Cambridge A Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239): Component 4 – Cambridge Research Report – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover Component 4, the Cambridge Research Report, in Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239). They follow the Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239) syllabus for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028, Version 3 (published December 2025), section 4 (Details of the assessment). Component 4 is coursework, not a written paper: a report of up to 5000 words and a research log, externally marked by Cambridge International. These questions test the skills and rules behind it, so you can apply them to your own project. All people, places, sources and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the Component 4 study guide and the revision notes for this component. The 9239 subject hub and the 9239 checklist show where this component fits.

Questions

1. State how the 85 marks for Component 4 are divided between the two marked pieces of work. [2]

2. A candidate’s report has 5,380 words of body text, a 12-word title and a 420-word bibliography. On the cover she writes “Word count: 5,812”. Identify three problems with this. [3]

3. A candidate’s research question is “Should museums return artefacts to their countries of origin?” Explain the difference between primary and secondary evidence, giving one example of each that would suit this question. [4]

4. Explain the difference between research methods and research methodology. [4]

5. A candidate is choosing between three titles:

• A: “Space tourism”
• B: “Why is space exploration a waste of public money?”
• C: “Should governments fund space exploration ahead of other public spending?”

Assess which title is most suitable for a Cambridge Research Report, explaining why the other two are not. [6]

6. Leila’s research proposal form contains only her research question and a list of six website addresses.

(a) Identify two elements the syllabus says a proposal should outline that are missing. [2] (b) Explain two reasons why the teacher’s review of the proposal matters before research begins. [2]

7. Tomas is researching “Should towns replace on-street parking with cycle lanes?” He stands outside a cycle shop in the fictional town of Harwick one Saturday and surveys 200 passers-by.

Respondent group	Support	Oppose	Unsure	Total
Cycle at least weekly	96	18	6	120
Do not cycle weekly	28	44	8	80
All respondents	124	62	14	200

In his draft he writes: “62% of Harwick residents support replacing parking with cycle lanes.”

(a) Calculate the percentage who support the change among weekly cyclists, among non-weekly cyclists, and overall. [3] (b) Evaluate Tomas’s claim. [5]

8. Two candidates submit these research log entries.

Entry A. 12 March: read two articles on community energy schemes, made notes. 14 March: started writing interview questions.

Entry B. 14 March: an article by a regional energy company says community schemes are too small to matter; one by an energy cooperative says they build local support. Both have an interest in the outcome. My question assumed schemes are cheaper, but neither article shows that. Decision: drop the cost angle and reword my question around public funding. Next: find independent cost data; ask my teacher whether the new wording still allows a debate.

Evaluate which entry better meets the criterion “use a research log to record, plan and reflect on research”. [5]

9. Read this fictional extract from a draft report.

Studies show that most young people now get their news from social media. As one journalist puts it, “algorithms decide what we see” (Okafor). A news website agrees with this (news site, 2024). Hartley (2021, p. 14) argues that this narrows the range of views people meet.

Identify four referencing or citation problems in the extract. [4]

10. Ana is researching “Should small island states depend on tourism for economic growth?” Her main primary method is interviews with six hotel workers and two hotel managers on the fictional island of Calvera.

Evaluate the use of interviews as Ana’s main research method. [12]

11. “Your own standpoint should play no part in a Cambridge Research Report.” To what extent do you agree? [16]

Answers

1. Research report: 75 marks [1]. Research log: 10 marks [1]. [2] Examiner insight: State both figures with the item they belong to; a total of 85 alone earns nothing here.

2. The title and bibliography should not be included, so the stated count is inaccurate; it should read 5,380 [1]. The report exceeds the 5000-word maximum by 380 words [1]. The 380 words beyond the maximum will not be marked, which may cut off part of the conclusion [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Show the subtraction; “too long” without the figure 380 is too vague for full credit.

3. Primary evidence is first-hand information from the situation itself [1], for example a museum’s own acquisition records or an interview with a curator [1]. Secondary evidence is specialists’ arguments and opinions that reflect on or synthesise primary evidence [1], for example a historian’s book arguing for or against return [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Examples must fit the given question; a generic “a website” is not credited.

4. Research methods are the ways evidence is gathered and analysed, such as surveys, interviews or text analysis [1]. Methodology is the study of why particular methods suit specific academic subject areas [1]. For example, a candidate might choose close analysis of novels as a method [1]; the methodology explains that literary questions are usually answered through close reading, and what that choice means for the strength of the conclusion [1]. [4] Examiner insight: An example that shows both terms on the same project is the clearest way to prove you understand the difference.

5. Title A is a topic, not a question [1], and the syllabus requires the title to take the form of a question [1]. Title B is a question but is loaded: it assumes exploration is a waste [1], so only one perspective can develop and there is no real debate [1]. Title C is phrased as a question and is open [1]; it sets competing perspectives against each other, such as scientific and economic benefits against the opportunity cost for other public services, so C is most suitable [1]. [6] Examiner insight: “Assess” needs a final choice with a reason; describing all three without picking one loses the last mark.

6. (a) The key concepts relevant to the question [1]; an outline of the debate to be addressed [1]. The question and example sources are already present. [2] (b) The teacher must confirm that the concepts and debate are relevant and that the question gives scope to meet the assessment criteria [1]. The teacher also checks the topic is not too large or complex and raises no safety issues, and must approve the proposal before research starts [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Take the missing elements from the syllabus list, not from general advice such as “a timeline”.

7. (a) Weekly cyclists: 96 ÷ 120 = 80% [1]. Non-weekly cyclists: 28 ÷ 80 = 35% [1]. Overall: 124 ÷ 200 = 62% [1]. [3] (b) Surveying outside a cycle shop over-represents cyclists, who make up 60% of the sample [1]. Support differs sharply between the groups (80% against 35%), so the mix of the sample drives the overall figure [1]. If only 20% of respondents had been weekly cyclists, the same group rates would give about 44% overall, so the 62% figure is not secure [1]. One location on one Saturday is not a random sample and may miss groups such as commuters who drive [1]. Tomas should limit the claim to “those surveyed”, treat it as evidence for one perspective, and compare it with other data [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Evaluation of data earns most when you use the table’s own numbers to show how the bias changes the result.

8. Entry A records actions and dates [1], but it shows no planning beyond the next task and no reflection on what the articles found [1]. Entry B records findings from two sources and notes that both have an interest, so it assesses them [1]. It reflects on a problem with the original question and records a decision to reword it [1]. It plans next steps, including independent data and a check with the teacher, so B meets record, plan and reflect; A meets only record [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Match each entry to the three verbs in the criterion; a judgement without that check is only half an evaluation.

9. “Studies show” makes a claim with no citation at all [1]. The quotation from Okafor has no year or page number, so the reference is incomplete [1]. “News site, 2024” does not identify the author or source, so a reader could not find it [1]. The citation style is inconsistent: one citation gives author, year and page, the others do not [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Quotations need full references; this is a printed syllabus rule, so name it.

10. The real coursework is marked with levels of response, not point by point; this plan shows creditworthy content.

Strengths: interviews give depth on how tourism affects people’s lives [1]. Ana can ask follow-up questions to clarify answers [1]. They provide first-hand primary evidence from people directly affected [1], and concrete examples help a non-specialist reader [1].

Limitations: eight interviews are too few to represent Calvera’s workforce [1]. All eight work in hotels, so they represent people who benefit from tourism, one perspective only [1]. Groups such as fishers, environmental groups or government officials are missing [1]. Answers may be shaped by leading questions or by the interviewer’s presence [1]. Ethics: workers need informed consent and anonymity, and may not speak freely if managers are also interviewed [1].

Methodology: a question about economic growth is usually studied through numerical data, so interviews alone cannot answer it [1]. Combining interviews with a literature review and statistical data would let each method check the other [1].

Judgement: interviews are a useful supporting method that adds human detail, but they should not be Ana’s main method for this question [1]. [12] Examiner insight: Tie every limitation to Ana’s sample and question; general pros and cons of interviews earn little.

11. The real coursework is marked with levels of response, not point by point; this plan shows creditworthy content.

For a role: the syllabus advises choosing a topic of real importance to you, which sustains engagement [1]. Findings must be the result of personal reflection and judgement, so a personal view is expected [1]. You must make judgements supported by evidence, which means taking a position [1]. AO2 asks you to evaluate how other perspectives affect your own standpoint, which requires stating it [1]. You must reflect on how alternative perspectives influenced your argument [1]. The log is the place to record how your standpoint changed during research [1].

Against: a strong starting view can produce a loaded question [1]. It can bias source selection towards material that agrees with you [1]. You must build and compare contrasting perspectives fairly, giving each its strongest case [1]. Judgements must rest on evidence, not opinion [1]. AO1 carries 65% of the component, so most credit is for evidence-based analysis [1]. A non-specialist reader needs a clear, fair account before your verdict [1]. Choice of methods may reflect your standpoint, so you need to justify it through methodology [1]. Reflecting on the scope and limits of your research checks your own bias [1].

Judgement: the claim is too strong; your standpoint should shape the choice of topic and the final judgement [1], but not the selection or treatment of evidence, so it is stated, tested against other perspectives, and revised where the evidence requires [1]. [16] Examiner insight: “To what extent” needs a clear final position that qualifies the statement, not a list of points on each side.

Where marks are usually lost

• Giving totals without saying which part of the work they belong to.
• Treating the title, bibliography or log as part of the 5000 words, or the log as a place for overflow.
• Examples of evidence that do not fit the question given.
• Confusing methods with methodology, or defining one and not the other.
• Accepting a question because it ends with a question mark, even when it is loaded.
• Evaluating data in general terms instead of using the figures in the table.
• Judging log entries without testing them against record, plan and reflect.
• Extended answers that list points on both sides but end without a supported judgement.

Next steps

Check your readiness with the free diagnostics, then compare skills across components with the essay practice questions, the team project practice questions and the written exam practice questions. For one-to-one help planning your report, book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239) syllabus for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028, Version 3 (published December 2025). Component 4 – Cambridge Research Report is set out in section 4, Details of the assessment.