So for business, as someone who has taken the subject twice, I've learned alot with regards to how the examiner wants you to structure and what they want you to include in your answers. I don't really have enough to say to fill a google doc, so here I will just list out some general tips and advice :
-
It is very important that you learn how to apply, analyse and evaluate. My biggest mistake going into my first time sitting was that I was operating on IGCSE mode, where I thought that so long as I had all of the necessary knowledge, I would be fine. In reality, knowledge points make up a very small percentage of the actual total points per paper. Aside from paper 1, the main bulk of points are concentrated in evaluation and analysis. I would recommend you take a look at some mark scheme for each paper to get an idea of just how little knowledge is actual valued per question (the 12 markers found across the first 3 papers for instance all have evaluation for 6 marks for instance.) This doesn't mean that knowledge is not important, as it is the groundwork that you will then build upon with your application, analysis and evaluation
-
So in order to learn how to analyse and evaluate, I recommend you checking out the Youtube teacher I listed in Sites + Sources. IMO, he did an amazing job of simplifying how to achieve analysis and evaluation by just asking yourself simple questions. I.E, when achieving analysis marks you ask yourself "What are the effects of this? What consequences might this have? What reactions will it result in from stakeholders?" And then when achieving evaluation the general question you should ask yourself is "What does this depend on?", I.E what does the success of implementing CPA depend on? And so forth. I recommend checking out his videos to get a clearer idea of what I'm talking about.
-
On the topic of evaluation, I've often seen many people talk about writing 'paragraphs' of evaluation, which I don't really agree with. The youtube teacher I mentioned advised to evaluate throughout as opposed to leaving it so final paragraphs. This is because due to the fact evaluation is worth so much in those 12 mark questions, you really don't want to be leaving it until the end. Evaluation should not be your conclusion, it should instead be built upon your chains of knowledge, application and analysis.
-
With regard to the 12 mark questions that ask you to evaluate, I read in an examiner comment in specimen answer paper 3 that examiners recommend that instead of mentioning alot of points, that we instead pick out 2 of the most important things and discuss those. This makes sense, considering that it will be difficult to achieve 6 marks of evaluation when you discuss lots of things, because evaluation is built upon knowledge, application and analysis. For instance, in a question about the 4Ps for my Paper 3, I opted to preface my answer by bringing up all 4Ps in my intro, but then only really focusing on the two I felt were most important.
-
My advice for answering the exams would be to skim over the shorter questions in the first 5 minutes, jot down the key ideas/base answers next to the questions on the answer sheet, then answer the more point heavy questions. Keep in mind you do not have to answer the questions in order, so long as you clearly show which question you are answering. Once you've done the questions worth more points (12 and 8 markers) then I'd go back and flesh out the first few shorter ones. You wouldn't really have to do much thinking because you'd already written down your base answers.
-
Also, manage your time effectively. Don't overwrite on the shorter questions. A question worth 5 points should not take up a page. My 12 markers took up maybe a full page? if you're writing too little you may not have enough, overwriting may mean you're going off topic. It may be tempting to want to show off all your knowledge, but keep in mind knowledge points are pretty sparse after paper 1, so you may max out on 2 points of knowledge and lose evaluation and analysis, even though you wrote a novel.
-
Finally, paper 4 is new, and my one went horribly. I don't really have much advice for it tbh, I planned a whole structure based on the one specimen paper we had available and then my exam ended up asking two completely unrelated questions I hadn't prepared for. I anticipated being asked to evaluate a growth/marketing/development strategy for question 1, but instead got asked to evaluate the extent that leadership had on a business's effective strategic management, when the case study didn't even really illustrate much cases of leadership. Then for question 2, I thought I'd be bringing in all the different strategy approaches I have listed in Paper 4, but instead the case study mentioned using 5 of them during their research into whether to do pan global marketing or global localisation. Then we had to evaluate which one they should pick. It was honestly such a horrible exam, it would have been fine if I hadn't prepared so much for something else and got thrown off. Essentially what I'm saying is that Paper 4 does not have a rigid structure, but regardless of the question asked I would recommend as you're expected to write 2 essay questions worth 20 points to have a intro, 2 points for/complimenting, 2 points criticising/against and then a conclusion. Follow the basic rules of evaluating, analysing and applying. Don't do what I did and create a rigid plan to follow, the questions could go either way, and you don't want to be thrown off guard like I was. Be able to adapt!