Cambridge IGCSE Sociology - myeducite.com

Cambridge IGCSE®

Sociology

0495

Paper 1

Cambridge International Examinations retains the copyright on all its publications. Registered Centres are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use. However, we cannot give permission to Centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within a Centre. ® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations. © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Version 1

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

Assessment at a glance .................................................................................................... 3

Paper 1 ................................................................................................................................ 4

Section A: Theory and methods ........................................................................................... 4

Section B: Culture, identity and socialisation ..................................................................... 27

Section C: Social inequality ............................................................................................... 44

Introduction

2 Cambridge IGCSE Sociology 0495

Introduction

The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Cambridge IGCSE Sociology (0495), and to show how different levels of candidates’ performance (high, middle and low) relate to the subject’s curriculum and assessment objectives. As far as possible we have shown a high, middle and low response to each question. In this booklet candidate responses have been chosen to exemplify a range of answers. Each response is accompanied by a brief commentary explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the answers. For ease of reference the following format for each component has been adopted:

Each question is followed by an extract of the mark scheme used by examiners. This, in turn, is followed by examples of marked candidate responses, each with an examiner comment on performance. Comments are given to indicate where and why marks were awarded, and how additional marks could have been obtained. In this way, it is possible to understand what candidates have done to gain their marks and what they still have to do to improve their marks. Past papers, Examiner Reports and other teacher support materials are available on Teacher Support at https://teachers.cie.org.uk

Question

Mark scheme

Example candidate response

Examiner comment

https://teachers.cie.org.uk/

Assessment at a glance

Cambridge IGCSE Sociology 0495 3

Assessment at a glance

Teachers are reminded that the latest syllabus is available on our public website at www.cie.org.uk and Teacher Support at https://teachers.cie.org.uk

http://www.cie.org.uk/

https://teachers.cie.org.uk/login_form?came_from=https%3A//teachers.cie.org.uk/index_html

Paper 1


Paper 1

Section A: Theory and methods

Paper 1


Mark scheme

Paper 1


Mark scheme, continued

Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1


Question 1(a)

Example candidate response – high

Examiner comment – high The candidate has clearly expressed two trends. Whilst the candidate might have expressed this as decreasing birth rate and aging population, or increasing life expectancy as many other candidates did, the use of data from source A makes the candidate’s intention clear. Mark awarded = 2/2

Example candidate response – middle

Examiner comment – middle This candidate has clearly understood the notion of a trend and has clearly identified that there is an aging population, for which they achieve a mark. They do not manage a second clear mark as the data quoted is inaccurately drawn from the population pyramid. The candidate would have scored a second mark had they taken greater care with their reference to the data. Mark awarded = 1/2

Example candidate response – low

Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate has identified features of the two population pyramids but they have failed to score any marks because they have not linked the two together as a trend. To score marks the candidate needed to say females are living longer; as this is not explicitly stated it is not clear from the candidate’s response that is was understood. Mark awarded = 0/2

Paper 1


Question 1(b)


Examiner comment – high The candidate provides a very lengthy response to this two-mark question. The candidate offers two appropriate methods in the first paragraph of the answer and marks were awarded for identifying interviews and questionnaires. Although the candidate also offers observations as a response this would not have been an acceptable alternative response, whilst it is a research method it would be a completely inappropriate method to use for this research task. The remainder of the answer shows poor exam technique; although the candidate is explaining why these methods are appropriate they do not need to do this so the candidate is not using their time well. Mark awarded = 2/2

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle The candidate has clearly identified census as a method, however the second part of the answer does not give a second identification. The candidate would have done better if they had said how social trends data is gathered. Mark awarded = 1/2


Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate made a common error by confusing a type of data that a sociologist might use with a method. The candidate needed to identify the methods used to collect the official statistics in order to gain marks. Mark awarded = 0/2

Paper 1


Question 1(c)


Examiner comment – high The candidate was awarded marks here because they have clearly linked their answer to generalisation, making the point that generalisation can be made because there is a large sample that is representative of the whole population. The candidate has also made use of source A, as directed in the question, by commenting that source A is statistical data. This is only a brief reference and a more detailed and developed use of the data in source A would be more desirable. A specific reference could have been made to aspects of the data to support the response. For example, the candidate might have made reference to the fact that the data represents the ‘world population’. Mark awarded = 3/4


Examiner comment – middle Whilst the candidate has made the point that the numerical nature of the data would aid generalisation, they would have been awarded more marks if they had taken note of the question instruction ‘Using information from source A’. The candidate needed to use information from source A to illustrate their point about generalisation to access the higher marks. Mark awarded = 1 /4

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low Whilst the candidate clearly knows what quantitative data is, in order to be awarded marks they needed to make a clear link to the question. There is no explicit reference to how this helps generalisation nor does the candidate follow the question instruction to use Source A. Mark awarded = 0/4

Paper 1


Question 1(d)


Examiner comment – high The candidate has demonstrated clear knowledge of the method of field experiment shown through the discussion of natural surroundings and natural behaviour, and has identified the strengths of this method in terms of validity and the avoidance of the Hawthorne effect. The answer is also well developed to support this point. Mark awarded = 4/4


Examiner comment – middle The candidate has demonstrated some understanding of the term field experiment “it takes place in natural world” which is then developed by stating “So everything happens naturally”. Implicit in this point is that this is a strength, i.e.it is more valid, although the candidate shows confusion here by stating that it “makes it more reliable”. There is an attempt at a second strength but this point is not necessarily true and therefore gains no marks. The candidate would have done better had they developed their second point about the nature of the data produced and linking their answer more explicitly to the question. Mark awarded = 2/4

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate’s first point is not valid as it is too vague. Field experiments could be “time saving” relative to some methods but there are also other methods which are less time consuming. The candidate needed to make clear that this method was time saving relative to another specified method. The candidate’s second point about “been [being] there”, although a weak point, is a ‘reasonable response’, but elaborating on this would be a far better response. The candidate needed to demonstrate clearer knowledge of the strengths of this research method to score more marks. Mark awarded = 1/4

Paper 1


Question 1(e)


Examiner comment – high The candidate has shown good exam technique by clearly laying out their answer in terms of strengths and limitations. They are awarded marks firstly by stating that if the primary data is quantitative it is more reliable. The point about reliability is then developed and the candidate gains more marks by stating that primary data may be more valid, and again this point is developed. Where this candidate does really well is avoiding the error made by other candidates who failed to show an understanding of the link between the nature of the data and the nature of the research carried out. This candidate uses language which clearly avoids this error stating “if primary data is quantitative…” and “may be more valid”, showing clear awareness that the strengths and limitations are dependent on the way the data was collected. In terms of the limitations the candidate again avoids errors made by others; the points made about the time and cost of collecting primary data are made comparative, i.e. “compared to secondary data”, showing that the candidate has understood that time and cost by themselves are not limitations as all research costs some money and all research takes some time. The second limitation is the issue of data being unreliable and again this is given the context of “if it is qualitative”. Mark awarded = 8/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle In this response the candidate has clearly shown an understanding of the primary data. Regarding the first point made, that the data “is more truthful”, although this is not necessarily the case there is an implicit suggestion that the data is more valid as the researcher has greater control over it. However, this point is more clearly made in the second paragraph and it is this second attempt at strength with some development that is awarded marks. The third paragraph, where the candidate begins to look at the limitations, is very vague and there is no valid sociological point made. The candidate then produces a ‘stock answer’ identifying that it is expensive to produce and time consuming to collect. Both of these identifications are awarded marks but the candidate would have done better had each of these points been developed. Mark awarded = 4/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this answer the candidate clearly understands the term ‘primary data’. The candidate is able to identify one strength and two weaknesses but neither of these are developed. The point that primary data is reliable is not credited because it is not necessarily true. The candidate gains marks for “first hand”, “time consuming” and “expensive”. To gain additional marks the candidate needed to offer some development on these identifications. Mark awarded = 3/8

Paper 1


Question 1(f)


Paper 1


Examiner comment – high The candidate shows a clear understanding of what is meant by quantitative research and the benefits of this type of research method. The candidate compares these benefits to the limitations of qualitative data with regard to generalisation, trends and comparison. The candidate makes reference to reliability, checking and reproducing the data; however, this reference to reliability is not entirely clear since the point made could also in part refer to validity. To achieve a higher mark the candidate needed to make clear the link between reliable and quantitative and show a clearer understanding of the term reliable. Mark awarded = 8/10


Paper 1


Examiner comment – middle The candidate has begun with a definition of the key terms. Whilst this is not strictly necessary it shows that the candidate is clearly able to distinguish between the two types of data. There is then a clear point made about why qualitative data is more reliable, i.e. “if the research is repeated in the same way it will represent the same answer”, and a second clear point is made about identification of trends and comparison. The next section is not well focused on the question because the candidate has begun to talk about validity rather than reliability. Although there is a point about the strengths of quantitative data this is not what the question asks. The candidate has made two valid sociological points which fit within the Band 2 descriptor but there is not enough focus on the question. The candidate needed a better grasp of the reliability and there is no discussion of qualitative data. Comparison between the two types of research method would have helped the candidate gain a higher mark. Mark awarded = 5/10


Examiner comment – low The candidate has shown an understanding of what is meant by quantitative and qualitative data. The candidate gives one weak reason, i.e. it’s more reliable because you can measure it. To improve this answer the candidate needs to give clearer examples explaining why certain methods are more reliable than others. Use of terms like ‘trends’, ‘generalisation’, ‘replication’ and ‘representativeness’ in the appropriate context would have led to higher marks. Mark awarded = 2/10

Paper 1


Question 1(g)


Paper 1


Examiner comment – high The candidate knows that it is the view of positivists that science should be scientific. The need to be scientific is clearly linked to the need to maintain objectivity in research and there is an explanation of how this might be done. There is an implicit understanding that positivists wish to establish social facts in the candidate’s discussion of Comte and Durkheim. The candidate then goes on to present the opposing argument which they know is the view of interpretativists and is linked to human consciousness. There is good knowledge and use of sociological language throughout. This candidate could have done better had they focused their conclusion more fully on the ‘extent’. Whilst the candidate states that “sociological research is … scientific to a certain extent” the subsequent explanation of this is not entirely clear. The conclusion is more a summary than an evaluation of the debate. Mark awarded = 13/15


Examiner comment – middle The candidate has the basis of a good answer here but it is never fully developed. They clearly are aware that it is the positivists who believe that sociology should take a scientific approach and there is an implicit understanding that the ‘scientific’ methods used lead to the collection of social ‘facts’. The candidate knows that it is the interpretivists (they use ‘Interactionists’) that disagree with the positivists. This is illustrated in the point made about suicide where it is implicit that sociology is about meaning and human interaction, thus they have begun to present the other side of the argument. The candidate needed a larger range of points and more examples to gain higher marks, and the answer would have benefitted from a clearly defined conclusion. Mark awarded = 9/15

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate has produced an answer which shows an awareness of the positivist tradition and there is an understanding of the link between scientific and objective; however beyond this the candidate’s response is confused and lacks clarity. To score more highly the candidate needed to show an awareness of the interpretativist arguments and the answer needed to be more clearly expressed and linked to the question. Mark awarded = 2/15

Paper 1


Section B: Culture, identity and socialisation

Paper 1


Mark scheme

Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1


Question 2(a)


Examiner comment – high The candidate offers a clear definition and is aware that identity is not just how we see ourselves, for which they are awarded one mark but also how others see us, for which they achieved a second mark. Mark awarded = 2/2


Examiner comment – middle Here the candidate has offered only a partial definition. There is an understanding that identity is how we see ourselves but no recognition of the importance of how others see us. Mark awarded = 1/2


Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate’s definition shows some awareness of an aspect of identity but their knowledge of the term is not secure enough to give a clear definition. Mark awarded = 0/2

Paper 1


Question 2(b)


Examiner comment – high The candidate offers two clear ways in which identity can be reinforced, the first being canalisation for which the candidate achieves an identification mark, this is then developed with a description of the process of canalisation which achieves a mark for development. The candidate clearly offers a second process, for which they gain a second mark, for the identification of the process of manipulation which is again developed with a detailed description. Whilst for the most part this is a well laid out, clear response and the candidate did achieve full marks, their answer could have been more succinct. The candidate provides an example of manipulation which is not necessary and gains no additional marks. Mark awarded = 4/4


Examiner comment – middle The candidate has clearly understood the social processes whereby gender identity is reinforced and two of these processes are described, i.e. giving a child gender-based toys and clothing. Where the candidate could have gained additional marks is by identifying the processes by name. Mark awarded = 2/4

Paper 1


Question 2(c)


Examiner comment – high The candidate offers a very succinct answer; the answer offers clear knowledge of the role of the peer group in secondary socialisation. There are a variety of reasons offered why the peer group is influential; these include rejection, peer pressure and belonging. In addition, the candidate also recognises the peer group’s role in reinforcing identity. This answer illustrates how precise and succinct answers can achieve high marks. Mark awarded = 6/6

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle The candidate clearly shows an understanding of secondary socialisation and shows some knowledge of the role of the peer group in influencing values, attitudes and behaviour. There is a clear example of the influence of the peer group but any explanation of how this works is largely left implicit and cannot be awarded marks. Mark awarded = 4/6

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this answer the candidate has shown a clear knowledge of what a peer group is and has understood that it has a role in secondary socialisation and introduction to other norms and values. However, the answer is short and seriously underdeveloped and there is a very narrow view of the peer group as something only encountered in school. To achieve higher marks the candidate needed to expand the answer to look at the role of the peer group in other contexts. Mark awarded = 3/6

Paper 1


Question 2(d)


Examiner comment – high This is a good answer because the candidate has clearly linked the issue of inadequate socialisation to the question, i.e. why it is a problem for society. The candidate shows clear knowledge of the concept of inadequate socialisation which they clearly link to increases in crime and deviance, “damages the smooth running of society” is a clear reference to inadequate socialisation being dysfunctional, undermining norms and values, and impacting on social cohesion. The candidate’s answer offers a range of explanations in a concise answer. Where the candidate could have achieved more marks would have been through an even more comprehensive use of sociological terms and concepts, for example, the use of terms like ‘anomie’ or ‘dysfunctional’. Mark awarded = 7/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle In this answer the candidate has demonstrated a good knowledge of the role of primary socialisation and given examples of inadequate socialisation, however they have only implicitly suggested any reason why inadequate socialisation might be a problem for society; there is a hint that those who are inadequately socialised won’t fit in, i.e. “they behave differently … will not be able to communicate” but the candidate needed to develop this in terms of its impact on society to score more highly. Mark awarded = 5/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate has shown some basic understanding of what is meant by inadequate socialisation and they have made one weak point about why this would be a problem for society “someone may not follow rules … making … you as a criminal”. To be awarded more marks this answer needed much more development and a far greater range of reasons why inadequate socialisation is a problem. Mark awarded = 2/8

Paper 1


Question 2(e)


Examiner comment – high This is a good answer as the candidate has used a range of examples focusing on the differing views on the causes of violent and criminal behaviour. Sociological language is used appropriately and there are a range of terms used, these include socialisation, norms, values culture, and socio-biologists. There is clear evidence of both sides of the argument which the candidate has clearly set out; the candidate’s knowledge of the views of socio-biologists is as strong as their knowledge of the sociological arguments. The answer ends with a strong conclusion that highlights the notion of humans having self-control and not being driven solely by instinct. The candidate has clearly argued the case but has not been afraid to say that in their view behaviour is mostly learnt making a decision about the extent to which behaviour was learnt. Mark awarded = 15/15

Paper 1



Paper 1


Example candidate response – middle, continued

Examiner comment – middle The candidate has shown a clear knowledge of the process of socialisation offering details of a variety of aspects of the socialisation process. There is an implicit acceptance in the answer that behaviour is solely learned through socialisation which means the candidate has not fully addressed the question. To improve the answer further the candidate needed to consider arguments that suggest some behaviour is innate. This is a one-sided response, so the candidate cannot access the higher marks for this question. Mark awarded = 8/15

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In answer to this question the candidate has produced a very brief one-sided response that there is an implicit acceptance that human behaviour is learnt, and they offer some explanation/description of the processes by which human behaviour is learnt, i.e. socialisation, canalisation, and imitation. They show some knowledge of sociological terms and there is some awareness of the agencies of socialisation. To gain higher marks the candidate needed to consider the views of those such as socio-biologists who see some aspects of human behaviour as innate, and there also needed to be a greater development in the evidence both for and against the question. Mark awarded = 5/15

Paper 1


Section C: Social inequality

Paper 1


Mark scheme

Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1



Paper 1


Question 3(a)


Examiner comment – high The candidate has answered this well and has offered a clear definition which shows an awareness that achieved status can be changed rather than being determined by ascribed characteristics. This is clearly expressed thorough the comparison given “through ones own hardwork … rather than … by birth’. Mark awarded = 2/2


Examiner comment – low The candidate has the basic idea of what achieved status is but overall their answer lacks clarity. The point about “doctor or engineer” adds nothing to the definition because there is no indication of why doctors and engineers are achieved statuses. If the candidate had said ‘an individual born to a manual labourer works hard to become a doctor or engineer’ this would have clarified their definition and achieved the candidate an additional mark. The candidate shows poor exam technique by writing “etc.” where they needed to complete their point. Mark awarded = 1/2

Paper 1


Question 3(b)


Examiner comment – high The candidate has offered a very succinct answer, firstly identifying ethnicity, for which they gain an identification mark, then developing this to explain what this means for which they achieve the development mark. Their second identification mark is for class, which again is given some development where the candidate states “level of society … based on income”. This is a valid point of development which gains the final mark. Whilst the candidate also mentions race and caste, which are also valid responses, they did not need to mention these to achieve the marks. Mark awarded = 4/4


Examiner comment – middle In this response the candidate has clearly identified a number of different forms of stratification, more than are required as the candidate can only score two marks for identification, but only the one point about class is developed. The comments about job stratification gain no additional marks as they are a further development of the point about class. The candidate needed to develop their identification of either ethnicity or gender to gain an additional mark. Mark awarded = 3/4

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low The candidate has given the example of class with the development of “based on our job…” They then discuss occupation which is another word for ‘job’ so this is repetitive of the first point. To score additional marks the candidate needed to clearly identify another form of social stratification. Mark awarded = 2/4

Paper 1


Question 3(c)


Paper 1


Examiner comment – high The candidate begins by identifying a range of reasons why those with higher ascribed status have better life chances, clearly identifying education, healthcare and housing conditions. The candidate then goes on to explain why each of these factors makes a difference to an individual’s life chances. The candidate has clearly offered a range of factors, although these are not always well expressed, and so gains credit for the points made, such as lack of money, food, not knowing rights to healthcare, having to rent property compared to owning a villa, etc. The answer could have been better if the candidate had used a greater number of terms and concepts, for example, using the term ‘cultural capital’ in reference to the statement “parents may have experience and background to help their children”. Use of terms in this way would have gained the candidate more marks. Mark awarded = 5/6


Examiner comment – middle The candidate has clearly identified two clear factors which contribute to better life chances for those with higher ascribed status, i.e. income and education. There is also some link to the benefits of high ascribed status in the paragraph that discusses being born into royalty. Implicit in this is that you have the best life chances because you have “a top class position straight way”. The candidate clearly understands the link between high ascribed status and life chances, however the answer could have been improved if the candidate had included a wider range of benefits that come with this status. The candidate might have developed the final point in the answer to include a discussion of access to power and elites to have gained more marks. Mark awarded = 4/6

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this response the candidate has identified some advantages of high ascribed status, “better job, career, wealth, etc.” However, the candidate needed to develop these points to achieve higher marks. There is no explicit link to the question. Mark awarded = 2/6

Paper 1


Question 3(d)


Examiner comment – high In this answer there is some good sociological language used (scapegoating and alienation) and the candidate makes the clear link between powerlessness and discrimination. They make the point that this may lead to inequality in law (“find it harder to get represented in court”). However, other points about “self-esteem” and “point the finger” are only partially developed and would need further explanation and reference to other sociological phenomena, for example labelling theory in reference to the point about ‘clump together … generalise”, to gain higher marks. Mark awarded = 6/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle The candidate has shown an awareness of the social groups who are likely to lack power and therefore suffer discrimination, i.e. women and ethnic minorities. However, they also argue that women of status have power and therefore do not suffer discrimination with the example that “Queen Elizabeth … never suffered discriminative acts”. This is a weak illustration of their argument as it is unclear which Queen Elizabeth they are referring to and the point made is not necessarily true. There is also a weak point that ethnic minorities suffer discrimination because “they are less”, meaning that there are fewer of them, and implicit in this is that they lack collective power and therefore face discrimination. Whilst there is an attempt to answer the question, much of the argument is implicit and the candidate does not offer any range. In addition, there is a limited use of sociological terms and concepts. All of these things would need to be addressed for the candidate to score more highly. Mark awarded = 3/8

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low The candidate has offered a response which makes a few general common sense comments about the link between power and discrimination. To score more marks the candidate needs to provide a more developed answer with better use of sociological terms and knowledge. Mark awarded = 2/8

Paper 1


Question 3(e)


Paper 1


Example candidate response – high, continued

Examiner comment – high The candidate offers a range of evidence both for and against the argument, beginning with reasons for: unequal accesses to positions of status, greater risk of poverty, lack of pay and promotion, sexism. This is followed by evidence against: better education, discrimination legislation, the ‘New Man’, etc. The candidate has clearly offered a range of evidence both for and against the question. The candidate clearly understands the term ‘patriarchy ‘and there is some good sociological language and knowledge. The candidate could have gained much higher marks had they reached a conclusion which made some assessment of ‘the extent’. Mark awarded = 12/15

Paper 1



Examiner comment – middle In this response the candidate has offered a number of features of patriarchal society, such as domestic/sexual violence, inequality in pay, inequality in power, caring burden and objectification of women in culture. All these are valid reasons why society is patriarchal. Where the candidate needed to make improvements to their answer was to address the evidence that society is not so patriarchal. The candidate has made the implicit assumption that society is patriarchal and ignored the other side of the argument presenting a one sided response which limits the marks they can achieve. Mark awarded = 8/15

Paper 1



Examiner comment – low In this answer the candidate has given a response which has an implicit acceptance that patriarchy is still a major feature of modern society, there is some attempt to give reasons why; “men will discriminate women”, “women … lack power” and there is an attempt to present the other side of the argument “women can do equally or even better than man” but the answer needed more development, more use of sociological terms and a much wider range of reasons to reach the higher mark bands. Mark awarded = 3/15

Cambridge International Examinations 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU, United Kingdom tel: +44 1223 553554 fax: +44 1223 553558 email: [email protected] www.cie.org.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cie.org.uk/

Documents

Cambridge IGCSE Sociology - myeducite.com