The whole mark scheme
All six criteria and 25 marks in one place, so you can see where you are heading and check a draft against the whole thing in one pass.
Each criterion is also explained, in detail and with examples, on the step that teaches it. The bands below are the same words you will find there.
Fieldwork question and geographic context
Taught in step 1, the investigation you have been given and step 2, know your river.
Criterion A (Fieldwork question and geographic context) is assessed across steps 1 and 2 together: the question and its link to the syllabus in step 1, the geographic context and the locational map in step 2. Three marks, three bands.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The link to the syllabus | not made, or not appropriate | an appropriate link is identified | the link is described |
| The question | not a question, too broad, or no location | geographical, with a specific location | geographical and focused, precise location |
| The map | none, or inappropriate for the question | a copy of an existing map, too much unnecessary detail or missing conventions | one or more maps following mapping conventions, with clear information and detail |
Note the verbs. Identifying a syllabus link is a mark; describing it is the top band. That difference is one or two sentences of writing, and it is the cheapest mark in the whole report.
The same three marks as step 1. These two rows are the location half.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | no location, or too broad | a specific location identified | a precise location, clearly identified |
| The map | none, or inappropriate for the question | a copy of an existing map, too much unnecessary detail or missing conventions | one or more maps following mapping conventions, with clear information and detail |
"A copy of an existing map" is the middle band, and it is where an unedited screenshot lands. The route to the top band is not a better basemap; it is what you add to it.
Method(s) of investigation
Taught in step 3, the fieldwork.
Two strands, three marks. Both strands have to be at a level for the report to sit there.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The methods | listed or outlined, too general or vague to collect enough relevant data | described, outlining how the data is relevant to the question | described, explaining clearly and accurately how the combination of data is relevant. May describe statistical tests, if appropriate |
| The techniques | listed or outlined, and not correctly used | used correctly, allowing sufficient data, but may be minimal or only one or two variables | used correctly, resulting in reliable and good quality primary data supporting a relevant analysis |
The phrase to notice is how the combination of data is relevant. Not each method in isolation, why measuring these things together lets you answer the question. Width and depth alone are two numbers; width, depth and velocity together are discharge.
Quality and treatment of information collected
Taught in step 4, your dataset and step 5, presenting it.
The six marks for Criterion C (Quality and treatment of information collected) cover both the data and its presentation. Step 4 is the first half, whether the information you collected is relevant, sufficient and good enough to answer the question. Step 5 is the presentation half.
| 1–2 | 3–4 | 5–6 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The information | mostly not relevant, or not sufficient, to address the question | most of it relevant, allowing partial analysis | all directly relevant, and sufficient in quantity and quality for full analysis |
"All directly relevant" is the phrase that does the damage. All eight variables are fluvial characteristics, so all eight are relevant to the broad fieldwork question, but data that answers none of the sub-hypotheses you actually test is doing nothing for your analysis, and carrying it makes the top band of both C and D harder to reach.
The presentation strands of the six marks for Criterion C (Quality and treatment of information collected).
| 1–2 | 3–4 | 5–6 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentation | presented in a way that is inappropriate, or does not allow analysis | presented in ways appropriate for the data type | a sufficient range of the most appropriate techniques, used effectively |
| Conventions | do not follow conventions, or contain frequent errors | conventions followed, with occasional errors | graphs, tables, diagrams and illustrations follow conventions |
"Conventions" here means numbering, labelling and annotating. Every figure numbered in order, every axis labelled with its variable and its units, every figure titled, every source acknowledged. It is mechanical, it is checkable, and it is two marks.
Written analysis
Taught in step 6, written analysis.
Eight marks, four bands. Notice how the verbs escalate down the middle column; this is the clearest verb ladder in the whole mark scheme.
| 1–2 | 3–4 | 5–6 | 7–8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Techniques | not all appropriate to the data and question | appropriate; any statistical techniques used are irrelevant or contain errors | descriptive and statistical (if appropriate to the question), appropriate to the data | descriptive and statistical, with confidence levels if appropriate |
| Trends and patterns | outlined, no explicit link; obvious trends listed | described and linked explicitly to the question or hypotheses | described and linked; outliers and anomalies listed | patterns, outliers and anomalies explained and linked to the question, hypotheses, theory, location and methods |
| Answering the question | allows the question to be answered descriptively | allows it to be answered, with gaps in the supporting evidence | allows it to be answered, with no or only minor gaps |
The jump from 5–6 to 7–8 is one word applied to anomalies: listed becomes explained. It is the most valuable single word in this mark scheme, and step 4 is where you found the anomaly to spend it on.
Conclusion and evaluation
Taught in step 7, conclusion and evaluation.
Two criteria. The top band of Criterion F (Evaluation) is one of the most specific in the whole IA, it names four things by name.
| Criterion E (Conclusion) | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Conclusion | a conclusion is formulated, partially supported by the analysis | a clear conclusion to the fieldwork question, supported by the analysis |
| Criterion F (Evaluation) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strengths and weaknesses | listed, mostly superficial, not appropriate or not relevant | outlined, mostly appropriate and relevant | the most appropriate and relevant ones explained, regarding the data collection methods, the formulation of the fieldwork question, the presentation of data, and the choice of location |
| Improvements | listed | outlined | outlined, and the potential impact of these improvements explained |
Four named targets in that top band, and most evaluations only ever discuss the first. The question, the presentation and the location are each worth a paragraph, and almost nobody writes them.
The bands tell you what a marker is looking for. They do not tell you how to get there, which is what the eight steps are for.
Step 8, the pre-submission check