When I was teaching full-time I always had really good intentions of reading the examiner reports as soon as they were out, but often this got pushed to the side with all of the back to school admin, including hours of data crunching (I used to work in a school where this was the norm). So it wasn't uncommon for the examiner reports to wait until a bit later in the term, which is understandable but also a missed opportunity as they are so detailed and are a really useful tool to help inform your teaching, and in particular where to focus your efforts on.

It is the level of detail that makes them so useful, but at the same time makes them so time-consuming to trawl through. With that in mind we will be publishing summaries of the reports for the 2 papers this week. I am hoping that by highlighting key comments and breaking them down into manageable chunks, they will become much more accessible for all.

Don't forget that last year AQA started to include exemplar answers with commentary highlighting good and weak answers which is really useful for your own or departmental CPD.

Overall summary

What was done well?

• 4-mark questions were generally answered well - clearly and concisely, and students showed good understanding of core content, e.g. drainage basin characteristics
• Graph questions - students identified patterns and manipulated data effectively
• Some strong responses for novel situation questions - students use their time well in these questions
• Lots of good understanding with the factors that drive change, e.g. deforestation and carbon stores, erosion on landscapes - good development in answers
• Some good evaluation for the 20 markers - good application of appropriate case studies (although for 05.5 some students struggled with the concept of human occupation of a multi-hazard environment)

Areas for improvement

• Some misunderstanding of specific landforms and their formation, e.g. confusion between arcs and chains
• Analysis and interpretation of map evidence lacks sufficient development
• When students are given two maps to analyse many miss the opportunity to cross reference between the two maps and make links
• Some students over-complicated the data analysis questions (e.g. coasts unit) - they need to breakdown what the graphs show carefully before they start their analysis
• Novel situation questions need more practice - some students are focusing on relaying case study information, rather than assessing the information in front of them (again over-complicating the question)
• The 9-marker Hazards question performed worse than the Ecosystems one - students need to consider a range of factors
• Some irrelevant material used in 20-markers

4-markers (AO1)

These questions assess knowledge and understanding, and require students to outline key processes, concepts, interaction and change.

Better answers...

• used a systems-based approach as well as outlining features and characteristics
• described the stages of formation in detail

Weaker answers...

• showed confusion between key features (e.g. arcs and chains) so their answers contained irrelevant detail
• showed a lack of clarity with sequence processing

6-markers (AO3 skills-based)

These questions assess how students interpret, analyse and evaluate data, evidence and resources.

Better answers...

• showed that students are used to working with data, interpreting map information and analysis using data to support
• showed a clear understanding of the type of graph they were being presented with
• clearly identified anomalies
• showed a clear understanding of the different variables
• did not include explanation (which is not credit-worthy)

Weaker answers...

• tried to apply knowledge and understanding, rather than talk about what the graphs showed
• didn't talk about patterns in much detail, lacked comparison
• didn't evaluate the effectiveness of the resource (e.g. usefulness of scale)

6- and 9 markers (AO1/AO2 stimulus-based)

These questions assess knowledge and understanding when applied to novel situations (resource prompts).

Students always find these questions a bit tricky - they need to practise quickly working out what the resource shows and which part of the spec it links to - then simply answer the question, bringing in relevant learned material.

Better answers...

• contained both student's own knowledge and an argument
• applied own understanding to the resource that has been provided
• made distinct reference to the resource so it is clear that the stimulus is being referred to
• identified key pieces of information from the resource and then offered explanation linked to it from own knowledge, e.g. talking about knock-on effects, picking out specific factors, considering relevant importance

Weaker answers...

• offered a long narrative of case study material that doesn't answer the question
• only dealt with one aspect of the question - either talking about just the resource, or just their own knowledge (no linking between the two)
• ignored how the resource was set out (e.g. in a series of steps to work through) which was designed to help students structure their answers
• missed opportunities from the resource, e.g. potential impacts
• offered only basic explanation and show limited understanding of impacts/strategies/xxx

9-mark AO1/AO2 questions (no stimulus)

These questions assess knowledge and understanding of links made within or across specification units.

Better answers...

• focused on impacts, particularly on people
• talked about knock-on impacts

Weaker answers...

• over-complicated the question
• didn't apply their own case studies effectively
• made generalisations between higher income and lower income countries - e.g. ignoring the fact that the wildfires with the worst impacts have actually been in rich countries, such as Australia

20 markers

These questions assess knowledge, understanding and application - constructing arguments and drawing conclusions.

Better answers...

• showed secure and detailed knowledge, e.g. factors driving change in the magnitude of carbon stores
• showed links between different areas of the specification
• applied case studies effectively
• demonstrated an appreciation of a range of spatial and temporal scales
• looked at more than one side of the argument and offer a clear and sustained line of reasoning throughout
• offered substantiated conclusions, which are held throughout

Weaker answers...

• sometimes misunderstood the question - either because it had been misread or they didn't understand the demands, e.g. not appreciating the context of the question - so therefore missed opportunities to bring in key information
• recalled knowledge but don't tailor it to the specific question
• showed a lack of knowledge of the topic and/or case study material - insufficient depth needed to produce a clear answer