Cambridge Ordinary Level

2069 Global Perspectives June 2023

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Paper 2069/12
Written Examination

Key messages

The key messages from this examination series are that candidates:

• demonstrated very good skills of identifying information relevant to an issue

• analysed sources to identify reasons and evidence
• need further guidance on evaluating and explaining the strengths and weaknesses of sources
• would benefit from further practise in using evidence and reasons to create an argument to support a
claim.

General comments

The Written Paper consists of compulsory questions based upon a range of sources linked to a global topic
and issue. The sources present information and different perspectives on the global issue, which is broadly
related to the topics in the Syllabus. In June 2023, the paper was based upon four sources. These sources
were related to the topic of Demographic Change. The issue was related to the global rise of single-person
households.

Candidates understood the source material very well. They were able to identify and analyse the main types
of statement, evidence, and reasoning within sources, describing them clearly and accurately. Different
perspectives were well understood and explained.

Overall, the quality of work and levels of achievement continue to be good and improve. Many candidates
are developing an excellent understanding of global issues. They are aware of causes, consequences, and
possible actions in response to problems. They can explain their own perspectives and compare these with
the viewpoints of other people and groups.

Whilst most candidates are using material from the sources to support their arguments, for example through
summary or quotation, some would benefit from guidance on how to plan and organise an argument to
support a claim or opinion. Evidence and reasons should be clearly and explicitly related to the claim and
used to justify the claim clearly and logically. Careful planning of lines of argument and essay structure would
help in this process.

Candidates were usually able to identify potential strengths and weaknesses of sources and argument.
However, these were often simply described rather than explained. When evaluating a source, candidates
should explain the significance or impact of the identified strength or weakness on the argument.

Examination technique was generally very good. Responses to questions were sufficiently detailed. Most
candidates had enough time for the tasks, though there was some evidence of the need for candidates to
spend more time planning their responses. There were very few rubric errors.

To improve performance further, candidates should be encouraged to:

• plan and organise reasons and evidence with a clear structure

• relate source material explicitly to the perspective or issue being explored
• explain the significance of strengths and weaknesses in the evaluation of arguments.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) From Source 1, almost all candidates correctly identified a country where a high proportion of the
population live in single-person households. Learners identified either Norway or Sweden.
Candidates demonstrated an excellent ability to identify and select information from the source.

(b) From Source 2, almost all candidates correctly identified two reasons for the growth in single-
person households. The reasons most frequently identified were:

• increased access to higher education and university

• living alone is less expensive with cheaper housing in cities
• greater gender equality and female employment

Candidates demonstrated an excellent ability to identify and select information from the source.

(c) Most candidates were able to explain and support their choice of a reason for the growth in single
person households that was the most significant, in their opinion. This was usually justified by
several clearly described reasons and some evidence drawn from the sources. The discussion
usually involved consideration of the impact of the cause on the growth of this type of household.

Most candidates demonstrated good ability to support their judgement by explaining the cause and
giving reasons for its significance.

(d) Many candidates responded very well to this question and could explain why the growth of single-
person households is an important national issue. The explanations mainly related to the impact of
living in a single-person household on the community and country, especially for health, safety, and
well-being nationally, the provision of social services, access to suitable accommodation and
housing, and economic development. These candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the
concept of ‘national’.

Candidates achieving at higher levels provided a clearly reasoned, credible and structured
explanation. Candidates achieving at the lower levels tended to provide some limited, weak
explanation, or asserted opinion about single-person households in general, without reference to
the national dimension of the question.

Question 2

(a) Most candidates were able to evaluate the argument in Source 3 and identify some strengths and
weaknesses.

The strengths of the argument most often identified were:

• based on sociological expertise

• provides detailed information
• range of evidence provided
• based on Some weaker responses analysed and research evidence
• statistical evidence offered

The weaknesses of the argument most often identified were:

• author unknown as not fully cited/referenced

• expertise of author not known
• some assertion without evidence
• not relevant to all countries and situations
• few examples
• not much evidence

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

The strongest responses provided clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation of their
evaluative points, usually discussing four or more distinct aspects of the source. Weaker responses
often simply stated or asserted an opinion about the issue.

Some weaker responses described the reasons and evidence within the source but did not
evaluate or explain why the identified reason or type of evidence was a strength or weakness. For
example, ‘A weakness is that the writer is not known or cited.’ This statement does not explain why
lack of citation may weaken evidence. A better response would be, ‘A weakness is that the writer is
unknown and is not cited. This type of evidence is not strong because the evidence cannot be
found and verified. It cannot be tested to see if it is accurate. Therefore, we do not know if the
statement is true. It has weak reliability and is not convincing.’

Candidates should also be encouraged to justify their opinion using the material in the source as
evidence. This means being willing to quote from or summarise elements of the source.

(b) Candidates who performed well in this question described several methods, sources of information
and types of evidence that could be used to test the claim that, ‘More people are choosing not to
have children than in the past’. The methods of testing the claim were carefully explained and
clearly related to the claim.

Candidates tended to describe interviews, surveys, and questionnaires with people about the
issue, often in different places and cultures. Other methods included consultation with experts,
doctors, midwives, and government officials.

Nearly all candidates suggested secondary research using sources from the internet. Many
described the type of source that was likely to be reliable and free from bias or vested interest, for
example from governments, NGOs, and United Nations organisations.

The strongest responses provided clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation for their
suggestions clearly and explicitly related to the claim being tested; weaker responses often simply
stated a method or source of evidence but did not explain it fully or make the link to the claim being
tested.

Some candidates listed a range of methods and sources but did not relate them to the claim; these
responses only reached the lower levels of response. Similarly, candidates that very briefly
described many methods or types of evidence did not tend to gain many marks. Candidates that
carefully explained three or four methods in detail, giving reasons for their choice of methods and
sources of evidence, related to the claim to be tested, tended to reach the higher levels of
response.

A few candidates responded to the question by describing their opinion on the issue rather than
describing how it could be researched. These responses gained very few, if any, marks.

Candidates should be given regular opportunity to design research strategies to test claims as a
regular part of their courses.

Question 3

(a) Most candidates correctly identified a value judgement from Arthit’s statement.

A value judgement is a view or decision about what is right, wrong, or important, based on a set of
standards, principles, or values.

The value judgements most frequently identified were:

• it is not right to expect the government to look after you

• families should care for each other

Most candidates were able to justify and explain their selection convincingly.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) The vast majority of candidates were able to identify one example of a fact from Malee’s statement.

A fact is a statement that is true, correct, accurate or can be proven/verified.

The facts most frequently identified were:

• research studies by psychologists in 2019 in the United States show that living alone does not
cause loneliness
• Malee is buying an affordable apartment designed for single people.
• you can speak to your family on social media

(b) (ii) Most candidates were able to relate the identified fact to Malee’s argument that living alone has
many benefits. However, this question was challenging for some candidates who did not evaluate
the use of the fact as reasoning or evidence within the argument.

The most effective responses explained how the fact related to the argument and explained a
strength and/or a weakness of the fact within this argument. For example, a good response was:
’strong support as this fact is based on research that makes the evidence accurate and likely to be
valid; this gives confidence to the reader about Malee’s claim.’ Another good response was: ‘This
fact gives limited support because it is based on only one piece of research that may not have the
same results as other research. It is not representative and based on enough evidence to be
confident that the data is correct and accurate.’

Centres are encouraged to teach candidates about facts and their use in argument as evidence
and provide experience of using the term in the analysis and evaluation of sources, alongside other
critical thinking concepts like value judgement, bias, opinion, vested interest and prediction.

(c) In this question, candidates were asked to compare and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
two arguments about a global issue. The two arguments related to differences in perspective on
the how to reduce energy poverty.

Responses at the higher levels contained well supported judgements about both Arthit’s and
Malee’s arguments, including a clear conclusion about which person offered the most convincing
argument. These responses included a credible, structured evaluation of the argument used to
support the claim in the statement, including the reasons and evidence.

The most effective responses considered a range of different evaluative points about aspects of the
evidence, reasons, language, knowledge claims, and values, for both arguments. These responses
were balanced with a clear conclusion. The evaluative points were also clearly and frequently
supported with evidence drawn from the source material, including quotations and summaries.

At the lower levels of response, candidates often limited their evaluative comment to one of the
arguments or failed to reach a clear conclusion about which argument was the strongest. Another
weakness included commenting upon the arguments without using the material in the source as
evidence to support their evaluation. These responses tended to assert evaluative points rather
than explain and use evidence from the arguments to support their views. Some weaker responses
lacked structure and had little clarity of argument.

Many responses included a description of different parts of the statements and highlighted those
aspects that might be a strength or weakness. However, the reason for these aspects of the
statement being a strength or weakness was not given. This meant that the evaluative point was
not developed or explained and was simply asserted.

An example of a weaker or asserted evaluative point is: ‘Malee’s argument was based on the
experience of just two people which is not good evidence.’ This response does not explain why
using only the experience of two people is a weakness. An example of a strong, developed
evaluative point is: ‘Malee’s argument was based on just two people’s experience of living alone.
This is a weakness because it is a small sample and may not be representative of other people.
This evidence may be subjective and biased because the people want to justify their own ideas and
choices. Therefore, the evidence may not be accurate or true. His argument is not very convincing.’

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

This response is clearly developed and explains the weakness in the argument because of the
small sample that does not provide enough evidence to give confidence in the argument.

Some candidates found this question quite challenging. To prepare candidates for this type of
question, candidates should be given frequent opportunities to evaluate sources on global issues
from a variety of perspectives. This should involve a consideration of the reasons and evidence
used to support an argument or perspective in sources of different length and complexity.
Candidates should also be encouraged to quote and refer directly to material within sources to
support evaluative points.

Question 4

In this question, candidates were asked to consider the statement, ‘Living on your own is better than living
within a family.’

The arguments used by candidates mainly related to:

• reference to impact of living alone on relationships generally

• importance of personal choice in lifestyle
• health and well-being implications
• employment and career implications
• ethical or moral issues
• reference to different consequences and implications for individuals/different age and gender
groups/government
• the influence of individuals and groups on other people
• potential conflicts of interest within the wider family
• vulnerability to crime and harm

Responses at the highest levels tended to have well supported, logical reasoning and make clear
judgements about the issue, providing a balanced assessment of living in both types of household. These
responses frequently referred to the advantages and disadvantages of living alone or with other people.
These responses frequently related their argument and evidence directly and explicitly to the issue in the
question.

Responses at the lower level tended to be generalised, lack relevance to the issue and describe general
opinions about living alone or in a family or simply list advantages and disadvantages of each. The issue in
the statement was only implicit. Arguments tended to be mainly unsupported and asserted. These responses
only used some material drawn from one or two of the sources in the Insert or failed to use any of the
material and evidence in any of the sources.

It is important that candidates plan and organise their responses so that the argument in the essay has a
clear, logical structure. This should typically include an introduction, discussion of the first perspective,
discussion of the second or alternative perspectives, and a conclusion that clearly answers the question. The
significance or relationship of evidence and reasons in the argument to the conclusion should be stated
explicitly and frequently. The reasons and evidence should explicitly lead to the intended conclusion.

In preparation for this type of question, centres are encouraged to give candidates regular opportunity to
write essays in which they contrast and compare different perspectives in response to a global issue. In so
doing, candidates need to analyse and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons and evidence
for the perspectives or possible actions.

Drama games, simulation, debating, group discussion, designing presentations, role play, peer, and self-
assessment, are useful strategies in the development of the skills of argument. Regular opportunity to
practise using reasons and evidence from a few simple sources to construct arguments to support conflicting
claims or opposing viewpoints is also valuable. Scaffolded and structured exercises using ‘mind-maps’ and
tables, outlining a structure for the argument before composing and writing the essay, are also helpful. These
techniques support planning and the development of skills in the construction of arguments and lines of
reasoning. It is also helpful for candidates to analyse and deconstruct examples of strong arguments and
weak arguments, so that they understand the principles behind the planning and writing of an argument.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Paper 2069/02
Individual Report

Key Messages

• Candidates should formulate a question that focusses on one global issue.

• The candidate’s response must focus on different perspectives on their chosen issue.
• Candidates should analyse the causes and consequences of their chosen issue.
• Candidates should evaluate the individual sources they use.
• Candidates should clearly cite all their sources.
• The Individual Report should be an independent piece of coursework.

General Comment

Successful work for this component is well-structured and logical, and explicitly presents several different
well-supported perspectives, including at least one global and one national perspective on the issue
identified in their question. It shows clear evidence of research, with accurate citation of sources used.

Successful candidates analyse and explain the causes and consequences of the issue identified in their
question. They explicitly compare the different causes and/or consequences of their chosen issue. This could
be, for example, a range of causes compared to identify the main cause or a comparison of causes in
different countries. They explain their comparison. Successful candidates provide full details of their
proposed course of action, including details of how the course of action would be implemented and the
possible impact on the issue.

Stronger candidates reflect on their own perspective and how this has been impacted by their findings and
by others’ perspectives. They answer their question and remain focussed throughout on the central issue.

Some candidates included a section of reflection on what they might do differently in future. Please note that
this not required. Candidates are advised to spend more time developing other criteria.

Comments on Specific Assessment Criteria

Assessment Objective 1: Research, Analysis and Evaluation

The strongest work responds to a clear question about a single global issue. This enables candidates to
present clear global perspectives, national perspectives, and their own perspective on this issue.

Direct, issue-based questions allow candidates to be clear about their topic and issue, to focus on that
throughout and to identify different views.

Successful questions this session included:

• Are human activities the main cause of water pollution?

• Should the Film and TV Entertainment Industry be allowed to use animals for Entertainment?
• Should governments use digital surveillance technology on their citizens?
• Is the use of coal justified, considering its contribution to climate change?
• Are electric vehicles a sustainable form of transport?
• Can refugees positively impact their host communities?
• Is a lack of policing the main cause for cybercrime on the Dark Web?
• Does sustainable agriculture help mitigate deforestation?
• Should girl-child marriage be banned by law?

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Most candidates provided a research question and attempted to answer it. Unfortunately, we still saw work
without a clear research question.

Some candidates did not identify an issue in their question and wrote about 2 or 3 issues in their response.
Many of these could usefully have been included as consequences of a central issue.

There was a significant minority of candidates who did not address an issue at all in their response. The
majority of these gave a description of e.g. the uses of chemotherapy, but did not explain why that might be a
problem.

A few candidates provided an appropriate research question on a global issue, but their reports did not
address the issue highlighted. In some cases, the report appeared to be focussed on a different topic.

There were a number of reports without any research question and some with no title or topic. This has a
clear impact on their success, as the mark scheme is based on the premise that the candidate has
researched an issue and is answering a research question by exploring different perspectives and coming up
with their own response as a result of all the research done.

Information from different perspectives:

The strongest work shows a clear understanding of perspectives.

Note: For Global Perspectives, a perspective is always based on a view, opinion, or attitude: on what
people think or feel about the issue. It is not enough to present general information, facts and figures on a
topic from different parts of the world.

For this component, a global perspective is a supported view about a global issue raised in the
question. It should be clear whose perspective this is – a quote from the relevant person or organisation
should be attributed to them, or the candidate should draw together supporting information and attitudes to
tell us which group of people has this perspective. In all cases, information should be presented to explain
the perspective and support it.

Successful work included paraphrased and/or direct quotes showing a clear global perspective. A global
perspective should be clearly identified as such and include an opinion:

Global Perspective: The United Nations (UN) recognises girl-child marriage as an issue to be addressed.
They believe that girl-child marriage is a ‘violation of girls’ rights’ denying girls from making their own life
choices (United Nations, 2016) Dr Osotimehin, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) executive director, stated
‘Choosing when and whom to marry is one of life’s most important decisions. Child marriage denies millions
of girls this choice each year’ (UNICEF, 2016)

Similarly, a national perspective is a national viewpoint on the issue presented, or an opinion/feeling

about/attitude to the national situation. Again, it should be clear whose perspective is being presented, either
by paraphrasing or quoting the person/s or organisation/s with clear attribution. There should be evidence of
the perspective and supporting information to explain it:

National Perspective: Brazil strongly believes that agricultural sustainability diffuses environmental issues
like deforestation. According to Andre Nassar, a representative of Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, this is
because sustainable agriculture ‘increases productivity and uses fewer fossil fuels thus decreasing
emissions associated with deforestation.’

National Perspective: The Filipino government believes that girl-child marriage should be banned. On
January 8, 2022, President Rodrigo Duarte signed a law illegalizing ‘child ‘marriage’. The law states: ‘The
state… views child marriage as a practice constituting child abuse because it debases, degrades, and
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of children’ (Presse, 2022). To elaborate, the Philippine president
believes that child marriage is harmful because it… exploits children’s vulnerability… is a form of abuse and
should be prohibited. (Presse, (2022).

National Perspective: The US government believes that girl-child marriage should be respected. Zollinger,
a US politician, stated: ‘child marriage is a contract between people that shouldn’t require government
permission’ (Clark, 2019). From his viewpoint, child marriage is a family decision that others should not
intervene in, including the government. Christy Zito, another US politician, supported his viewpoint. She felt

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

that prohibiting it would erode families’ sanctity by severing relationships and original cultures. Thus, the US
government opposes a ban on child marriage.

Some work included a section labelled ‘Global perspectives’ in which views from different countries were
presented. However, no global view was presented, and the different national views were not drawn together
to form a global view. This work can only be credited as ‘National perspectives’.

Some weaker work did not present different perspectives on the issue, but instead presented information
about different places. This was sometimes labelled as ‘Global’ or ‘National Perspectives’ though there were
no perspectives presented. In these cases, candidates described actions taken by a government, for
example, or provided relevant statistics without telling us what anyone thought or felt about the issue. Others
did not present any perspectives or opinions apart from the candidate’s own views and these were
sometimes unsupported, with no relevant information or evidence, meaning that the report read as an
unresearched opinion piece.

Some weak work presented a general topic with 2 or 3 sub-topics (often labelled Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue
3). This work did not present perspectives explicitly and (because it was dealing with multiple topics) did not
deal with the required criteria in any depth or detail.

Analysis and comparison of causes and consequences:

Most candidates explained the consequences of their chosen issue. Where their issue was clear, they were
able to discuss causes of the issue, explaining in some detail:

Analysis of causes: The topic of domestic violence is a complicated subject that can be linked back to a
variety of causes. Some individuals argue that external elements like alcohol and stress are involved. Others
argue that perpetrators’ actions are unrelated to external factors.

According to statistics from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1995) ’30 to 40 per cent
of men and 27 to 34 per cent of women who perpetrated violence against their partners were drinking at the
time of the event’. Alcohol elevates the possibility of losing control of one’s behaviour which could raise the
chances that someone who is already violent acts on their thoughts and urges (Schumacher,2022). Stress,
particularly socioeconomic stress, which is associated with poverty, unemployment, and a lack of social
resources, contributes to the rise in domestic violence. According to the National Network to End Domestic
Violence (2020), couples under financial stress are three times more likely to engage in violence than
couples without financial stress. In the same way that alcohol can make people aggressive, stress can do the
same. It builds up repressed emotions which result in violence when they get released (Dimoff,2020).

Where candidates had not identified a global issue, or where they wrote descriptive essays, they found it
difficult to identify or explain any causes or consequences.

Stronger work compared different causes of (or reasons for) their central issue. They explained which were
the more important, or main causes and/or they explained how and why there were different causes in
different countries or regions. They also compared the consequences (sometimes labelled impacts or
effects) explaining which consequences were the most serious, and/or why there were different
consequences for different groups of people, or different places or different situations.

Developed comparison of consequences is given below:

I believe that deforestation is the most significant consequence of not shifting to sustainable agriculture, as it
is the starting point for various other negative externalities. Statistics by WWF show that deforestation emits
seven times more carbon dioxide than all other human activities combined and that almost 1.5 of the rural
population depends on forests; it is also a cause of land degradation itself. It is not a sustainable long-term
solution to feeding the world due to the environmental costs that follow conventional agriculture.

Course(s) of Action:

The strongest work had a developed and focussed course of action. The candidate explained the course of
action: its implementation (e.g. who would do it and details of how it would be done) and gave a clear
explanation of the likely impact of the course of action.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Note: it is acceptable for candidates to consider courses of action that have been successful elsewhere and
apply them to their own country:

I believe that the best course of action to be taken against water pollution due to human activities is the
implementation of severe laws and regulations by the government.

Examples of some of these laws could be imposing harsh rules on industries to reduce the number of
pollutants they release into waterways by closely monitoring and setting limits to the amount of chemicals
they discharge into waterways. If these regulations are not heeded, there should be severe consequences
like hefty fines of suspension of their licences. Additionally, citizens should be prohibited from dumping
domestic waste and chemicals directly into water sources. If these laws are not heeded, heavy penalties
should be enforced on businesses and individuals found violating them.

In Kenya the Ministry of Water, Sanitation and Irrigation will be tasked with this responsibility and it will work
closely with other government departments such as National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) to
enforce these laws and ensure compliance with them. This is highly likely to succeed in Kenya since a
previous ban on plastic bags and their usage was introduced in 2018 and according to NEMA (2023) the
success rate of the ban was 80 per cent with help from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in Kenya.

Weaker work described solutions already in place but did not develop these to explain how these solutions
might be applied to their specific issue or in other countries. Some candidates either explained how the
course of action might be implemented or what its impact might be – but not both. Others provided a detailed
course of action that was not clearly linked to the issue they were considering.

The weakest work provided a list of actions that might be taken, but with no further details.

Some candidates did not identify an issue – they presented general information about a topic. Without a
problem, they could not suggest a course of action to address it.

Evaluation of sources:

The strongest work showed clear evaluation of sources used. Candidates evaluated the sources using
different criteria and with an explanation of the impact of the quality of sources on the candidate’s thinking, or
work.

The evaluations made should be explained:

… The researchers published the paper on The Royal Society web page and the research was supported by
a scientific report released by the Princeton Press. The report was written to discuss the causes and
consequences of animal extinction. While the source is weakened marginally by the fact that there is no
information on the authors themselves, the fact that the further reading section shows other works by the
authors boosts their credibility. Additionally, the fact that it is a scientific report means it would have been
peer reviewed and is therefore credible. The projections give insight into further consequences of biodiversity
loss by providing information on the global impact of the loss of seed-dispersing vertebrates, aiding my
arguments in this report.

Note: In order to fully achieve this criterion, the candidate must provide at least 3 different points of
evaluation on more than one source used. Some candidates provide a generalised evaluation of their
research, without any evaluation of individual sources. This is not what is required:

I used many different sources and there were many advantages and disadvantages of the sources. All of
them were very helpful but I did use some more than others and some were questionable since it wasn’t
written by professionals. Some websites had some great info but were biased so had to use unbiased info
and use other sources next to it and basically combine them. Some other websites used statistics and
political perspectives all of them were relatively very long and I didn’t have much time to read. I read a
section that I was looking for and then went onto the next one.

This example seems to indicate that the candidate is not fully aware of what is required. Their comments
may be correct, but they are descriptive rather than evaluative; general and unexplained; and not specific to
one source. It is not clear, for example, which sources were biased and which unbiased, how the candidate
knows this and why it might matter.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

A number of candidates did not attempt to evaluate any of their sources at all, or merely listed what
information they had found in each source.

Assessment Objective 2: Reflection:

The strongest work had a clear section of reflection on the candidate’s own perspective, on their research
findings and on the perspectives they had explored. The candidate clearly explained how their own
perspective had developed, been changed, or impacted by others’ perspectives and by the information they
had gained about the issue. It included a clear conclusion/answer to their question based on research
findings and other perspectives. Some strong candidates reflected throughout and then drew their reflections
together at the end coming to a logical and supported conclusion.

Before my research, I believed that euthanasia should be allowed everywhere. I didn’t see any controversy
and hardship in the process. My thinking was mostly based on feelings and opinions influenced by a
situation with my great grandma. She wanted euthanasia when getting an incurable illness… but the
Swedish law did not allow it. However, after doing research, my perspective on this issue has changed.
Today I realise that euthanasia is a complex subject. Even though there are arguments against euthanasia,
such as religion, and philosophical beliefs on unethical practices, good access to palliative care, risks of
others taking advantage, manipulation of a will and lastly the risk of distrust between family, medicine, and
patients; I still hold on to the vision that euthanasia should be made legal, but in strict secure conditions.
In the end, euthanasia comes down to a personal request that can only be made by the individual
themselves. Therefore, I regard euthanasia as a human right… Nonetheless, the process has to be
implemented with care and caution.

Weaker work simply provided a general conclusion, with no personal reflection on findings, perspectives, or
the issue. Some of the weakest work lost contact with the question and the issue and simply summed up a
descriptive essay.

The weakest work ended without answering the question or providing a personal perspective or conclusion.

Assessment Objective 3: Communication

Structure of the report:

Candidates are required to write their report in essay form. Their argument should be planned and logical
and follow a clear structure to answer their question. They should include all required criteria. They can write
between 1500 and 2000 words, and they are advised to use the full word count.

Some of the work seen this session was well-structured and the strongest work was cohesive and logical.

The strongest work was easy to follow and provided a clear structured argument with an introduction
outlining the global issue, addressing all the required criteria and ending with a reflective conclusion. It used
the full available word count. This work started with different perspectives on the issue and kept those
focussed throughout. The candidate kept control of their argument and did not lose contact with their
question, the central issue, or their research findings.

As in previous sessions, weaker work lacked focus. It tended to select several separate issues and present
general information about those, making it difficult to follow any central argument. It sometimes included
information that was not relevant to the question. It tended to move around from one topic to another instead
of developing a central argument.

The weakest work often provided a series of headings with some facts and figures on the topic area, with no
clear flow of any argument and sometimes with no reflection or conclusion. Some appeared to have copied
and pasted sections from different sources, with no apparent connection between the different paragraphs or
with the question or issue.

Some work showed little evidence of any research; the candidate simply wrote a general philosophical
argument, or opinion piece. This was particularly common in essays on Belief Systems and the Family,
where candidates started with their own point of view and, as in past sessions, wrote only about that.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Clarity of arguments, perspectives, and evidence:

The strongest work clearly identified the required skills and presented the criteria for this component in
separate paragraphs, or by using sub-headings. It is clear that the candidate understood what they were
doing and presented the required elements explicitly.

The weakest work showed little awareness of the requirements for this component. In this work they may
have simply discussed their question without presenting any perspectives, causes and consequences. There
may have been no clear issue and so no course of action with no reflection on their research findings or
evaluation of sources.

Some candidates simply presented information they had gained from primary and secondary research and
do not process or discuss it at all.

Citation and referencing:

More candidates than in the past showed evidence of copy and paste of whole passages from their sources,
or possible use of spinners and thesaurus apps. All candidates should understand the need for complete in-
text attribution. They should be aware that if they present material as their own when they have found it in
other sources, this is considered to be plagiarism. Where they quote directly from sources, this should be in
the form of short quotes, clearly attributed, and most of the material in their work should be their own. Some
work showed unacceptable involvement and comment from teachers.

There is no one fixed method of citation or referencing for this component. Any clear and consistent
method is acceptable.

In-text citation: Candidates may use bracketed citations, or numbering, or in-text referencing, to indicate
where they have used sources. They must include complete references somewhere in their work, either
footnotes, endnotes, or in-text references. (For ease of reading and control of word count, numbers or
brackets are more manageable).

References: References for books or magazines should include author, date, and title of publication.
References for online materials should include at least the full URL (leading to the document, not just to a
website) and date of access (retrieval date). If candidates wish to include evidence of their primary
research, such as statistics, they can append this to the reference list. This should not be included as part of
the essay, unless it is to be read and counted in the words allowed for the essay.

The full reference list/footnotes/endnotes should be clearly linked to the in-text attribution. Candidates should
use one clear, consistent, and logical method (one set of numbers, or alphabetical order). References should
be clearly organised and easy to find.

Note: when candidates quote sources found within material from other sources, they do need to reference
the quoted sources as well. It should be possible for the reader to find a reference for every person or
organisation quoted in the essay.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Paper 2069/03
Team Project

Key messages

• All members of a team must be awarded the same mark for the team elements (Outcome, Explanation
and Collaboration).
• Teams need an aim that can be met.
• Candidates should choose an issue to focus on and carry out research into different cultural
perspectives on the issue.
• The Outcome should demonstrate the means by which the Team met their aim.
• The Reflective Paper requires candidates to present their own research findings and cite their sources.
• Candidates should keep an ongoing reflective log of their own ways of working and their work as a part
of the team.
• Candidates should use examples from their team project when they are explaining their reflections on
the strengths and weaknesses/benefits and challenges of the different aspects of the marking criteria.
• Teachers should steer candidates away from topics/issues that could be sensitive locally.
• Schools should note that there is a Guidance Document for the Team Project on the School Support
Hub, listed under ‘Planning and preparation’ (ref: The Cambridge Assessment International Education
School Support Hub).

General comments

Team Projects:

The most successful projects focused on an issue of local concern and worked to change the behaviour or
perception of others in relation to the issue. Candidates chose a variety of issues on which to focus their
projects. Under the topic of water, food and agriculture, some candidates focused on the problem of waste in
school meals, opening up a debate as to how this could be avoided. Under the topic of disease and health,
some teams focused on raising awareness about the need for teenagers to be active in order to limit mental
health issues, for example by running exercise classes, while others looked at how school culture supports
sustainable development goals, producing a leaflet for the school community.

Outcomes were varied and included school seminars, leaflets, fundraising events and posters. As was to be
expected, there were teams who were unable to carry out their plans as fully as they wished. Those who
handled this most successfully used the process of adapting their plans as part of their evaluation.

Less successful projects tended to give general information about a topic or an issue, without explicitly
referring to different cultural perspectives, or perspectives in different parts of the world on the issue. The
evaluations of these team projects sometimes made it clear that learners had little choice in the focus of their
topic or their team members.

Comments on specific questions

Team Elements: Outcome, Explanation and Collaboration

AO3 Communication: Outcome and Explanation

In the most successful projects, there is coherence between the Explanation and the Outcome. The
Explanation is a planning document: it communicates the team’s aims, research plans and activity, and then
details plans for an Outcome as well as indicating how the team will measure its success. The Explanation
should not contain team members’ research findings.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

The Outcome considers perspectives and offers comment on the activity that has led to the aim being met.
The Outcome is necessary to enable the Reflective Paper to demonstrate evidence. The Outcome should
not be seen as the most important part of Team project, nor should it contain a series of interviews joined
together as they should form part of the research.

Example:

The following is from a team’s Explanation: ‘Topic: Water, food, and agriculture Issue: Is clean water
available to everyone?’

Introduction:

The principal intent of our project is to spread cognizance concerning the scarcity of clean water throughout
Pakistan. We had to conduct primary and secondary research to ensure and affirm our perspectives
regarding this issue of water sanitation, especially in rural areas. Our research on the internet showed that at
least 2 billion people use a drinking water source contaminated with feces.1 In Pakistan, over 21 million
people still have no choice but to drink dirty water,2 It is also estimated that 30 percent of all diseases are
caused due to poor water quality.3 We discovered by interviewing a doctor that millions of people in Pakistan
die from contaminated water.4

Cross-cultural perspective:

We interviewed several individuals in order to get their perspectives. The privileged interviewees stated that
they obtained their water from clean sources such as tankers and pipelines5, whereas the underprivileged
interviewees elaborated that they did not get clean water due to which problems were created, such as
diseases6. Through this, we discovered the centre of motive: to supply water to people in need.

Project explanation:

‘Our team carried out the campaign through which we created awareness amongst people about the lack of
clean water in underprivileged areas. We raised a considerable sum of money by carrying out a donation
drive, which was sufficient to construct a hand pump. Therefore, we gave back to our community through its
construction. Our progress can be viewed through this video on YouTube.’

Comment:

The aim is clear: to raise awareness. The means of doing so is clear: a campaign. The research to be
undertaken is clear, and headline findings that explain the reason for going forward with the project are clear.
The citations should accompany the research findings in individual Reflective Papers. Given here, they
cannot be attached to an individual and so cannot contribute towards individual marks.

The detail in the Explanation makes description of the project at the beginning of the Reflective Paper a
waste of valuable words.

1
World health organisation 2021 [Link]
water#:~:text=Key%20facts,water%20source%20contaminated%20with%20faeces Accessed on 1st
November 2022
2
Water aid organisation Pakistan [Link] Accessed on 1st
November 2022
3
Dawn News 2021 [Link] Accessed on 1st November 2022
4
Abdullah, Dawood, Kabeer, Myra, and Vania Interview 2022 Doctor Saba, 2022. (Interview), (Access date:
9th October)
5
Abdullah, Dawood, Kabeer, Myra, and Vania Interview 2022 Sir Noor Ali, 2022. (Interview), (Access date;
26th October). Miss Shabana, 2022. (Interview), (Access date: 22nd October)
6
Abdullah, Dawood, Kabeer, Myra, and Vania Interview 2022 Mr. Akhtar Masih, 2022. (Interview), (Access
date: 17th October). Miss Pushpa Vishram, 2022. (Interview), (Access date; 12th October)

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

The only unclear aspect is the place of the fundraising for a handpump. Was this additional to the plans?
Was it a way of demonstrating the team’s achievement?

AO3 Collaboration

Teachers must award a mark for how well the team have worked together to complete the project. All
members of the team must be given the same mark and teachers should take into account how well team
members have worked together over the course of the project, including how well they have communicated
with each other, solved problems, resolved conflict and divided work fairly between the team. This mark
should be informed by teacher observation of teamwork and questioning of team members individually and
collectively. There should be no explanation on ICRC forms of how this mark was arrived at.

Personal Element: Reflective Paper

AO1 Research, Analysis and Evaluation

The most successful candidates provided direct evidence of the impact of their work, demonstrating how far
the Outcome had achieved the project aim. For instance, in the project on attitudes to teenage mental
Health, a survey was conducted to assess the extent to which the presentation had improved understanding.
They had a percentage success rate. Analysis led to them being able to discuss their effectiveness in
different parts of their year group. Where the aim is to raise awareness about an issue, a survey of the target
audience before and after the awareness-raising session was often used successfully to show how far the
Outcome was successful in achieving the aim. The very best responses also then made suggestions of ways
in which the Outcome could be improved, drawing on the weaknesses identified.

Less successful responses often simply described the Outcome and the process by which it was produced.
Where there was evaluation, these responses explained only weaknesses or strengths. Suggestions for
improvement were not linked to any of the weaknesses that had been identified.

An example of an evaluation of an Outcome:

‘We were able to successfully spread awareness regarding the water sanitation issue as we successfully
carried out our campaign and were able to raise enough funds for the construction of the hand pump, which
was the outcome of our project, which can supply clean water and fulfill the necessities of the people in
need.’

Comment:

One question is answered- the fundraising and provision of a hand pump is the evidence of a successful
awareness-raising campaign. There is no reflection about what the weaknesses were in the campaign, e.g.
evidence about questions that the team were asked and could not answer, or groups of people that the team
was unable to engage with. In turn, this made it impossible for the team to reflect effectively on how they
could have improved their project.

Guidance: Ask learners to answer: How far was our project successful? They should present strengths and
weaknesses of the Outcome, supported by evidence.

Evaluating Work Processes: Only the very best responses were successful in evaluating their own work
processes. Successful responses evaluated their time management; for example, giving reasons why they
failed to keep to their research schedule. Other successful responses evaluated their research technique;
how they went about the task and what they wished they had done. Both of these included examples to
illustrate and develop their points.

The most successful suggestions for improvement for both the Outcome and own work processes drew
on evaluation of weaknesses in these areas, as in this example where the candidate wrote: ‘From this I have
learned to plan when my research needs to be complete for it to be useful in our event’. For reflection to be
insightful/in depth it must consider the impact on the project’s aims or the Outcome, as it does here.

More commonly, candidates were unclear on the difference between ‘strengths/limitations of own work
processes’ and ‘strengths/weaknesses of own performance as a team member’. They should consider the
latter with the questions: How well did I support the team in its work towards the Outcome? And: ‘How well
was I supported by the team? This would lead to discussion of help and support that they gave others, and
occasions where they themselves needed help or support.

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Guidance: Rather than give candidates headings from the assessment criteria, give them questions that
encourage evaluation. For example: ‘How well did your Outcome meet your aim?’, ‘Which elements of the
Outcome were more or less successful?’, ‘How could you improve the Outcome to better meet the aim?’,
‘How did your work processes/time management affect the project?’, ‘How effective was your research in
satisfying the aims of the Outcome?’, ‘How would you improve your work processes if you had to complete
the project again?’

AO2 Reflection

This assessment objective requires candidates to reflect on the overall benefits and challenges of working in
a group situation, as opposed to working alone. They need to provide specific examples drawn from their
experience to illustrate their reflections. In the best responses, candidates commented that sharing work
allowed the team to achieve more in a shorter space of time, or that it provided a greater pool of skills to
draw on (giving examples from their project). Challenges of working in a team that were commonly
mentioned include difficulties of communicating with other team members, organising meetings, dividing
work equally and keeping all members on task. Some candidates initially believed that they worked best
alone, only to find that it was more effective to have different ideas to listen to. Others were looking forward
to working with friends, only to find that either they wasted time or that they would have preferred to do the
work alone as they were not satisfied with what their team-mates did. In the very best responses, candidates
demonstrated insightful evaluation in their explanation of how these benefits and challenges impacted upon
their project.

Less successful responses simply listed who did what in the team, or, often, which team members failed to
do tasks that were assigned to them.

Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of own performance as a team member is concerned with those
things the individual does that either move the team forward or hold it back. It is about the individual’s impact
on the team as a whole. Paragraphs that show what they did to support the team, and how they needed
support from the team, and how either of these impacted on the team’s performance overall would indicate a
mark at Level 4.

Less successful work focused only on identifying a role in the team, such as what work had been done, or
what prevented work from being completed.

Guidance: Candidates could be given a reflective log to record examples while they are completing the
project or be asked to take notes. This could include examples of when working as a team helped them to
achieve something positive; when working as a team was difficult, and why; when they did something
positive to help the team achieve their goal; when their performance had a negative effect on the team.
Some centres have indicated that they are giving classes time to write sections of the Reflective Paper as
they progress through the Team Project e.g. to evaluate the Outcome soon after the event.

There are three elements to reflecting on overall personal learning. Candidates should consider what they
have learned about the issue or topic, and about perspectives on it, as well as what personal or practical
skills they have developed through completing the project.

Example: ‘This project challenged how I view eating disorders (EDs), a personal struggle. I got desensitised to the harms
they have after first-hand experience. However, after writing the roleplay, I realised how similar they are to drug addiction.
The link between the two was a crucial realisation for me as I’d dismiss my ED since starving yourself to lose weight is
normalised and even encouraged for teenage girls.

I now acknowledge that addiction is the same whether it’s to starve yourself or to do drugs: in both, you
damage your body which is irreversible in the majority of cases, and you end up isolating yourself which
makes you struggle through life. Conclusively, it made me realise the severity of my problem and
consequently, the importance of taking care of myself.

Learning about skills: ‘Overall, the Team project required me to be heard clearly. It sharpened my public
speaking skills and boosted my confidence through conducting workshops.’

© 2023
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
2069 Global Perspectives June 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

AO3 Communication

This assessment objective requires reflective reports to flow meaningfully with signposting and appropriate
linking used to make sense of the flow of ideas. For instance, it should not be difficult to follow which
paragraphs are about own work processes and which are about strengths and limitations of working as a
team member.

It is expected that each member of the team will have been involved in some personal research towards the
work overall. These individual personal research findings need to be clearly presented. Where this individual
research has involved secondary research, candidates must include citation and referencing. This
referencing should be included in the Reflective Paper and detail the author, date, title, URL and date
accessed for all sources used, in a consistent format.

Example summary of research findings and citations: ‘Initially, I thought immature people did drugs to
deal with boredom, causing damage to their bodies for short-term pleasure. This is a common reason to get
into drugs in Pakistan(4) while Iceland nearly eradicated its drug problem through its preventative model
which includes having more leisure activities available.(5) Additionally through my research I found out
accessibility of drugs is a unique problem to Pakistan because of its border with Afghanistan, a major opium
producer.(6)

Citations were provided.

Teacher Assessment

In schools where there are several teaching groups led by different teachers, it is helpful if the teachers
share an understanding of the mark scheme applied to Team Project before teaching begins. Learners
benefit from understanding the mark scheme as well.

The Individual candidate record cards (ICRC) must be completed by teachers. Teachers are requested to
comment on the ICRC. Teachers are reminded that they must include comments on the ICRC to
support/explain the marks awarded and they should use the wording from the assessment criteria level
descriptors when formulating these supporting comments. Changes made through internal moderation
should be explained through the wording on the ICRC. Any internal moderation should be completed before
final marks are submitted, so that marks on the ICRCs, the CASF and the MS1 all match each other.

© 2023