Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives: Component 2 – Individual Report — Practice Questions

These are original practice questions written in the style of Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) assessment objectives. They are not taken from any past paper and are not endorsed by Cambridge International.

Use these questions alongside the Component 2 – Individual Report study guide and revision notes.

Section A

1. State the word count range for the Individual Report, and whether the bibliography is included in this count. [2]

2. State what percentage of the qualification Component 2 carries, and whether it is internally or externally marked. [2]

3. Name the five skills on which candidates are assessed in the Individual Report. [5]

Section B

4. A candidate proposes the topic title “Deforestation” as their Individual Report title.

(a) Explain why this title, on its own, does not provide enough structure for the report. [2] (b) Rewrite it as a research question that builds in a specific place, a specific issue, and room for more than one perspective. [2]

5. A candidate writes their report as a persuasive essay arguing strongly for one side of an issue, in a structure of their own choosing, rather than following the sequence the syllabus recommends.

(a) Explain whether this approach is automatically penalised for its ordering alone, and why it is nonetheless risky. [2] (b) State the four-part order the syllabus recommends. [2]

6. A candidate cites ten sources in their bibliography but does not discuss anywhere in the report whether any of them are reliable or credible.

(a) Explain which part of the marking criteria this affects. [2] (b) State the two things an evaluation of a source should include. [2]

7. A candidate investigating a shared river’s water supply compares an upstream government’s perspective with a downstream government’s perspective, but only states that the two governments “disagree,” without explaining why.

(a) Explain why this is incomplete. [2] (b) Suggest what the candidate should add to strengthen this comparison. [2]

8. A candidate leaves their reference list until the final day of writing, intending to reconstruct it from memory.

(a) Explain why this is risky. [2] (b) Suggest a better approach to referencing throughout the research process. [1]

9. Explain why reading exemplar reports on topics entirely unrelated to a candidate’s own chosen issue can still be useful preparation for this component. [2]

10. A candidate’s teacher reviews an early draft and suggests the research question is too broad to answer well in 1500-2000 words. Explain what role the teacher is permitted to play here, and why the final report must still be the candidate’s own independent work. [3]

---

Answers

1. 1500–2000 words [1]; the bibliography or reference list is excluded from this word count [1].

2. Component 2 carries 30% of the qualification [1]; it is internally set and externally marked by Cambridge International — the candidate devises the research question and title themselves, with the teacher’s role limited to guiding its feasibility [1].

3. Research, analysis, evaluation, reflection, and communication [5]. (The syllabus names a sixth skill, collaboration, which is assessed in the Team Project; the Written Exam assesses research, analysis and evaluation only.)

4. (a) “Deforestation” is a broad topic title with no built-in place, specific issue, or perspectives, so it gives no structure for organising 1500–2000 words of research and analysis [2]. (b) For example: “Should Indonesia allow palm-oil plantations to expand into the rainforests of Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo), given the conflicting perspectives of plantation workers, Indigenous communities and international environmental groups?” [1 for a question naming a specific place and a specific issue; 1 for building in room for at least two different perspectives. Allow any research question that does all three; a question with no named place, such as one about “tropical countries” in general, cannot gain the first mark].

5. (a) Not automatically: Cambridge’s specimen mark scheme for this component marks the report against eight level-based tables (the global issue; causes and consequences; perspectives; courses of action; evaluation of evidence and sources; reflection; structure and clarity; referencing), and none of them requires one particular order. However, the recommended sequence (issue and perspectives, causes and consequences, evaluated courses of action, reflection and conclusion) maps directly onto those tables, and structure and clarity is itself marked, so a persuasive essay built in a different order makes it easy to leave a required element – such as two evaluated courses of action with a justified preferred option, or explicit reflection – under-developed or hard to find, which is what actually risks losing marks, not the reordering itself [2]. (b) Explain the issue and its different perspectives; analyse causes and consequences; evaluate possible courses of action and propose one; reflect and conclude, directly answering the research question [2].

6. (a) It affects the criterion for evaluation of evidence and sources (AO1 Research, analysis and evaluation) [1], since evaluating sources — explaining their value to the research and whether they are reliable and credible — not just citing them, is what that criterion rewards; citing sources without evaluating any of them leaves that criterion’s marks largely out of reach [1]. (b) An evaluation should state the source’s value to the research, and whether it is reliable and credible [2].

7. (a) This is incomplete because simply stating that two groups disagree does not demonstrate understanding of why their perspectives differ, which is what the perspectives criterion requires: each perspective must be presented and explained, with supporting information, and the syllabus asks candidates to show why different people hold different perspectives [2]. (b) The candidate should explain the different pressures or priorities driving each government’s view — for example, the upstream government prioritising its own agricultural water use, against the downstream government facing water shortages as a result [2].

8. (a) Reconstructing a reference list from memory risks inaccurate or incomplete citations [1], and the referencing criterion (AO3 Communication, not AO1 evaluation) rewards citation and referencing that are complete, use a consistent method and link clearly to each other [1]. (b) Keep a running reference list from the first source read, updating it as each new source is used throughout the research process [1].

9. Because Global Perspectives assesses the same five skills — research, analysis, evaluation, reflection and communication — regardless of the specific topic chosen, seeing what a strong analysis or a well-evaluated source looks like in an exemplar report transfers directly to a candidate’s own report, even when the subject matter is completely different [2].

10. The teacher may guide the candidate toward a feasible, manageable topic, help formulate a genuinely researchable question, and support research, referencing skills and time management [1–2]. The final report must still be the candidate’s own independent work because it is marked externally by Cambridge International rather than by the candidate’s own teacher, so teacher feedback during drafting should be treated as guidance on structure and scope, not as pre-approval of content [1].

A note on exam technique for this topic

Because the Individual Report is assessed on transferable skills rather than subject content, the highest-value preparation is practising the research question itself before any other work begins: a question that names a specific place, a specific issue, and builds in room for at least two genuinely contrasting perspectives will make every later stage of the report easier to structure. Build the report broadly in the sequence the syllabus recommends — issue and perspectives, then causes and consequences, then evaluated courses of action, then reflection and conclusion. Cambridge’s mark scheme for this component has no rule that scores a differently-ordered report lower purely for its order — but the recommended sequence maps onto everything the marking criteria reward, and structure and clarity are marked in their own right, so following it makes every requirement far easier to evidence clearly.