It’s that time of year again when the examiner reports land - full of really useful information, but also a lot of detail to work through when everyone is busy getting back into the swing of a new academic year!

The AQA examiner reports are always worth a read, particularly as they give us a really useful insight into where students performed well, where common misconceptions cropped up and, most importantly, what separated the stronger responses from those that struggled to access the higher levels.

As with last year, AQA have included plenty of exemplar responses alongside examiner commentary, which makes the report particularly useful for individual or departmental CPD.

So, to save you some time, I’ve pulled together the key messages from the 2026 Paper 1 report and broken them down by question type.

AQA reported that students were generally well prepared for Paper 1, with virtually no rubric issues. Coasts and Hazards remained the most popular optional units.

Overall summary

What was done well?

• Students generally showed a good understanding of the core content in the 4-mark AO1 questions. Water-cycle transfers/flows and the characteristics of hot deserts were particularly well understood.
• The AO3 questions differentiated well. It was particularly pleasing to see students successfully completing the Chi-square calculation and then interpreting their findings accurately.
• Students often made good use of resources when analysing geographical information.
• Some of the stimulus-based questions produced strong answers – particularly where students could identify features in the resource and then apply their own geographical understanding to them.
• The synoptic questions were generally answered well, with some impressive understanding of the links between changes to the carbon cycle and wildfire or savanna grasslands.
• There were some strong 20-mark responses. The tropical rainforest sustainability question performed particularly well, while coral reef case studies were used effectively in the ecosystems essay.

Areas for improvement

• Key terminology remains really important. Some relatively straightforward marks were lost because students did not fully understand specification terms.
• Some students struggled to identify features accurately from unfamiliar landscapes in the stimulus-based questions.
• Students need to distinguish between analysing what a resource shows and explaining why a pattern occurs in AO3 questions.
• There was still too much reliance on learned case-study material in some novel-situation questions, rather than applying knowledge to the resource and the actual question.
• Some students struggled when they did not understand the precise geographical context of an extended question – most notably the meaning of an estuarine environment.
• In Section C, students sometimes identified information from the resource but did not take the next step and apply geographical understanding to what that information suggested – for example, about Afghanistan’s resilience or ecosystem health.

AQA's overall advice is really quite simple - know the terminology, answer the actual question, and use knowledge selectively rather than writing everything they know about the topic.

4-markers (AO1)

These questions assess knowledge and understanding, requiring students to outline key processes, concepts, interactions and change.

Generally, these performed well - provided students knew the specification content accurately.

Better answers...

• were concise and precise
• clearly defined different processes or concepts
• developed points sufficiently rather than simply naming features
• showed secure understanding of geographical terminology
• sometimes used an appropriate example to develop the answer further.

The full-mark water-cycle exemplar on page 6 is a good illustration of this. The student took a straightforward definition approach, identifying four different transfers/flows accurately. AQA also notes that describing where a flow moves from and to would have been another valid way of gaining credit.

Weaker answers...

• confused similar key terms – for example, infiltration and percolation
• didn't understand precisely what the question was asking for
• drifted into case-study material rather than answering the question
• confused processes involved in the formation of young fold mountains with those associated with ridges
• didn't understand different sources of coastal sediment.

The 0-mark coastal sediment exemplar on page 8 is a really useful one to show students: there is geographical material in the answer, but it simply doesn't focus closely enough on sources of sediment.

6-markers (AO3 skills-based)

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

Students were generally well prepared for these questions, and analysis came through strongly in many responses. AQA also introduced a Chi-square test into all the Section B AO3 questions, and many students successfully completed the calculation and interpreted it correctly.

Better answers...

• identified the big-picture patterns
• supported patterns with appropriate data
• identified anomalies
• manipulated the data rather than simply copying figures from the resource
• engaged with all of the resources provided
• correctly interpreted statistical results
• stayed focused on analysis rather than drifting into explanation.

The wildfire exemplar on pages 11–12 is particularly useful. The response identifies overall patterns and anomalies – including the large Spanish wildfires away from the coast and the Scottish anomaly – before making use of the second figure and manipulating the data.

Weaker answers...

• lifted figures directly from the resource without doing anything with them
• failed to identify headline patterns
• ignored one of the figures when more than one resource was supplied
• drifted into explanations for the patterns, which is AO2 rather than AO3
• focused on isolated details rather than what the data showed overall.

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

These assess knowledge and understanding applied to a novel situation or resource.

As ever, these questions differentiated really well. The key message from AQA is that students who could think on their feet, answer the precise question and apply their knowledge to the unfamiliar context did well. Students who simply reproduced learned case studies or subject knowledge struggled to reach the higher levels.

Better answers...

• engaged explicitly with the resource
• selected appropriate geographical knowledge and applied it to what they could see
• explained how or why features shown in the resource had developed
• made plausible interpretations where appropriate
• assessed the question rather than simply describing the stimulus
• used their knowledge to extend what the resource told them.

The desert landscape exemplar is a nice example. The student identifies the landscape as desert pavement, but doesn't stop there – they connect features visible in the resource to processes and even make a plausible interpretation around the rain-shadow effect and sparse vegetation.

Weaker answers...

• wrote about the topic but made little or no reference to the resource
• analysed the data when analysis wasn't actually being assessed
• reproduced a learned case study without applying it to the novel situation
• identified a feature correctly but didn't use evidence from the figure to support the argument
• didn't really address the command or focus of the question.

The coastal exemplar on page 18 makes this particularly clear. The student correctly argues that the landform could be a spit, but doesn't refer to the resource. A stronger answer could have used evidence of the low-energy environment and vegetation colonisation to support that interpretation.

9-mark AO1/AO2 synoptic questions

This year's synoptic questions required students to make links across different parts of the specification.

AQA felt there was a fairly natural connection between the carbon cycle and both wildfire and changes affecting savanna grasslands, and consequently these questions generally performed well.

Better answers...

• established a position early
• made explicit links between different areas of geographical understanding
• developed chains of reasoning rather than isolated points
• considered feedback mechanisms
• assessed rather than simply explained
• considered how factors such as human management might modify the outcome
• maintained a clear argument throughout.

One of the full-mark exemplars begins with a position on the relationship between the carbon cycle and wildfire and develops this through positive feedback before bringing human adaptation into the argument. AQA describes it as a sophisticated, well-written response.

Weaker answers...

• confused key concepts such as positive and negative feedback
• made links to the carbon cycle but didn't develop their implications sufficiently
• lacked the depth required for Level 3
• focused on something slightly different from the actual wording of the question
• explained impacts but didn't assess their significance.

For example, AQA notes that stronger savanna answers could explore higher temperatures, longer dry seasons and increased likelihood of flash flooding, and then assess what these changes mean for both ecosystems and people.

20-markers

These assess knowledge, understanding and application, with students expected to construct an argument and draw conclusions.

Overall, performance was broadly in line with previous series. Students who knew the specification well and could apply that knowledge to the precise context of the question were rewarded.

Better answers...

• showed secure knowledge of the specific concept in the question
• selected relevant case-study material
• used evidence to support an argument rather than simply narrating a case study
• considered different sides of the debate
• maintained a sustained line of reasoning
• used named examples and projects effectively
• reached a supported judgement.

The 20/20 rainforest response reproduced across pages 29-34 is a useful exemplar - it considers both more and less sustainable activities in Amazonia, supported with named projects, political support and international agreements. But it's always worth reminding students that an answer does not have to be perfect to score full marks.

Weaker answers...

• didn't understand a key term in the question
• wrote generally about the wider topic rather than the specific geographical environment
• selected case studies which made it difficult to address the question effectively
• lacked sufficient depth or detail
• presented alternative ideas without developing them sufficiently
• failed to sustain their line of reasoning.

The Coasts question is perhaps the clearest warning here. Several students didn't have secure knowledge of what an estuarine environment actually was and consequently wrote generic answers about coastline change. Stronger answers focused specifically on features such as salt marshes and mudflats and considered changes resulting from climate change, erosion, flooding and human activity.

There was a similar issue with the Hazards essay, where some students did not fully understand fatalism, or selected examples where it was difficult to apply the concept successfully.

So, what the key takeaways for the classroom?

• Know the terminology - there are still too many marks being lost because students don't precisely understand specification language.
• AO3 means analyse the evidence in front of them - look for patterns, support them, manipulate data and identify anomalies – don't automatically start explaining them.
• Novel situation = apply, don't recite - use the resource as the starting point and bring in their own knowledge to explain or assess what it shows.
• Read every word of extended questions carefully - understanding terms such as estuarine environment or fatalism can be the difference between an answer that accesses Level 4 and one that never really gets going.
• Assessment needs to be explicit - having lots of good geographical knowledge isn't quite enough - students need to use it to answer the question and sustain an argument.
• Full-mark answers don't have to be perfect - but they do need to be relevant, well supported and clearly focused on the question.

Perhaps the biggest message from the report is actually a reassuringly familiar one - students don't necessarily need to write more - they need to make what they write work harder. Secure knowledge, careful reading of the question and selective application remain the keys to success on Paper 1. AQA's own recommendations similarly emphasise understanding key terms, responding appropriately to the assessment objective and, above all, answering the question rather than providing a lengthy recital of subject knowledge.