GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
GEOLOGY
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2014
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit
Page
GL1
1
GL2a
4
GL2b
7
GL3
10
GL4
14
GL5
18
GL6
25
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
GL1
Principal Examiner:
Ian G Kenyon
On balance this was a very accessible paper with the vast majority of candidates attempting
all of the questions. The paper covered a broad range of topics from the key ideas of the
GL1 specification.
Q.1
(a)
A surprisingly large number of candidates were unable to state the correct
direction of dip of the limestone in (i). Sedimentary beds dip in only one
direction; in this case it was north. Most candidates correctly identified the
sandstone as the youngest unit due to superposition and included fragments
in (ii). A few candidates thought the schist was the youngest as it had
intruded the other beds.
(b)
One baked margin (below) and an irregular/weathered upper surface were
cited by many candidates as evidence to support that rock A was a lava flow
rather than a sill in (i). In (ii) there were many vague answers referring to
‘same composition’ or ‘different grain sizes’ rather than being specific. Both
mafic, A is finer, the dolerite is coarser were required to gain the marks.
(c)
Generally well answered, the majority of candidates measured the throw of
the fault accurately, identified the type of fault and gave an appropriate
reason to support it. A small number of candidates ‘guessed’ the fault type but
then failed to state an appropriate reason in support.
(d)
Marking the three arrows onto the cross section was a good discriminator.
Most candidates could accurately locate a contact metamorphic rock but the
regional rock and angular unconformity were more problematic. Many marked
the top of rock A as the angular unconformity, whilst the location of the
regional rock appeared just about everywhere.
Most candidates identified mineral B as garnet, but a small number gave
haematite as the answer.
The texture of the schist was generally quite well described but all too often
the explanations were rather weak. A significant number of candidates
thought it was a sedimentary rock but gained marks for referring to the grain
size. In order to gain maximum marks reference to schistosity/mineral
alignment along with regional metamorphism involving heat and pressure or
medium to high grade were required.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Q.2
(a)
A very straightforward starter question with the vast majority of candidates
scoring full marks here. A small number of candidates described the changes
in brachiopod families instead of bivalves and consequently lost marks.
(b)
As in (a) very well answered with just a few candidates stating bivalves rather
than brachiopods for fossil C in part (ii).
(c)
A significant number of candidates were unable to accurately measure the
width and length of the bivalve in Figure 2d. Also a number of candidates
measured accurately then failed to plot it on the graph in Figure 2c.
The final part of the question proved to be a good discriminator but only a
small number of candidates gained maximum marks here. Most candidates
failed to refer to Figure 2c as stated in the question. Too many answers were
rather generalised recalling from memory the characteristics of either a life or
death assemblage. The best responses stated it to be most likely a life
assemblage as there was a continuous range of shell sizes suggesting a
range of individuals from juveniles to adults. Also if the example in Figure 2d
is typical then they are well preserved/complete and have not been
transported.
Q.3
(a)
The majority of candidates correctly inserted the arrows onto Figure 3a and
stated that it was a convergent margin. Only a minority of candidates inserted
the arrows to indicate a divergent or conservative margin.
(b)
Many candidates failed to describe the pattern of earthquake foci in detail
from Figure 3b. Many answers lacked reference to depth, linear trends,
clusters, dispersions or relative proximity to the surface, trench or volcanic
region. Part (ii) generated better responses and many candidates gained high
marks for identifying the pattern due to subduction of the Pacific plate
westwards and the location of a Benioff zone. Shallow focus earthquakes
below the volcanic region were correctly linked to the upward movement of
magma by stoping.
(c)
Generally well answered but responses in (i) were significantly weaker than
(ii). Only the better candidates referred to partial melting and the release of
water from the upper part of the subducted Pacific plate as a mechanism to
initiate the partial melt. Silica content linked to viscosity was well known and
many candidates scored well on (ii).
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Q.4
(a)
The bar graph in (i) was generally constructed accurately with most students
scoring well; however a small number of candidates plotted the values very
sloppily and lost one or both marks. The responses in (ii) often scored 2 out of
3 marks but fewer scored the maximum of 3. It seemed as though many
candidates expected the responses in the boxes would feature all of the
letters F, G and H, when in fact the answers were F, F and H.
In (ii) a large number of candidates failed to realise that the silt and clay
particles being absent from the sediments F, G and H was due to their small
size, allowing them to remain in suspension and be transported further
downstream and out to sea. Some candidates thought the silt and clay were
in solution, whilst others stated that no silt or clay was present in this area as
a reason.
Part (iv) was very well answered and the majority of candidates scored full
marks here. Marks tended to be lost when candidates failed to give an
explanation for the changes. Attrition and abrasion were well known but a
small number of candidates referred to weathering processes rather than
erosional ones.
(b)
The majority of candidates correctly identified the cross bedding in Figure 4b,
but other suggestions included unconformity, graded bedding, flame
structures and desiccation cracks.
Part (ii) was another good discriminator and generated a wide range of
responses. Weaker candidates failed to refer to Figure 4b and Figure 4c and
contrast their characteristics with those of the sediments in Figure 4a. The
better responses referred to the sediments in Figures 4b and 4c being very
well sorted, very well rounded, cemented by haematite and showing large
scale dune bedding which is more typical of Aeolian or desert environments
rather than river/fluvial.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
GL2a
Principal Examiner/Moderator:
David Evans
The paper tested the range of skills and techniques encountered in unit GL1 of the
specification. It had to be, like GL2b, centre-marked with moderation by the WJEC team.
The moderation team met on the day after the paper was timetabled. The mark scheme
proposed by the Principal Examiner/Moderator was reviewed against a range of students’
scripts and a definitive version was then published for download by centres from the WJEC
website. Guidance in its application was available, as in the previous year, via e-mail to the
Principal Examiner/Moderator for this unit. There were also examples of marked questions
available from the website which demonstrated the application of the scheme, and also the
mechanics of marking.
The scheme suggested expected, acceptable and unacceptable responses. It stated that
alternative answers could be credited. The e-mails and the moderation process indicated
that this did occur. Feedback from centres and moderation of sample scripts suggested that
the application of the mark scheme by teachers was successful. There were a very small
number of teachers who failed to apply the mechanics of marking as stated on the cover of
the mark scheme, and these issues are discussed in their Centre Reports, which are
available when results are published.
The demands of the paper were comparable with those from previous years, being an
integrated test using maps, photographs and specimens. Extra information is also given to
make some questions data response. There is usually broad coverage of GL1 content but
there is no fixed length of questions.
Q.1
In part (a) most candidates noted the medium sized, crystalline and equigranular
nature of specimen A. Part (b) was generally well answered with most candidates
referring to the discordant nature of Rock Unit A and the fact that A cut B meaning A
was younger than B. The most common error in the third part of the table was to
comment on the texture of specimen A rather than the composition as the question
clearly asked. The majority of candidates correctly identified specimen A as dolerite.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
Q.2
Q.3
(a)
The majority of candidates did not gain both marks. The most common error
was not giving sound enough reasons for the fault showing strike-slip
displacement. Simply writing that the beds have moved horizontally was not
sufficient, since beds appear to move horizontally when a fold is displaced by
dip-slip movement too. The question demanded that candidates recognised
this, hence the best answers referred to the sinistral/left movement of the
beds, or that all the beds have moved left, or that the width of outcrop of all
the beds has remained the same on both sides of the fault. The second part
of (a) was more successfully completed with reference to the vertical outcrop
pattern of Fault 1 demonstrating a vertical dip, but the sinuous pattern of fault
2 indicating a dip of a lower angle.
(b)
The majority of candidates answered each section of part (b) correctly.
Part (a) proved to be straightforward with most candidates drawing the size, shape
and sorting of the granular rock specimen C appropriately. The most common errors
involved drawing crystals rather than grains, or drawing rounded grains of all the
same size.
Most answers recognised that the mineral was quartz and gave sound descriptions
and results of tests, most commonly a hardness test.
Part (b) proved to be a testing question in which a significant number failed to reason
that the sequence of rocks represented in the left hand column was correct.
Part (c) was generally done well with many candidates noting the crystalline nature of
rock C1 as evidence for it being metamorphic. Many also correctly recognised that
C1 had to be metaquartzite since it was derived from a quartz-rich sedimentary rock
as had been previously established in the question. Weaker candidates simply
assumed the rock to be marble despite noting the high proportion of quartz in part
(a)(ii). In part (iii) there were many good answers seen which explained the nature
and cause of this metamorphism.
Q.4
Most candidates correctly labelled the outcrop of the unconformity in (a) although the
error of labelling the bed above an unconformity rather than the outcrop of the actual
unconformity, the plane separating unconformable beds, was seen with some
frequency. The evidence for unconformity was generally accurately worded although
simply saying that “it is a horizontal bed” was not considered sufficient since it does
not comment on the fact that the beds below the unconformity were not horizontal.
Parts (b) and (c)(i) were usually completed correctly, although a few answers in (c)(i)
which stated that coarse grains were deposited first were not sufficient since this is
the case even when the beds are subsequently overturned. Most candidates
correctly answered all three terms in part (c)(ii) although (c)(iii) proved more
demanding.
Q.5
Many candidates gained all 4 marks for the drawing of the bivalve with the most
common errors being inaccurate shape (despite the wide range of shapes permitted)
or the incorrect labelling of teeth and sockets. As anticipated, a number of candidates
identified the teeth on the crenulated margin.
Part (b) was completed well by most candidates.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Q.6
The cross-section proved to be an excellent discriminator with a wide range in the
quality of responses. The most common errors included incorrectly drawing the
syncline to the east of F2, and failing to adequately show the cross-cutting nature of
the two unconformities. Credit should not have been awarded to lines simply showing
any extension of the unconformities above the topography if they do not accurately
demonstrate which structures are cut by which unconformity.
In part (b) many answers accurately showed the position of the two faults and the two
episodes of folding.
Q.7
The structure of this question meant that many excellent responses were seen. The
best answers gave equal attention to both the origin of features and how they can be
used for determining the direction of current flow. There were some very clear
annotated diagrams and well written text. The range of answers using fieldwork was
impressive and contained detail of many sedimentary structures including current
bedding, flute casts and both symmetrical and asymmetrical ripple marks. There
were also detailed answers which made use of the photographs referring to
asymmetrical ripple marks (photograph 2) and flute casts (photograph 3). No marks
could be awarded to sedimentary structures such as graded bedding and load
structures which cannot be used to indicate current direction. A few answers were
very superficial, gaining little more than one mark for naming a relevant structure.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
GL2b
Principal Moderator:
Alan Seago
Specific points are made in the Moderator’s Report to each centre but some general points can
be made.
Administration
There were one or two examples of errors in administration including not filling in the correct
forms. Centres are urged to ensure samples of coursework arrive with their moderator by
the deadline date or inform WJEC of a delay if there are sufficient grounds. There continue
to be cases where the marks have not been doubled before submission through the EMI
system. Mostly the work was well organised and easy to follow thanks to the detailed
annotation.
Suitability of tasks
Centres should be aware of the required context of the investigation at all times as described in
the specification. The centre must remember that the skills range exhibited in GL2b should
be the same as those assessed in the GL2a paper.
Some centres provided worksheets which gave far too much help to the candidates; some of
whom only annotated photographs and measured dip and strike. Where annotated
photographs of a location are being used then it is expected that original field sketches
should be part of the evidence for AS fieldwork. Too prescriptive a method hinders
individuality and thus the ranking of candidates based upon ability.
The better investigations include the demonstration of basic field skills such as rock identification
and textures, identification of field structures using dip and strike/field sketches, sedimentary
logging and fossil identification. The data collected is then manipulated and presented in
cartographical or graphical form. Some excellent field investigations are now being seen which
are well suited to the assessment framework. It is good to see geological field skills being
demonstrated with a high degree of competence.
A number of centres are using Field Study Centres in order to carry out their fieldwork. In the
majority of cases this proves to be a successful venture. However, centres should be aware that
in some cases the field study centre may not be familiar with examination assessment criteria
and teachers should make sure that the centre knows exactly what is required for the field
investigation in terms of the specification.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
A good range of tasks were undertaken, with a rough break down being investigations into:
interpretation of sedimentary environments (sedimentary logs, fossils and rock description);
mapping exercises (leading to drawing up of geological sections and history);
analysis of fossil assemblages;
structural analysis (faulting and folding styles related to compression or tension or to specific
orogenies);
nature and relative age of igneous intrusions;
geological history of an area involving both sedimentary environments and structural history.
Centres are to be congratulated on the variety of opportunities given to candidates in areas
of outstanding geology such as Isle of Arran, Anglesey, Amroth, Ogmore, Styal Mill, Black
Mountain, Barry, Portishead, Bridgnorth, Clee Hill, Lulworth Cove, Teesdale. Other centres
made good use of suitable local geological locations.
Planning
Plans tended to be fairly simple with few details as to how to measure clast roundness,
sorting etc. or identify rocks and fossils. Candidates could also have included
background material specific to the area such as a geological survey map segment and
the relevance of this site to the overall geology of the area.
Some thought has to be given at the planning stage as to whether the data being collected is
suitable for processing and analysis e.g. by the use of histograms, cross-sections, logs, rose
diagrams, maps and geological histories.
A number of centres are now making preliminary visits to sites in order to allow some forward
planning by candidates, which often results in better Planning marks. Some candidates devoted
insufficient time to the retrieval and evaluation of relevant material from different sources.
Field Notes
It is quite frustrating that some candidates persist in not submitting original field notes.
Some field notes consisted entirely of tables of data or a very detailed map of a small area. This
does not fit well with GL1 and GL2 and it would be an improvement to see a variety of data
collection including field sketches and rock descriptions etc. In other cases, opportunities for the
collection of basic field data have been missed.
A minority of field notes were untidy and unclear with poor field sketches. Some field sketches
lacked detail and often contained too much shading. Candidates are sketching from afar
rather than looking at the rocks in detail then stepping back to make a generalised sketch
with the knowledge of what is present.
Centres should ensure that candidates have sufficient time at the investigation site to collect
appropriate and sufficient data. Observations such as rock identification, grain size, sorting,
direction of cross-bedding, clast roundness/orientation, field sketches, dip and strike
measurements should be part of every investigation, where appropriate.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
Report (Analysis and Evaluation)
There is no need for candidates to repeat observations made in the field notebook within a report
unless it contributes significantly to the analysis. It is more advantageous for candidates to
concentrate their efforts on the analysis and evaluation. Candidates must process data such as
clast orientation, sedimentary logs or dip and strike measurements which have been collected in
the field. In a minority of cases it was difficult to distinguish between field data and secondary data
or individual work and collective work. Centres and candidates should ensure that the nature of
the work is clearly identified for moderation. Candidates are making good use of their IT skills.
Evaluation remains the weakest skill. Evaluation should refer to the data gathering process.
Reference to weather and the lack of time are not acceptable.
Assessment
Centres are to be congratulated on the standard of work produced by the candidates. A total of 22
centres submitted field investigations for moderation. It is pleasing to report that in general
centres are taking note of comments made in individual centre reports in previous years so that
there is a continuing improvement in the quality of candidates' work.
Centres are to be congratulated on the accuracy of the assessment in most cases although
there were some glaring examples of generous marking. In these cases a mark adjustment
had to be applied in order to ensure comparable standards across all centres.
Centre support
Further guidance is available by contacting Jonathan Owen or Sarah Price at WJEC.
Jonathan Owen
Sarah Price
([email protected])
([email protected])
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
GL3
Principal Examiner:
Pete Loader
Section A
General:
Question 1 was less well answered than question 2 with both based on data not previously
assessed and requiring some thought given to the answers. Equally the essay section
required candidates to do more than rehash previously prepared responses to questions on
natural and human-induced hazards.
Q.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i)
Although usually answered well, many candidates strangely failed to
refer to subduction in their answers.
(ii)
This question was often misinterpreted with some candidates simply
repeating their answer in part (a). The “seismic gap” was stated or
implied by surprisingly few and of these only the more capable
candidates correctly explained the implication in terms of stress buildup over time.
(i)
This was answered well by most candidates with many accurately
using comparative numbers to illustrate the positive correlation.
(ii)
Explanations were generally poor with only the more able candidates
capable of referring to the possible effects of ground amplification
with increasing amounts of low strength lake clay. Liquefaction was
also credited.
(i)
Whilst the majority of candidates scored well on this question, a
significant number misread the graph scale and gave the range for
30% of the buildings damaged.
(ii)
This question proved to be a good discriminator. It asked candidates
to explain the range of damaged buildings. Too often this resulted in
vague statements about building stability though more able
candidates had an attempt at using the data to interpret that the
frequency of vibration of larger and smaller buildings may have been
different from that of the earthquake. Few mentioned resonance
though this was not essential and reference to the lower centre of
gravity of smaller buildings and aseismic design were also credited.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
Q.2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i)
It was surprising how many candidates failed to give a satisfactory
explanation for the spring at location A and this part of the question
was generally very poorly done. References to the intersection of the
aquifer, confining impermeable bed and the surface were rare. For the
spring at B the location of the fault was usually recognised though
reference to pressure (hydrostatic) forcing the water to the surface
was less apparent.
(ii)
Whilst most candidates scored one mark for suggesting the springs
and boreholes would dry up as the water table dropped, few
mentioned the effect of a depression in the water table (cone of
depression/exhaustion) locally around the non-flowing borehole.
Fewer still related this to the effect of overpumping on recharge of the
aquifer. The possible effect of salt water incursion was also credited in
addition to subsidence where this was directly related to a reduction in
the effectiveness of the aquifer to store or transfer water. Some
candidates erroneously thought that overpumping meant filling up the
aquifer!
(i)
This was poorly answered by many and it is apparent that the concept
of porosity (and permeability) is still not fully understood. Whilst most
obtained one mark for correctly identifying the effect of packing on
porosity, very few (and it is often centre specific) were able to suggest
that grain-size has no effect on porosity. A virtual experiment
produced by the Earth Science Teachers’ Association (ESTA) is
available for free download at http://www.esta-uk.net/porosity/ which
examiners recommend to help candidates with this concept.
(ii)
This was better answered though some weaker candidates had
difficulty in identifying a suitable additional sedimentary characteristic.
Credit was given to explanations of sorting, grain shape and
cementation.
Despite the evidence clearly shown in Figure 2b, and referenced in the
question, some candidates failed to mention packing and its effect on
reducing porosity and volume. Pore pressure was rarely mentioned although
vague references were made to water being removed from the pore spaces.
Only the more able candidates were able to explain how repacking of the
grains and associated reduction of the volume of the sediment leading to
subsidence might occur as a result of a reduction in pore water pressure
following overpumping.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Section B
General:
Questions 3 and 5 were predictably the most popular with question 4 providing the most
consistently good responses. The marks awarded covered the whole range but with fewer
marks recorded in the excellent category than previous years – particularly for questions 3
and 5.
Q.3
(a)
(b)
This part was moderately answered with a number of candidates referring to
the nature of tsunamis rather than “the factors that affect risk”. Only limited
credit could be awarded in these cases. The concept of “risk” is not generally
understood and few suggested that there would be little direct risk to property
or loss of life in an unpopulated area experiencing a tsunami. Proximity to the
epicentre and the magnitude of earthquake were rarely considered by
candidates.
Most candidates were able to choose two from the list though excellent
answers were rare.
(i)
Controlled stress relief is generally understood but rarely explained
convincingly. Despite previous reports, there still persists a fanciful
idea is that “bombs” (sometimes nuclear!) are commonly used to
reduce stress from active fault lines or that pumping water down the
San Andreas Fault is an effective method which is commonly used to
de-stress the plate boundary. Candidates often used sweeping
statements and seemed to believe that these were tried and tested
successful options, with uncertainty mentioned in only a few
responses.
(ii)
Generally very well done by the few who attempted this part although
less able candidates confused “monitoring” with “mitigation” and
penalised themselves considerably.
(iii)
Surprisingly this was often poorly attempted with tilt meters used to
record the bulge on Mt St Helen’s as the main (sometimes only)
indicator given. Some candidates did not seem to understand the
question or wrote vague answers about approaching lava flows.
Radon gas was frequently cited as being the main type of gas
measured to indicate magma close to the surface. Too often this was
a prepared response that candidates tried to ‘fit in to’ the question and
as a result they did not actually answer the question set.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
This was the best answered of the essays.
Q.4
(a)
Some good diagrams showing beds dipping into and out of a road cutting or
tunnel (or both) formed a good platform for this essay. Where these were
further correctly annotated to demonstrate alternating beds of impermeable
shale and permeable sandstone dipping at angles above the critical angle of
~35° candidates were able to access maximum marks. Credit was also given
for explanations of the effect of jointing/faulting on slope instability as well the
effect of pore-water pressure. Some candidates failed to use a diagram and
were unable to access the full marks despite the quality of their answer.
(b)
This part usually proved to be very well answered and some excellent
responses were seen which scored full marks. Case studies, sometimes
relating to field observations, scored highly as did many who related their
answers to a well annotated diagram(s). There is a common
misunderstanding that removing the weight of the land above a landslip will
reduce the likelihood of slippage. Occasionally students responded with
monitoring techniques and penalised themselves.
This produced a variable quality in the answers.
Q.5
(a)
Some candidates were clearly determined to write all their previously prepared
material on hazards in this section regardless of the question. Thus some
barely mentioned either earthquakes or volcanoes, depending upon their
preference, and it was rare to find a candidate tackling the question directly.
More often candidates wrote about volcanic and earthquake hazards
separately and few made the obvious link to include volcanically induced
earthquakes. The concept of risk was ignored. Some case study knowledge
showed large inaccuracies in content, time and place. For example, the 2004
Boxing Day tsunami was not off the coast of Japan in 2006 and no tsunami
affected Sichuan, which is over 750km form the nearest coast line!
(b)
Though some excellent responses were credited relating to eruptive types,
topography etc. with Monserrat often quoted as a case study, many vague
answers were seen. A significant number chose (in spite of the wording of the
question) to concentrate exclusively on non-geological considerations such as
building regulations; infrastructure; support services; communications etc.
Credit for these answers was limited. A significant number misread the
question and confined their answer to describing monitoring techniques
reflecting, perhaps, on the question they would have preferred to have been
set. In general the use of hazard maps is not fully understood – some
candidates considered they were primarily produced after a hazardous event
or should include the distribution of previous data such as seismic activity or
gas emissions. Some of the best responses outlined the hazard that should be
included on the map with an exemplar to back up their point: previous lahar
paths as in the case of Ruiz, lava type – Etna, Hawaii, Iceland, Krakatoa.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced
GL4
Principal Examiner:
Pete Loader
Questions certainly discriminated between candidates, and a wide range of marks were
seen. The mean mark was about 2.0 lower than last year, with the standard deviation
showing a decrease, meaning the marks were less widely spread.
Section A
Q.1
The question focussed on a (productid) brachiopod examining modes of life and
environments. The majority of candidates used the data given to good effect.
Candidates scored well on most parts of this question responding well to the range of
data given and showing very good knowledge and understanding.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Q.2
The majority of candidates got part (i) correct, however many candidates
gave muddled accounts of how the muscles work. In part (ii) many
candidates did not link the morphology to the mode of life. Some very
unusual modes of life were suggested (e.g. pedically attached despite no
morphological evidence of a pedicle).
The majority of candidates stated corals as the fossil group. Candidates were
also able to measure the dip angle accurately. Part (iii) was more challenging
with candidates often missing one of the three hypotheses.
In part (i) the majority of candidates were able to give two different
descriptions for the distribution. However “many in temperate, few at poles”
was the same credit. Other good credits were more in northern hemisphere
than southern or found in all climatic zones.
Was well done by the majority of candidates.
The question focussed on igneous rocks.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Surprisingly many candidates did not gain full marks, often making careless
errors with crystallisation temperatures (e.g. putting final in the initial box and
vice versa).
In part (i) some candidates gave very generic descriptions and could have
referred to the graph for specific figures to improve their mark. Part (ii) was
very badly done. Very few candidates were able to talk about reacting with
the melt or reaching equilibrium. Part (iii) was more of a challenge for weaker
candidates who did not confine their answers to composition.
The majority of candidates gained 2 marks (linking the relative density of the
layers with gravity settling) missing out on the “sting in the tail” credit for the
repeated layers (repeated pulses or currents in the magma).
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
Q.3
Q.4
This question examined two and three dimensional relationships on the deformation
topic. Candidates tackled the question well and produced some extremely
knowledgeable answers.
(a)
Many candidates found drawing the cliff section straightforward. The most
challenging parts were the dipping axial planar cleavage and the
unconformities.
(b)
Was more challenging, with the higher level evaluative skills required for
explaining the evidence for each statement.
(i)
Most candidates agreed with the statement and correctly talked of the
displacement of beds and the fault breccia or slickensides. A less
common answer was the presence of a fault scarp.
(ii)
Was a more challenging part. Surprisingly many candidates did not
use the terms hanging wall or footwall and lacked precision. The
statement was incorrect because the hanging wall was downthrown
and in fact a reverse fault.
(iii)
The majority of candidates gained full credit on this part.
This question examined climate change evidence from land and ocean sediments
with a wide range of data.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
This was surprisingly difficult, many candidates lost the mark by lack of focus
on the shape only. Notable incorrect answers included lighter colour. Correct
answers focussed on X jagged and Y smooth; X more triangular Y more oval;
symmetry. Comparison of the ratio of width/length was acceptable but
simple statements of Y being larger were not credited.
Majority of candidates scored highly on parts (i) and (ii).
(i)
Some candidates missed this part of the question.
(ii)
Candidates who looked at the correct figure found this straightforward.
(iii)
This part was more challenging. The better candidates were able to
discuss 16O being lighter and preferentially evaporated, leaving
oceans richer in 18O to be locked in carbonate shells.
Many candidates found this question challenging. In part (i) many explained
themselves particularly well. In part (ii) many candidates described the
difference rather than accounting for it.
Some excellent responses were seen.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
Section B
The 1:50,000 solid map extract of Whitehaven was clearly reproduced, accompanied by a
cross section. The maps are “real data”, which means that they can be littered with a wealth
of information which cannot be touched on in an approximately 1 hour segment of the exam.
Q.5
Q. 6
Q.7
This question gave candidates an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the map
and was generally well done.
(a)
In part (i) the majority of candidates were able to spot the three dip angles
and correctly calculate the mean. Part (ii) was more challenging. A diagram
was required to show how dip/dip direction/strike data was collected in the
field in order to plot the dip symbol. The classic textbook diagram with
compass clinometer was expected. The best candidates linked their diagram
to the map describing dip to SW and strike NW-SE and 11° angle. Part (iii)
was also a challenge and candidates were often unable to apply their
knowledge about “V” in a valley and the way the beds cross the contours.
(b)
Part (i) was a straightforward question which was well answered. Part (ii) was
correctly answered by the majority of candidates. The most challenging part
of the question was part (iii) and many candidates ignored the σ min aspect.
This question was based on the unconformity on the geological map.
(a)
It was disappointing that many candidates found part (i) extremely challenging
and were unable to draw the map evidence from the located grid square to
highlight the unconformity. Some candidates drew the geological boundaries
well but did not label the unconformity or incorrectly labelled the relative ages.
Part (ii) should have been straightforward in referring to the geological column
to note that the bed varied in width.
(b)
The inclusion of a small seismic reflection section seemed to challenge some
candidates. In part (i) many candidates found no problem with marking the
unconformity, two faults and the cross cutting relationship between them.
However, the correct displacement of the unconformity by the fault marked to
the NE was less often seen. In part (ii) candidates often did not follow the
instructions to work out the depth of the marker bed. It was expected that
candidates would pick 2.0 as the two-way travel time, multiply this by
2.15kms-1 and then divide by 2 as it was two-way travel time.
A short question, though with the challenge of evaluating the evidence for the
distribution of haematite veins. The majority of candidates performed well on this
question and a good range of responses was seen focussing on the permeable
nature of the limestone.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
Q.8
The data was well presented, using colour, and candidates were able to make good
links to the GL3 topic of radioactive waste disposal for suitable sites. Candidates
performed well on this question and examiners saw the whole mark range being
used.
(a)
Part (i) was well done with most candidates selecting site B because it was
above the freshwater interface and below 200m. Part (ii) was more
challenging. The majority of candidates correctly marked the SW boundary at
the coast, but many did not accurately plot the NE boundary where the 200m
depth met the freshwater aquifer.
(b)
Many candidates struggled to explain the unsuitability of a large area against
given exclusion criteria, but very good candidates discussed reserves of coal,
iron ore, limestone and fresh water.
(c)
This part of the question should have been quite straightforward for
candidates and a good range of responses was seen. Candidates were able
to develop the factors to be considered, though weaker candidates did not
focus on the geological factors and gained little credit.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced
GL5
Principal Examiner:
Elliott Hughes
Unit 1 - Quaternary
Q.1
(a)
(b)
Q.2
(i)
Generally well answered, with most candidates able to shade the
correct area. The use of a ruler rather than a rough scribble to indicate
the top and bottom led to more accurate answers.
(ii)
Few candidates had any problems describing the relationship
correctly. Most described a positive correlation but only the better
candidates stated that there was a positive correlation.
(i)
This question was well answered. Candidates lost marks
predominantly for failing to include more detailed information under
the vegetation types, such as percentages relating to the amounts of
oak and pine or some information on the less dominant vegetation.
(ii)
Most candidates correctly stated that the climate was cooling.
(iii)
This question was generally quite poorly answered with many
candidates appearing unclear as to what the question was actually
asking. All that was required was a recognition that on a large scale
the curves correlate, but at a finer level there is a great deal of
fluctuation. This suggests that there are small-scale factors affecting
the major trends.
(iv)
Most candidates gained at least two marks for noting the positive
correlation between CO2 and temperature. In order to score full marks
for this question, candidates needed to mention that the correlation
might be a coincidence, or that some other factor e.g. volcanic activity
or Milankovitch Cycles play a role.
This question was generally well answered. Candidates chose a wide range
of modern environments. Warm, shallow marine (mainly limestones) and
continental slope / abyssal (turbidite) deposits were the more popular choices.
One of the main problems with the answers was the general lack of diagrams.
The evaluation was generally poor. Most questioned the Law of
Uniformitarianism but to varying degrees. Some questioned the interpretation
of lithologies e.g. red beds, while others concentrated on sedimentary
structures e.g. cross-bedding. Hardly any candidates questioned the use of
fossils.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
18
Q.3
Q.4
This was a popular question, but it was not particularly well-answered. Some
candidates mixed up glacial and periglacial deposits, while many candidates
mentioned features of glaciation that were not deposits (which was explicitly asked
for in the question).
(a)
The properties of glacial till were well understood but descriptions of head
were poor by comparison. Periglaciation is not well-understood.
(b)
Most evaluations were quite limited. Some candidates gave no clear
indication as to how they thought that the dimensions of an ice sheet might be
interpreted. The better candidates mentioned that the repeated waning and
growth of ice sheets could destroy earlier deposits (e.g. terminal moraines).
(a)
Reasonably well answered. Many candidates displayed a wide ranging
knowledge relating to river patterns, groundwater flow and geology. Many
patterns were discussed in addition to those in the specification. Labelled
diagrams were widely used, much more than in any other essay question,
and this enabled many candidates to secure high marks for this part of the
question.
(b)
Generally much more poorly answered with many candidates unable to
evaluate the statement adequately. The better candidates discussed
discordant and antecedent drainage and mentioned superimposed drainage.
A few candidates mentioned the influence of human activity and urban
development, as influences on drainage patterns.
Unit 2 - Natural Resources
Q.1
(a)
Most candidates correctly named lignite (a few brown coal) but some could
not spell lignite. A small but significant number did not attempt the question at
all.
(b)
(i)
Generally well answered with most candidates able to read correctly
off the graph. The better candidates quantified the changes.
(ii)
Reasonably well answered. Most candidates identified the overall
increase in price with rank and many noted that peat (or lignite)
represented an anomaly.
(iii)
Not particularly well answered. Most candidates noted the greater
calorific value and lower volatile content, however fewer mentioned
that there was less residue produced on ignition with increasing rank.
Likewise few mentioned that there were different uses for peat (e.g.
gardening.) References were often made to the "purity" of the coal or
that anthracite burns "better." Neither of these received any credit.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
19
(c)
(d)
(i)
Most candidates answered the question correctly. There was a little
confusion with some candidates thinking that it was the sandstone that
actually contained coal, not realising that this was a synform, and that
the percentage of carbon in the coal actually referred to the coal seam
below the sandstone.
(ii)
Reasonably well answered with most candidates noting the reason for
the increased rank of coal due to increased temperature and pressure,
resulting from deeper burial in the core of the fold.
A question where most candidates scored high marks. A few candidates did
not read the question properly and mentioned a method of extraction rather
than an environmental impact. Others did not obey the rubric such that the
answer to part (ii) did not refer to the answer to part (i). Subsidence and dust
were by far the most common acceptable responses.
Section B
Q.2
(a)
This was the most popular question and while some candidates wrote very
good accounts of hydrocarbon formation, a few wrote about coal. Many did
not mention the various stages of maturation or anaerobic conditions. The
better candidates also included the ‘oil window’ diagram and mentioned
temperatures of the different maturation stages. Different reasonable values
for the latter were accepted.
(b)
Evaluation was relatively poor which prevented some candidates with
otherwise excellent answers to part (a) from scoring very high overall marks.
Many candidates focussed far too much on describing traps which was not
really addressing the question. The best candidates discussed why porosity
and permeability are important in the consideration of source, reservoir and
cap rocks, but then referred to other (equally important) considerations such
as traps. It is still a commonly held belief that porosity and permeability have
a positive correlation. Thus, many candidates made statements such as
"shales and clays make good cap rocks because they have a low porosity
and low permeability". The same candidates would usually claim that
reservoir rocks are the opposite and have "a high porosity and high
permeability.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
20
Q.3
A reasonably popular question, with most answers discussing magmatic segregation.
Reference to the Bushveld Complex was considered (almost) to the exclusion of any
other example of a layered intrusion of economic importance.
A few of the better students mentioned magma immiscibility, in relation to silicate and
sulphide melts.
It was almost universally agreed amongst candidates that pegmatites are so coarse
grained because they form due to (very) slow cooling and crystallisation. Hardly any
candidates claimed that the crystals are able to grow so large because the magma is
volatile-rich and so ions can diffuse to the sites of crystal growth relatively quickly.
Of those who expressed an opinion on the matter, it was universally agreed that
pegmatites are "only" associated with granite and / or granitic magmas. Although this
is untrue, it was generously accepted as it was usually part of an argument
suggesting, or stating, that a concentration of volatiles is more likely in silicic
magmas. Unfortunately it was always overstated.
Most candidates attempted evaluation (with varying degrees of success) of the role
of igneous processes by mentioning that sedimentary processes can also form ore
deposits. Very few considered metamorphic processes.
Q.4
This question was not so popular although generally the standard was very good.
Some candidates discussed geochemical and borehole sampling at great length as
though they are geophysical techniques. The better candidates mentioned these as
an evaluation of all exploration techniques. As per usual, candidates rarely made full
use of labelled diagrams, and quite a few candidates did not explain the methods in
enough detail. Evaluation was generally better for this question than for the other
two, with most candidates mentioning that there were limitations on all geophysical
methods and that they needed to be ‘ground-truthed’ by drilling, mapping or
geochemical work. There are still a few candidates who believe that oil and gas,
because of their low density, can be located by a gravity survey. Many claimed that a
gravity survey is only effective in locating ore deposits.
Unit 3 – Evolution of Britain
Q.1
(a)
(i)
No significant problems. Most candidates were capable of
commenting on the texture. Grain size and shape were by far the most
popular choices for description. The only noticeable lapses were
where candidates used inappropriate terminology such as
granoblastic, prophyritic or euhedral.
(ii)
A disappointing response. Many candidates interpreted the
environment as a desert and the deposits as being aeolian. There
were even some who described he grain shape as sub-angular or
sub-rounded in part (i) but then used the "fact" that the grains were
"well-rounded" in part (ii) in support of a desert environment.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
21
(b)
(c)
(i)
A mixed response. Many candidates obviously did not fully understand
the term "trace fossils" such that bivalves and brachiopods were
frequent suggestions. It was apparent that a few candidates did not
read the question properly and did not appreciate that the two photos
were different views of the same features.
(ii)
Again very mixed answers. Few made use of the opportunity to make
quantitative descriptions.
(i)
This was not particularly well answered with many candidates not
mentioning the fact that the photograph showed a (fault) breccia. The
foliation of the rock above was mentioned by even fewer.
(ii)
This was reasonably well answered with most candidates realising
that the Alpine Orogeny would not have noticeably affected NW
Scotland, with the possible exception of fault reactivation (which was
impressively noted by a few.)
Q.2
This question was the least popular choice and was generally not well answered,
with quite a few candidates wandering off into irrelevant topics. In general, examples
were not well used in the answers and diagrams were very sparse. Most candidates
preferred to discuss deltaic environments rather than fluvial. Evaluation was
generally very poor for this question and mainly revolved around a vague questioning
of the Law of Uniformitarianism. Statements such as "rivers in the past may not have
been like rivers today" is not particularly informative. On the other hand, derived
fossils were well understood.
Q3
This was the most popular question with some very good answers. Generally the first
part of the question was much better answered than the second. However, a
ubiquitous feature of the answers was a conspicuous lack of labelled diagrams.
There were good examples referred to, obviously places that the candidates had
been to on fieldwork. Areas of study are being much better located such that
localities like "South Wales" or "Derbyshire" are being abandoned in favour of
specific localities such as "Mam Tor, Castleton". There was generally a lot of waffle in
the second part of the question. The Law of Uniformitarianism again came in for
criticism. However, "the climate was not the same in the past as it is today" needed
much more discussion to warrant high marks. Very few candidates mentioned the
effect of continent distribution, volcanic activity, sea levels and solar activity as
possible additional factors that could influence climate, in addition to latitude.
Q.4
This was a generally well-answered question with most candidates focussing on
either the Caledonian or Variscan Orogeny and few on the Alpine Orogeny.
Diagrams were better utilised in this question than the other two although quality was
very variable.
The evaluation for the Caledonian Orogeny was much better than that for the
Variscan.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
22
Unit 4 – Lithosphere
Q.1
(a)
Less well-answered than expected. A sizeable minority of candidates got a
value that was too high for "elevation above 3km".
Part (ii) was generally well-answered, although relatively few candidates
mentioned isostatic equilibrium.
(b)
(c)
Q.2
(i)
Generally well answered, however some candidates reported their
answer in metres and not km.
(ii)
Generally well answered, however some candidates reported their
answer in metres and not km.
(i)
Reasonably well answered, however some candidates failed to
mention either metamorphism or eclogite in their answer. Relatively
few candidates quoted actual densities of the various crustal units in
their answers.
(ii)
Reasonably well answered. Many candidates failed to make use of the
density values provided.
This was generally the most popular question. However, many candidates continue
to have serious misconceptions about various aspects. In a subduction zone the
subducting slab will only melt if it is young <15Ma (and so hot). Most plates when
they are subducted are too cold to melt and what causes the melting is the release of
water and other volatiles from the slab during subduction into the overlying
asthenosphere (the mantle wedge) which lowers the solidus (melting temperature) of
the mantle source.
Many candidates are still talking about ‘magma plumes’. Although this is treated
sympathetically, there are no such things. The key mechanism of melt generation at
MOR is decompression melting of upwelling mantle of ambient temperature
(1320-1370°C).
Q.3
This was the least popular question and was generally reasonably well answered
albeit with a lot of confusion over the different methods and types of waves etc. Too
many candidates discussed seismological techniques in general and did not really
address how these methods informed our understanding of the structure and
composition of the lithosphere as explicitly asked by the question. Diagrams were
generally quite sparse in the answers to this question. A few candidates mentioned
the role that seismic tomography has played in elucidating the structure of the Earth.
Evaluation in this question was reasonable with quite a few candidates making the
point that seismology can only provide part of the picture and that other methods are
needed to independently verify the findings gleaned from seismology, e.g. ophiolites
and mantle xenoliths.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
23
Q.4
(a)
This was a reasonably popular question but was not particularly wellanswered, with again a notable absence of diagrams, particularly diagrams
with isotherms. Some spent a great deal of time discussing circulation of heat
in the ocean and the air above volcanoes. Relatively few candidates
mentioned heat loss by conduction as the lithosphere thickens with age away
from the active spreading ridge. Very few candidates mentioned the higher
concentrations of radioactive elements in arc lavas and intrusions that would
noticeably contribute to overall heat flow in a subduction-related setting.
However, some candidates impressively quoted heat flow values (which
tended to be correct, although they would not have been penalised for
incorrect values so long as the principle was sound, i.e. highest values at
MOR). The impressive feature was that the correct units were invariably used.
(b)
A mixed response. The first part was generally better answered than the
second part, with some candidates not addressing this part of the question at
all. The distinction between (plastic) folding and (brittle) faulting was well
covered. The best candidates invariably drew well-labelled stress-strain
curves. Surprisingly, some of the better candidates correctly discussed how
elastic behaviour might move onto plastic behaviour but when this eventually
leads to failure incorrectly stated that this had to be "brittle".
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
24
GEOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced
GL6
Principal Moderator:
Ian G Kenyon
Administration
The administration and moderation of the coursework samples ran very smoothly again this
year. The Principal Moderator is very grateful for the efficient organisation and punctuality of
the majority of centres. Only a small number of centres submitted materials after the May
15th deadline.
Packaging Coursework
When packing the coursework samples please try to reduce bulk and weight as far as
possible. A4 hardback ringbinders should not be used. It is helpful (and cheaper for centres)
to use slim plastic folders that can be packed efficiently. The use of large and heavy field
notebooks containing only a few pages of assessed material is to be discouraged. Please
consider detaching the relevant pages of field notes and inserting them in the front of the
report with a paper clip. Alternatively photocopy the relevant pages and include in the front of
the report. All materials for moderation should be included in just one modest sized
package.
Please note that the coursework samples for GL6 and GL2b should not be sent together in
the same package as they are moderated by different examiners. If centres are unsure
about the address for despatch, they should contact WJEC for clarification.
Fieldwork and Laboratory based Investigations
Please note that the requirements for GL6 are a minimum of two investigations. The
assessment must be a minimum of 50% field based work. Therefore three possible
combinations are available. Field 50%, Lab 50%, Field 75%, Lab 25% or Field 100%. Please
state clearly on the GLF1 form whether Lab (L) or Field (F) is being assessed. It is not
appropriate to write F/L.
GLF 1 Forms
The F1 form should list all candidates and their marks from the centre, not just those
selected as a sample for moderation. It is helpful to mark with an asterisk on the left hand
side those which make up the sample.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
25
F 2 Forms – The Tracking/Planning Sheet
A completed F2 form should be included for each investigation undertaken, i.e. two for each
candidate in the sample. This is used primarily to assess the planning of the investigation.
The quality of the planning sheets varied from exceptional, exhaustive and comprehensive to
inadequate, over-brief and quite vague. The best marks for planning were achieved where
students carried out a pilot study to test their planning, then modified the original plan in the
light of this. A small number of centres were a little over-generous on awarding marks for
planning. It is not possible to score full marks on this section when candidates have failed to
make any predictions about possible outcomes and anticipated sources of error.
These sheets can be enlarged to A3 where space is insufficient. Additional planning
information can be included at the beginning of the written report under a clear ‘planning (F2)
continued’ heading.
Students should be encouraged to plan in detail and should be discouraged from using
simplistic bullet point statements on the planning sheet.
F3 Forms
A completed F3 form should be submitted for each candidate in the sample. Please make
full use of the opportunity to comment on the work of individual candidates on the F3 form.
Ideally 4 ‘post-it’ notes should be used to identify within the work, where and why the marks
have been awarded. A few centres still fail to comply with this request each year and
possibly disadvantage their candidates as a result.
Please ensure that the centre has the updated F3 form which has the candidate declaration
on the reverse. This must be signed by the candidate and teacher to confirm the authenticity
of the work being submitted. It was pleasing to see that nearly all centres complied with this
administrative task this year.
Downloads from WJEC
Copies of the forms F1, F2 and F3 can be downloaded directly from the WJEC website
www.wjec.co.uk by following the GCE/AS subjects and then Geology links from their home
page.
Implementation
In order to provide evidence for implementation, it is vital that the appropriate field and
laboratory notes are included with the report. A small number of centres failed to include the
laboratory notes this year.
It should also be noted that laboratory work must yield some raw data that could not be
collected in the field. Bringing back rock samples then describing them as in a ‘traditional’
practical is not really in the spirit of the assessment.
Good examples of laboratory work included:
Making thin sections of rock samples followed by microscope analysis
Sieving sediments and calculating sorting, skewness and kurtosis
Establishing composition of sediment samples using point counts
Testing rock samples for resistance to abrasion, impact and polishing
Modelling rock deformation using plasticine and Mars bars
Simulating mass movements and tsunami generation in a wave tank
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
26
Porosity and permeability of rocks related to their utilization potential
Testing the resistance of various mollusc shells to abrasion/attrition and linking to
preservation potential
The overall quality and quantity of the laboratory and field notes were a little disappointing
again this year and could easily be improved upon. Field sketches were particularly poor.
Ideally each field location should have a six-figure grid reference. If sites are close together,
then the same reference should be given with ’12 metres west of site 4’. It was pleasing to
note some very accurate fieldwork locations were given by a number of centres using GPS
devices this year. This approach is to be commended and encouraged.
All field sketches should have grid reference, scale, compass orientation and detailed
annotations. Simplistic labelling of sketches should be discouraged.
Information from secondary sources such as bed ages or detailed palaeogeographies should
not appear in the field notes. Photographs are also inappropriate in the field notes. The field
notes should be used to interpret the photographs in the report.
Field notes should consist of detailed observations, measurements and records made
individually by each candidate. Identical notes obviously dictated in the field are to be
strongly discouraged.
It is strongly recommended to practise field sketching from photographs or slides prior to
fieldwork being carried out. The field and lab notes provide the basis for the report and
should be considered the most important part of the investigation.
Analysis
This involves some synthesis and interpretation of the primary data collected in the lab or
field. There must be some development from the field or laboratory notes, rather than simply
copying out the same information in a neater form.
The use of photographs is to be strongly encouraged but these should be used selectively
and integrated within the text. Transparent overlays or outline diagrams adjacent to
photographs may be used to highlight important features or annotated digitally. Grid
reference, compass orientation and scale should be included as a matter of course.
Please discourage the indiscriminate use of photographs, which lack location and
annotations. Only include photographs, which are directly relevant to the investigation. As a
general guide no more than 8 to 10 photographs should be included. Fewer than half the
candidates included photographs this year and the majority were poorly annotated.
Statistical analysis is recommended if it is appropriate to the data collected. Excellent
investigations on sedimentary environments included work on sorting, skewness and
kurtosis. Particle size and shape was assessed using Zinng’s, Krumbein’s and Cailleux’s
indices. Spearman’s Rank, Chi Square and Vector analysis were also used by some
centres. Point counts were used to assess the mineralogical composition of rock and
sediment samples.
Spreadsheets were used by a number of centres, but not always to the best effect. Printouts
of cumulative frequency graphs, Zinng diagrams and histograms were rarely annotated to
show evidence of thorough analysis and interpretation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
27
Evaluation
Evaluation must be included as a separate section within the report. It is an opportunity for
students to reflect objectively on the work they have carried out. The quality of evaluations
varied from sophisticated and thorough to simplistic and inappropriate. It may be worthwhile
suggesting to students to break up the evaluation into a number of distinct components:
Evaluating the planning sheet they completed. How appropriate were the techniques and
methods they selected? This may refer to methods of sampling, sample size and sample
number.
What problems or limitations were encountered during implementation? This could involve
reference to confusion between true and apparent dip or problems between the base map
geology and actual rock outcrops.
An outline of the way in which the investigation could be improved, given more time and/or
resources and with the benefit of hindsight.
An overview of the investigation based on the likely reliability/validity of the data collected in
the available time frame. Which part(s) of the investigation(s) yielded the most/least reliable
data and why? Are the conclusions made concrete, tentative or partial? How do these
findings compare with published work on the same area/topic. How do they compare with
the results/conclusions of students from last year? How could the work be developed further,
with perhaps reference to the outline planning of extension work?
Evaluation is not a list of excuses. Naïve and simplistic statements regarding lack of time,
bad weather and lack of familiarity with equipment do not form the basis of a mature
evaluation. As a rough guide one side of A4 word-processed text is a probable minimum
length for a high scoring evaluation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
28
The Report
It is now expected that students make use of IT and finish reports to a professional
standard. It was encouraging to see so many centres making appropriate use of IT this year
and only a few hand-written reports were submitted.
As a rough guide, the optimum length for each report should be between 1250 and 1750
words. This excludes maps, diagrams, photographs, graphic logs and statistics. Quality
rather than quantity is to be encouraged. The reports should be concise, relevant and clearly
focused.
Please dissuade students from including large amounts of photocopied material from
secondary sources.
The report should be based on the primary data collected in the laboratory or field and there
should be some cross-referencing between the two. Safety considerations should be briefly
acknowledged and students should be encouraged to be aware of the importance of the
need for conservation of geological sites. The report might include the following sections,
though they may be subsumed under a smaller number of headings:
Contents Page
Location Map
Introduction
Aims/Hypotheses
Safety Aspects
Methods of Data Collection
Data Presentation
Data Analysis
Statistical Analysis
Graphs/Printouts with Annotations
Photographs with Annotations
Conclusions
Evaluation
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
Standards
The standard of coursework marking this year has been very similar to the previous three
years. Only a few centres had their marks adjusted during moderation this year. From a total
of over 90 centres only 3 centres were adjusted downwards and 4 centres were adjusted
upwards.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
29
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.