Your own fieldwork: human geography enquiry - AQA GCSE Geography (Paper 3) Exam Questions

Practise 25 exam-style questions on Your own fieldwork: human geography enquiry for AQA GCSE Geography (Paper 3). Write your answer as you would in the exam and get it marked in seconds against the mark scheme, point by point, with an AI tutor on hand if you get stuck.

25 questions
1–12 marks each
Instant marking
No sign-up needed

20 questions, marked as you go

Sample questions with model answers

Here are 4 of the questions in this topic, each with a model answer, an explanation of why it earns the marks and the mark scheme an examiner would use.

Question 1

1 mark

Name one source of secondary data that you used in your human geography enquiry.

Model answer

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data for the areas along my transect in Bristol.

Explanation

Secondary data has been collected by someone else, such as the Office for National Statistics or the local council. It is useful for context and for comparing with your own results, for example checking whether areas with low environmental quality scores are also more deprived.

Mark scheme

1 mark
An appropriate source of secondary data for a human enquiry, e.g. census data (Office for National Statistics) / Index of Multiple Deprivation / crime statistics (e.g. police.uk) / house price data from property websites / Goad shopping centre plans / council regeneration plans or reports / historical maps / Google Street View or online maps / newspaper articles / visitor numbers / data collected by other groups or in previous years
Do not accept primary data the student collected themselves (e.g. 'our questionnaire results'). Accept 'the internet' only if the type of data is stated (e.g. 'house prices from a property website').

Question 2

2 marks

Explain one way in which you tried to make your data collection consistent at all of your sites in your human geography enquiry.

Model answer

We did all our pedestrian counts on the same weekday between 11:00 and 13:00, and every count lasted exactly 10 minutes. This meant that differences in the number of pedestrians between sites were caused by their location, not by some sites being counted at a busier time of day or for longer.

Explanation

Keeping the method the same at every site (time, duration, people, criteria) is like a fair test in science: it means differences in the results reflect real differences between places. The second mark needs this link to fair comparison.

Mark scheme

1 mark
A way of making data collection consistent, e.g. collecting data at the same time of day or on the same day of the week at every site / counting for the same length of time / the same person scoring every site / using the same criteria, scoring sheet or questions in the same order everywhere
max 2; 1 for the method, 1 for explaining why it made the data consistent or comparable.
1 mark
so that differences between sites were caused by the places themselves and not by the method / so the results could be compared fairly
development of the previous point

Question 3

4 marks

For your human geography enquiry, explain how you tried to reduce bias in your data collection.

Model answer

Environmental quality surveys are subjective, so before starting we agreed exactly what each score meant for every criterion, for example that -3 for litter meant litter everywhere and +3 meant none at all. At every site three of us scored the street separately and we used the mean of our three scores, so one person's opinion did not decide the result. For our questionnaire we asked every fifth adult who walked past, rather than choosing people who looked friendly, which stopped us picking only one type of person and made the sample more representative.

Explanation

Bias makes data unfair or unrepresentative. Level 2 answers describe specific steps from their own enquiry and explain how each one reduced bias, such as averaging several people's scores or using a systematic rule to choose who to survey.

Mark scheme

4 marks
Levels of response (4 marks).
Level 2 (3-4 marks): clear explanation of two or more ways bias was reduced, each linked to how it made the data fairer or more representative, with specific detail of the student's own methods.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): basic statements of methods (e.g. 'we asked lots of people') with little explanation of how they reduced bias; generic.
0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.
Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): systematic sampling of people (e.g. every fifth passer-by) instead of choosing who looked friendly; stratified sampling by age or gender using census proportions; surveying at different times and places so different groups were included; agreed definitions for each environmental quality score, with several people scoring each site and the mean used; a pilot questionnaire to remove leading or unclear questions; neutral wording and balanced answer options; collecting data at the same time at every site; using objective measurements (e.g. a decibel meter, counts) where possible. Credit any appropriate method.

Question 4

6 marks

Assess the usefulness of the qualitative data you collected in your human geography enquiry.

Model answer

In my enquiry into environmental quality in Bristol, I collected qualitative data by writing field notes and making annotated field sketches at each of my 10 sites, and by asking five residents at Site 3 (inner city) and five at Site 10 (suburbs) what they liked and disliked about their area.

The qualitative data was useful because it explained my survey scores. My field notes recorded that Site 3 had boarded-up shops and overflowing bins, which explained its low score of -11 for environmental quality. The residents' comments also showed things my survey did not measure: two residents at Site 3 said they liked the strong sense of community and the variety of local shops, which showed that a low environmental quality score does not mean people are unhappy with where they live.

However, the qualitative data had limitations. Ten residents is a very small sample, and the people who agreed to talk may not represent everyone. The comments were hard to compare and could not be shown on a graph or tested with Spearman's rank, so they could not prove a pattern. My field notes were also subjective: they depended on what I noticed on one day.

Overall, the qualitative data was useful for explaining and adding depth to my results, but it could only support my conclusions, not prove them, so it was most useful when combined with the quantitative survey scores.

Explanation

Qualitative data is about descriptions and opinions. To assess its usefulness, say what it showed that numbers could not, what its weaknesses were, and give a clear overall judgement. Level 3 answers use real examples from their own enquiry rather than general points about qualitative data.

Mark scheme

6 marks
Levels of response (6 marks).
Level 3 (5-6 marks): detailed assessment of the usefulness and limitations of the qualitative data, clearly applied to the student's own enquiry with specific examples; reaches a clear, justified judgement about how useful it was in answering the enquiry question.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): clear description of some uses and/or limitations with some application to the student's enquiry; a judgement may be stated but is only partly supported.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): basic statements about qualitative data with little application; no clear judgement; generic.
0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.
Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): types of qualitative data such as interviews, open questions, field notes, annotated field sketches or photos, written descriptions; usefulness: records people's views, feelings and perceptions that numbers cannot show, explains the reasons behind quantitative patterns, captures the character of a place, can reveal unexpected issues; limitations: subjective, influenced by who was asked and how questions were worded, small numbers of responses, hard to compare, summarise or present, cannot be tested statistically, time-consuming; how it was combined with quantitative data; a judgement on how useful it was overall. Credit any appropriate human enquiry.

Ready to try the rest? Every answer you write is marked against the mark scheme, so you can see exactly where the marks are.

AI Tutor Hints first, answers after you try

Hi! Stuck? Ask me for a hint and I’ll help you work it out. Once you’ve checked your answer I can explain exactly where the marks are.