This is the second blog summarising the key takeaways from the AQA A-Level Geography examiner reports.

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?

• Very rubric errors despite optionality and good time management was evident
• Very good recall of knowledge in AO1 4-markers
• Good knowledge of key terms, e.g. endogenous factors
• Good understanding of human geography processes and the factors that affect them, e.g. decentralisation - many students were able to consider the economic, social and environmental context
• Good understanding of agencies of global governance and their roles
• Good understanding of sense of place and insider/outside perspectives
• Good analysis/interpretation of graphs - identifying overall patterns and trends, data manipulation, picking out anomalies, making connections between resources, and accurately interpreting scales and legends, etc
• Good use of stimulus resources alongside own knowledge in longer answer questions
• 9-markers for the options were in Level 2 on average - showed some knowledge and evaluation
• 20-markers were often well structured and presented clear arguments with effective links to case studies
• The Changing Places 20-marker was very well answered (average mid-level 3) - effective use of place knowledge and change of character over time
• The synoptic 20-marker in section C was answered well - lots of connections drawn between increased carbon in the atmosphere, climate change, increased weather and climate related hazards, rising sea levels, impacts on agriculture, urban flooding and the possibility of climate related migration - backed up with good place knowledge

Areas for improvement

• Some misreading of key terms in questions - e.g. independence rather than interdependence which meant answer focus was incorrect
• Some students in the resource option showed confusion between primary and secondary sources
• Some misinterpretations of scale on the analysis question, e.g. confusion between % vs number of responses, and misunderstanding of logarithmic scales
• 6 and 9-markers show good knowledge and understanding, but some assessment and evaluation needs developing
• 20-markers were less successful when students tried to offer a balanced argument, compared to those with a single line of reasoning
• The 20-marker for 01.4 was answered poorly - with many students focusing on food consumption only, and others relaying detailed learned material that wasn't actually focused on the questions

4-markers

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

Better answers...

• were clear and focused, directly relating to that part of the spec
• showed specific knowledge, with suitable examples where appropriate

Weaker answers...

• showed a lack of understanding of key concepts
• were vague or unclear and confused key aspects of knowledge
• gave examples of things without qualifying them to the demands of the question
• often got one mark for a brief sense of understanding, but lacked development

6-markers (AO3 skills-based)

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

Better answers...

• applied relevant skills directly to the data provided
• identified overall patterns (‘the big picture’)
• recognised trends within the data
• accurately read scales and interpreted values
• exemplified key points and report on anomalies
• manipulated data further to add depth to their analysis
• made connections/links between resources - with the use of comparative language

Weaker answers...

• explained the resource (which they are not asked to do)
• often felt disjointed - lacking a sense of the bigger picture, and not making links between different elements of the resource
• may have read data incorrectly, or made inaccurate comments about data

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

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

Better answers...

• contained both student's own knowledge and an argument
• applied own understanding to the resource that has been provided - showing engagement with the stimulus
  
• made distinct reference to the resource so it is clear that the stimulus is being referred to
• showed effective assessment and evaluation
• made links between different concepts, e.g. for Pop and Env, how education affects fertility rates

Weaker answers...

• didn't address the question prosed properly
• described the novel resources
• showed basic knowledge but no/very little clear assessment
• made only basic links to the resources
• lacked development for higher level marks

9-markers (AO1/AO2)

These answers assess knowledge and understanding without the use of resources.

Better answers...

• showed detailed knowledge and understanding
• made clear connections
• had views that were well supported with evidence and examples
• talked about the relevant importance of factors - evaluating significance
• showed knowledge of a range of factors, assess their importance, using examples to support
• were succinct with detailed subject knowledge and good exam technique

Weaker answers...

• laced knowledge and understanding of the area of the specification being assessed, e.g. sustainable cities, mineral resource security
• showed basic knowledge of key ideas but don't communicate how they work
• failed to really address the commands of the question (e.g. assess, to what extent)
• didn't understand links between different concepts/topics
• didn't write in sufficient depth
• failed to assess/evaluate

20 markers

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

Better answers...

• were clearly organised and have a logical structure
• showed clear and sustained reasoning, communicate conclusions that are evidence-based
• backed up ideas with place specific knowledge, e.g. historical changes and flows of investment from migration and private investment and how these link to the vibrant character of Shoreditch
• often brought in wider geographical understanding, e.g. link between economic inequality and consumption
• showed an awareness of temporal and spatial change

Weaker answers...

• were not well organised or planned so they drift away from the question focus and don't properly address the question
• may have misread the question or sometimes drifted away from the question focus
• got mixed up with their arguments, threads become intertwined, and clarity is lost
• showed a lack of deep subject knowledge
• referred to examples that are out-of-date/too simple/inaccurate - or just irrelevant
• applied irrelevant case study material
• had an issue with time management
• made generalisations
• had weak conclusions

Synoptic question (AO1/AO2)

This question assesses knowledge and understanding applied to links across specification content - it can either be a 9- or 20-marker, and can be on either paper - this year it was worth 20 marks and was on this paper, in Section C (Contemporary urban environments – managing environmental problems in urban areas; Population and the environment – causes of migration; Resource security – management of energy supply and/or consumption).

Better answers...

• showed knowledge and understanding of changes within the carbon cycle, e.g. increased atmospheric CO₂ resulting from fossil fuel combustion, leading to climate change and rising sea level
• had changes that were connected to the key aspect of the optional topic studied in each question
• were argued well, supported by evidence and had a sustained line of reasoning
• evaluated the question statement, and had an evaluative conclusion
• made effective use of case studies to illustrate points made

Weaker answers...

• were not well-balanced in terms of the content from both areas of the specification
• lacked focus and recited material but didn't tailor it to the demands of the question
• lacked depth of knowledge and understanding
• had very little assessment or evaluation