Top Mistakes OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects Students Make (and How to Avoid Them)

Why non-exam assessment produces its own category of mistakes

OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects is assessed entirely through non-exam assessment, so the familiar advice for a written exam, manage your time in the room, watch your command words, show your working, does not transfer cleanly. There is no exam to sit for this subject, which means every mistake documented here is a mistake made over weeks, not minutes, and every one of them is avoidable with sufficient lead time. This is a precise, criteria-based account of OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects common mistakes, covering both the OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects errors and the OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects mistakes candidates most often make, drawn from the structure of the specification itself, with the corrected technique for each.

Mistake one: misreading the brief before setting the working title

The wrong approach. A student reads the specification once, forms a general impression of what is expected, and commits to a working title, aims and objectives before checking that impression against the actual requirements of the qualification.

Why it costs marks. The individual project's assessment criteria reward accurate interpretation of the requirements from the outset. A working title built on a misreading of the brief tends to produce a project that answers a question adjacent to the one actually being asked, which then depresses every subsequent mark, since research, report writing and reflection are all judged against how well they serve the stated aims and objectives.

The correct technique. Read the specification section on project planning and management in full before drafting a working title. Confirm your interpretation with your supervisor in writing, and only then finalise your topic, area, aims, objectives and word limit. Treat this confirmation step as non-negotiable, in the same way a written exam candidate would not skip reading the command word on a question.

Mistake two: scope failures, in both directions

The wrong approach. Two versions of this error are equally common: a topic so broad it cannot be researched properly in the available time (for example, "climate change" as an individual project topic), or a topic so narrow that no meaningful research exists to draw on.

Why it costs marks. An overly broad topic produces shallow, generic research that cannot demonstrate the "critically select and use information" objective, because critical selection requires enough depth in one area to compare sources meaningfully. An overly narrow topic starves the research skills strand of raw material to evaluate.

The correct technique. Narrow a broad topic by adding a specific population, location or timeframe: not "climate change" but "how has flooding frequency in [your local area] changed over the last decade, and what adaptation has followed." Widen an overly narrow topic by connecting it explicitly to a broader debate or comparable case study, so there is a body of existing work to engage with critically.

Mistake three: treating referencing as a final-week task

The wrong approach. Sources are collected as a flat list of links or titles throughout the project, with no consistent referencing system applied until the final draft, at which point the student attempts to reconstruct a full bibliography from memory and browser history.

Why it costs marks. The research skills strand explicitly assesses use of formally acknowledged forms of referencing and creation of a bibliography, alongside avoidance of plagiarism. A rushed, inconsistent, or incomplete reference list is straightforwardly visible to an assessor and undermines the credibility of research that may otherwise be strong.

The correct technique. Adopt one referencing convention from day one and apply it to every source as it is used, not retrospectively. Maintain a running research log (source, access date, one-line summary, one-line reliability note) so the final bibliography is a compilation exercise rather than an investigation.

Mistake four: narrative writing where evaluative writing is required

The wrong approach. The written report describes what the student did, in sequence, without stepping back to interpret what any of it means: what was found, what it implies, and whether it supports or complicates the original aims.

Why it costs marks. The specification distinguishes explicitly between narrative and evaluative report writing, and the "use of analysis and evaluation" is a named assessment focus. A report that only narrates cannot demonstrate analysis, regardless of how thorough the underlying research was.

The correct technique. After drafting each section, add at least one sentence that interprets the material just presented rather than simply recounting it. A useful discipline is to end every paragraph of narrative with a sentence beginning "this suggests," "this indicates," or "this complicates," forcing an evaluative move before moving to the next point.

Mistake five: exceeding the word limit and cutting badly under pressure

The wrong approach. The report is drafted with no attention to the word limit, discovered to be significantly over length at the point of submission, and cut hastily by deleting whole paragraphs rather than editing for concision.

Why it costs marks. Proofreading and editing with an appreciation for the word limit is an explicit part of the report writing strand. Hasty last-minute cuts frequently remove the evaluative sentences added late in drafting, since these are structurally easiest to delete, which silently converts an evaluative report back into a narrative one at the worst possible moment.

The correct technique. Check word count against the limit at each major milestone, not only at the end. If a cut is required near submission, prioritise removing narrative detail (background description, restated methodology) over evaluative sentences, which should be the last material removed, not the first.

Mistake six: treating the oral presentation as a formality

The wrong approach. Slides are assembled shortly before the presentation date, largely by copying text from the written report, with no separate rehearsal.

Why it costs marks. Presentation and oral communication skills are assessed against their own requirements, distinct from the written report, including elements of a successful presentation such as structure, clarity and audience engagement. A presentation that is simply the report read aloud fails to demonstrate a separate communication skill and often exposes gaps in the student's own understanding that the written report had disguised.

The correct technique. Build presentation content around what an audience needs to hear, not what the report contains in full. Rehearse aloud, in front of at least one other person, before the assessed date, and treat any question you cannot answer confidently in rehearsal as a signal to revisit that section of your research.

Mistake seven: generic, non-specific reflection

The wrong approach. The final reflective section offers general statements about effort and learning ("I worked hard and learned a lot about research") without reference to a specific decision, obstacle, or change of direction during the project.

Why it costs marks. The specification requires critical evaluation and reflection on both performance and skills acquired, and separately on presentation evidence. Generic statements cannot demonstrate criticality because they contain nothing to critique.

The correct technique. Anchor reflection to one or two named, specific moments: a source that turned out to be unreliable and had to be replaced, a planned interview that fell through and the adaptation that followed, an argument in the report that changed after new evidence emerged. Specificity, not length, is what distinguishes strong reflection.

Mistake eight: group projects with invisible collaboration

The wrong approach. In the group sustainability action project, tasks are divided by section (one student writes the introduction, another the middle, another the conclusion) with no shared decision-making process, and the joint reflection asserts teamwork without evidencing it.

Why it costs marks. The role of collaboration and teamwork is assessed as its own strand. A report that reads as three separate voices stitched together, with no documented shared decisions or resolved disagreements, provides no evidence for this strand regardless of the quality of the final output.

The correct technique. Maintain a shared decision log throughout the group project, recording what changed, why, and who raised it. Divide labour by function (research, outreach, documentation, presentation) rather than by section of the final report, and ensure the joint reflection references specific logged decisions rather than a general claim of good teamwork.

Mistake nine: scoping the sustainability action at the wrong level

The wrong approach. A group chooses a global-scale sustainability issue (ocean plastic, global emissions) that the group has no realistic means of influencing or measuring within the project timeframe.

Why it costs marks. The specification asks students to understand sustainability at local, national and global level, but the action itself needs to be scoped so its planning, delivery and evaluation can actually be evidenced. A global topic chosen for its scale, rather than its tractability, tends to produce strong background research but weak evidence of an actual, measurable action.

The correct technique. Scope the action locally wherever possible (school, immediate community), while explicitly connecting that local action to the wider national or global debate it sits within. This satisfies the conceptual requirement without sacrificing the ability to produce concrete evidence of delivery.

Mistake ten: missing the risk assessment until something goes wrong

The wrong approach. No risk assessment is completed at the planning stage; risks are only addressed reactively once a problem (an unavailable interviewee, a delayed permission, a group member's absence) has already disrupted the timeline.

Why it costs marks. Risk assessment is a named element of project planning and management. Assessors can distinguish between a project that anticipated a disruption and adapted smoothly, and one that was derailed by a foreseeable problem it never considered.

The correct technique. Complete a short, honest risk assessment at the planning stage: what could go wrong, how likely it is, and what the fallback plan is. Revisit it at each checkpoint rather than writing it once and filing it away.

Quick-reference checklist

• Confirm your working title against the actual brief with your supervisor before starting research.
• Check your topic is neither too broad to research nor too narrow to find material on.
• Log every source as you use it, not retrospectively, with a consistent referencing system.
• End narrative paragraphs with an evaluative sentence interpreting what the material means.
• Check word count against the limit at every milestone, and protect evaluative content when cutting.
• Rehearse the oral presentation aloud, in front of another person, before the assessed date.
• Anchor your final reflection to one or two specific, named decisions rather than general statements.
• In a group project, keep a shared decision log and divide labour by function, not by report section.
• Scope a sustainability action locally where possible, connecting it explicitly to the wider debate.
• Complete a risk assessment at the planning stage and revisit it at every checkpoint.

A final note on preparation

None of the ten errors above require additional talent to avoid; they require lead time and a small number of disciplined habits, applied consistently across both components. Students preparing for this qualification benefit most from treating the specification's assessment criteria as a checklist to revisit at every stage, not a document read once at the start of the course and never opened again. For a fuller walkthrough of the specification and both components, and for OxfordAQA IGCSE Global Skills Projects exam tips specific to the individual project and the group sustainability action project, the companion guides on this platform build directly on the errors documented here.

Key Points to Remember

Exam tip: Always read the question twice before writing. Underline the command word and the topic focus so your answer addresses both precisely.