Examination training at Castle Rushen High School
AQA Geography (Paper 2)
David Redfern
January 2011
1
Geog 2 (Jan 2010)
2 You have experienced geographical fieldwork as part of the course. Use this experience
to answer the following questions.
(a) (i) State the aim of your investigation and describe one method of data collection
associated with the aim.
(6 marks)
Level 1(1–4 marks)
A dubious aim which might not be clearly rooted in the specification. The method is poorly
explained and difficult to follow, perhaps giving a sense that the candidate either did not
understand the method or did not undertake the method. Obvious/important gaps in the
method making it difficult to replicate from information given.
Level 2 (5–6 marks)
A clear aim well rooted in the specification. The method is detailed and clear. It is easy to
follow, possibly with some obvious omissions at the bottom end. For full marks it has to be
able to be replicated in full from only the detail provided.
Candidate A
To test the relationship between velocity and hydraulic radius downstream of the River Ise
and suggest reasons for our findings.
Dog biscuit technique was used to calculate the velocity needed to see if there was a
relationship with HR stated in the aim. Firstly we measured a 10m distance downstream and
marked it out with ranging poles and had one person at each end. The person upstream
released a dog biscuit and shouted so the downstream person could begin timing. The
upstream person made sure they weren’t obstructing the flow. When the dog biscuit reached
the downstream person they stopped the timer and recorded the result. We repeated this 3
times in the middle of the channel, 3 times on the left bank and 3 times on the right bank to
find an average as the velocity varies across the channel. We did speed = distance/time to
find the velocity and multiplied it by 0.8 to cancel out surface friction.
(a) (ii) Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the method of data collection in 2(a)(i).
(6 marks)
Level 1 (1–4 marks)
A very limited awareness of the strengths and limitations of the chosen method. Unlikely to
consider both elements, or offer dubious evaluative comment.
Level 2 (5–6 marks)
A clear awareness of the strengths and weaknesses. May be unbalanced, but does consider
both aspects. Some explicit evaluation for full marks. For full marks there should be more
than one strength/weakness.
Candidate A
The strengths of our method were that it is very easy to do and depending on the flow of the
river quite quick to do. Also there is not much equipment needed to carry out this method.
However, there were some limitations. For example, the dog biscuits only measured surface
velocity and could have been effected by surface winds. Instead, a flow meter would be used.
2
Also vegetation and items in the river may affect the velocity or obstruct the path of the dog
biscuit. Another limitation may be human error when recording times which would give us
an inaccurate result.
Candidate C
Some strengths of this method include the fact that it is simple and easy to perform as the
hydroprop calculates the velocity for us. Also, it is objective, meaning that we had three
points determined for us by the low flow width and the systematic sampling technique
allowed us to get a good representation of the entire transect.
Some of the weaknesses included the fact that we had to rely on our own judgement to
place the hydroprop one third of the way down, meaning it was an estimate and it was likely
not to be completely accurate which would affect the validity of our results. Also our method
could have been more accurate if we had included more intervals along the transect as this
would avoid having an under-representation of any point and our results would have been
more accurate.
(b) Describe one method used to present your data.
(5 marks)
Level 1 (1–3 marks)
The technique may not be correctly named. At the bottom end, description may not relate
to the named technique. Poorly explained, with clear gaps in understanding of how to
construct the chosen presentation technique. May choose an inappropriate presentation
technique or describe a very basic technique such as creating a table.
Level 2 (4–5 marks)
A step by step guide through the transformation of data from numerical form through to
the completion of the chosen technique. Bottom L2 may have some obvious error or
omission but with a general sense that the technique is understood.
Candidate A
I presented my data on a scattergraph. I constructed this by using a sharp pencil and ruler to
draw a y and an x axis. I labelled the y axis with the dependent variable - in my case velocity
and the independent variable on the x axis (hydraulic radius). I then calculated a suitable
scale by looking at the highest and lowest values. After writing this on the x axis I plotted my
points. I added a line of best fit by calculating the mean of both sets of data and plotting
that point. The best fit line had to pass through this point and had roughly equal amounts of
points on each side.
Candidate D
One method used to present data was a scatter graph. We presented the data with the x
axis labelled as distance from source (m) and the y axis labelled according to the other
variable for example discharge in cumecs. We then plotted each point on the graph and
drew a line of best fit. Our scatter graph was now showing a relationship between the two
variables and we could analyse this further using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.
3
(c) How far did your fieldwork conclusions match the geographical theory, concept or
idea on which your investigation was based?
(8 marks)
Level 1 (1–4 marks)
Likely to summarise findings in only the most general terms. Theory is basic and at the
bottom end may be completely absent or clearly erroneous. Likely to address both parts of
the question separately. Does not come to a view. May only describe findings without
linking to theory concept or idea.
Level 2 (5–8 marks)
May explain how/why findings differ from theory or expected outcomes. May only come to
a view implicitly at the bottom end, but does use findings in a more detailed fashion. Links
findings to the expected outcomes, but still may be fairly superficial at the bottom end. For
full marks response must come to an explicit view showing a detailed understanding of how
the findings relate to the theory concept or idea.
Candidate A
My scatter graph suggested there was a positive correlation between hydraulic radius and
velocity. My Spearman’s Rank value of 0.72 backed up this correlation. It showed a 95%
possibility that the relationship between the two variables and only a 5% possibility the
relationship occurred by chance. Therefore I rejected my null hypothesis and accepted my
alternative hypothesis which was ‘there is a significant positive relationship between velocity
and hydraulic radius with distance downstream along the river Ise Northamptonshire in
agreement with the established theory’. Our results matched the theory as it showed
increased efficiency of the river due to tributaries joining the channel and therefore
increased material eroding the beds and banks making the channel smoother and more
efficient. Our investigation highlighted some anomalies eg at Geddington there was a ford
which reduced the depth of the channel decreasing the cross-sectional area which means a
reduction in hydraulic radius. At Warkton there was a large amount of debris which reduced
the velocity to 0.04m/s3. There was an increase in frictional drag here which led to a less
efficient channel.
4
Geog 2. (June 2010)
You have experienced geographical fieldwork as part of the course. Use this experience to
answer the following questions. State the aim of the fieldwork investigation.
Candidate B: To investigate changes in river channel variables with distance downstream
in the River Derwent and compare it to the Bradshaw model.
2 (a) Describe the geographical theory, concept or idea that formed the basis of your
fieldwork investigation.
(5)
Level 1 (1-3 marks)
A basic understanding shown. Shows limited awareness of the basis of the investigation, with
perhaps vague references to underpinning theory/concept or idea. Lacking specific detail.
Level 2 (4-5 marks)
A clear idea of the basis of the investigation. Detailed understanding of the theory/concept or
idea. Specific detail linked to investigation.
Candidate B
I was investigating the extent to which my fieldwork related to the geographical concepts
proposed by the Bradshaw model. It suggests that I would find various changes with
distance downstream from the source to the mouth of a river. It says that discharge,
velocity, width and depth will increase with distance downstream and bedload size would
decrease. Although it is from source to mouth, I investigated whether these changes would
occur in the upper course.
2 (b) (i) With reference to your fieldwork investigation, distinguish between qualitative
and quantitative data.
(3)
Point marked. Max 2 no example.
Candidate B
Qualitative data is to do with visual data for example the meander found further
downstream and the big boulders found at the first site. Quantitative data is to do with
figures found and calculated.
2 (b) (ii) Describe one method you used for the collection of primary or secondary data.
(6)
Level 1 (1-4 marks)
A vague description which shows a basic awareness of the data collection process. May include
some elements of the process, but show some obvious omissions. May also give a sense that the
method has not been completed in full.
Level 2 (5-6 marks)
Clearly aware of the stages involved in the data collection process. Method able to be replicated
solely from the information given. Detailed description.
5
Candidate B
To measure bedload size, I put a string across the river and attached it to the bank each side.
I measured the width of the river and divided the width by ten. At each bank and each
consecutive tenth of the width I put a peg on the string so that each peg was equidistant
from the other. At each peg I picked up a piece of bedload from directly beneath the peg. I
measured the b-axis (the width) of the bedload with a ruler in cm. I put the bedload back and
did the same at all the other pegs.
2 (b) (iii) Outline one technique that you used to present results from your data collection.
(4)
Point marked.
Candidate B
To present bedload size I used a dispersion diagram. I put my three sites along the x-axis and
stone size on the y-axis. The scale ran from 0-40cm. Against the site I plotted each piece of
bedload at that site in a line parallel to the y-axis. The lines for each site were next to each
other.
2 (c) Evaluate your investigation. In your answer, you should:


comment on the strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of the study
suggest improvements.
(7)
Level 1 (1-4 marks)
Shows a basic awareness of evaluation. May consider only one aspect of the study at a limited
level. Lacking explicit evaluative comment. For top of level, there should be some awareness of
the weaknesses.
Level 2 (5-7 marks)
Clearer awareness of the evaluation process. May still only consider one aspect of the study such
as method, but considers this in detail. Considers strengths and weaknesses and areas for
improvement. For full marks there should be more than one aspect of the investigation evaluated
and there should be some explicit evaluative comment.
Candidate B
The strengths of measuring the b-axis of bedload size is that that is the way the bedload
would roll downstream so it is the most representative axis. However, the weaknesses are
that is doesn’t measure the whole size and that it is difficult to judge the width if it doesn’t
have a straight edge. To improve this method I could measure all axes or I could use Powers
scale of roundness. Another improvement to my investigation could be that I measure other
types of load, not just bedload as it not fully representative of the transport occurring. I could
measure suspension/solution load using a turbidity tube. Another problem is that although
the River Derwent fitted the Bradshaw model, and it was a good river to use, I cannot say
that all rivers adhere to it.
6