implications or actions.
7. Reflection (AO 2, ≈ 200 words) – Comment on how the research process has shaped your personal viewpoint and what you learned about teamwork.

11. Communication Guidance (AO 3)

11.1 Written Communication

• Word‑count limits: Essay 1 200 ± 10 %; Research Report 5 000 ± 10 % (excluding bibliography, appendices, log).
• Formal academic tone; avoid first‑person except in the reflection paragraph.
• Reference consistently (Harvard or APA). Include in‑text citations, a bibliography and a “Declaration of Authenticity”.

11.2 Visual Communication

• At least one data visualisation (chart, graph, map, infographic) that is clearly labelled, sourced and captioned.
• Use high‑contrast colours, legible fonts (minimum 12 pt) and avoid clutter.

11.3 Oral Presentation (Team Project)

• 10‑minute presentation mirroring the written structure (intro, evidence, analysis, counter‑perspective, conclusion).
• Maximum 10 slides; each slide should contain a single idea and a visual element.
• Even speaking time for all team members; practise eye‑contact and handling questions.

11.4 Research Log & Proposal (Component 4)

• Log must record: date, activity, research question, method, source details (author, date, provenance, CRAAP rating), ethical notes, and brief reflection.
• Proposal (≈ 800 words) should outline research question, rationale, methodology, anticipated ethical issues and a preliminary bibliography (minimum 6 sources).

12. Research‑Log Template (editable)

Date	Activity	Research Question / Sub‑question	Method Used	Source(s) (author, date, provenance)	CRAAP Rating (1‑5)	Ethical Note	Reflection (what worked, what needs improvement)
Insert a new row for each entry (minimum 10 entries).

13. Teacher‑Role Guidelines (what teachers may and may not do)

• May: Clarify assessment requirements, demonstrate how to use the CRAAP test, model citation formatting, and provide general feedback on structure.
• May not: Provide detailed content for the research question, edit students’ drafts, supply data or analysis, or influence the choice of perspective.
• All feedback must be generic (e.g., “Check your source provenance”) and not contain substantive content that could be copied.

14. Declaration of Authenticity (mandatory for every submission)

“I confirm that this work is my own, that all sources are correctly referenced, and that I have not received unauthorised assistance. I understand that any breach of the Cambridge Academic Honesty policy may result in a zero mark.” – Student signature & date

15. Full Global‑Topic List (choose at least three)

• Climate change and the environment
• Human rights and social justice
• Health and well‑being
• Food security and sustainable agriculture
• Technology and innovation
• Migration and displacement
• Education and lifelong learning
• Sustainable development (including the SDGs)
• Energy and resources
• Economic development and trade
• Gender equality
• Urbanisation and cities
• Culture and identity
• Conflict and peace‑building
• Water scarcity and management
• Global governance and institutions
• Population dynamics
• Disaster risk reduction
• Ethics and responsibility in a globalising world

16. Case Study – Solar Power in Low‑Income Nations (Illustrative)

1. Research question: “Is solar power the most effective strategy for reducing carbon emissions in low‑income nations?”
2. Methodology: Mixed‑methods – (a) quantitative analysis of IRENA & World Bank datasets (adoption rates, levelised cost of electricity, emission factors); (b) qualitative semi‑structured interviews with policymakers in Kenya and Bangladesh.
3. Source evaluation: CRAAP applied to each dataset and interview transcript; noted industry funding in some IRENA reports.
4. Analysis:
   • Quantitative: Cost‑benefit matrix comparing solar, wind and hydro; projected emission reduction calculated as
     $$\Delta CO_2 = E_{\text{baseline}} - E_{\text{solar}}$$
   • Qualitative: Thematic coding revealed barriers – grid infrastructure, intermittency, financing.
5. Judgement: Solar offers the lowest levelised cost in sunny regions and delivers the greatest emission reduction in Sub‑Saharan Africa, but requires storage solutions. In wind‑rich regions (e.g., parts of South‑Asia) wind can be more effective.
6. Reflection: Personal stance shifted after hearing on‑the‑ground challenges; teamwork highlighted the value of triangulating statistical and narrative evidence.

17. Checklist – Using Research to Support Judgements

• Have I formulated a clear, focused research question?
• Do I have at least three credible sources evaluated with the CRAAP test?
• Is my methodology justified, appropriate and ethically sound?
• Are data presented transparently (tables, charts, coding framework)?
• Do I link each piece of evidence explicitly to my claim?
• Have I considered alternative explanations and counter‑perspectives?
• Have I acknowledged the limitations of my evidence?
• Is my conclusion logically derived from the analysed evidence?
• Did I reflect on how the research process has influenced my viewpoint and teamwork?
• Are all referencing, visual‑communication and authenticity requirements met?

18. Summary

Success in Cambridge A‑Level Global Perspectives hinges on a disciplined Critical Path: deconstruct existing arguments, design and carry out credible research, evaluate sources with CRAAP, analyse data rigorously, and reconstruct a balanced, well‑referenced judgement. Embedding reflection, ethical awareness, and strong written, visual and oral communication satisfies AO 1‑3 and prepares students for the essay, research report and team‑project components.