GCSE Revision

Fieldwork: analysing data and concluding

Describe, analyse, explain

Analysing data means finding the patterns and trends in it:

  1. Describe the overall pattern, with figures: "Velocity rises from 0.18 m/s at site 1 to 0.45 m/s at site 8."
  2. Analyse it: compare groups, find the averages and spread, and look for links and .
  3. Explain it, using geographical theory: "The channel is wider and deeper downstream, so less of the water touches the bed and banks, and there is less friction."

Statistics help: the , and are averages; the and show spread. Spearman's rank is a test of how strongly two variables are linked (you won't be asked to calculate it).

Key terms

Median and interquartile range

UQMLQUQMLQ01020304050Inner zoneOuter zoneQuality score (out of 50)

Environmental quality scores at 11 sites in each zone (data written for this app).

With 11 values in order, from highest to lowest:

  • the is the 6th value: 30 in the inner zone, 39 in the outer zone;
  • the upper quartile is the 3rd value, and the lower quartile the 9th;
  • the (IQR) is the upper quartile minus the lower quartile: 34 − 25 = 9 in the inner zone, and 43 − 35 = 8 in the outer zone.

The outer zone's median is 9 higher, so quality is generally better. The similar IQRs show the scores are about as spread out in each zone.

Key terms

Anomalies and conclusions

An is a result that doesn't fit the pattern. Look for a reason:

  • River site 4 (0.12 m/s) might be in a deep, slow pool, or behind a fallen tree.
  • Outer zone site scoring 26 might be beside a busy main road.

An anomaly could also be an error in measuring. Don't ignore it: explain it.

A answers the question, with evidence:

"The hypothesis is supported: velocity rose from 0.18 to 0.45 m/s over 7 km, apart from one anomaly. This fits the theory that friction falls downstream."

Say whether the hypothesis is supported, partly supported or rejected, and quote figures.

Key terms

Exam practice

Plan your own answer first, then open the model answers to see what each level looks like.

9 marks · about 12 minutes · +3 SPaG

For one of your fieldwork enquiries, to what extent did your results support your hypothesis or answer your question?

To what extent means: Weigh up how far something is true, with evidence on both sides, then give a clear judgement.

Level 1 (Basic)· 3/9 marks (band 1–3)
Our results supported our hypothesis that river velocity increases downstream, because the river got faster.

Why this level: A simple conclusion with no figures and no consideration of anomalies or reliability. To reach Level 2: use data to show the pattern and link it to theory. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Level 2 (Clear)· 5/9 marks (band 4–6)
Our hypothesis was "River velocity increases downstream". Velocity rose from 0.18 m/s at site 1 to 0.45 m/s at site 8, a positive correlation. This fits the theory that friction falls as the channel becomes wider and deeper downstream. However, site 4, at 0.12 m/s, was an anomaly.

Why this level: Clear use of data and theory, and an anomaly identified. But the anomaly isn't explained and reliability isn't weighed, so "to what extent" isn't fully answered. To reach Level 3: explain the anomaly and limits, then make a judgement. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Level 3 (Detailed)· 8/9 marks (band 7–9)
Our hypothesis was "River velocity increases downstream". Our results largely supported it: velocity rose from 0.18 m/s at site 1 to 0.45 m/s at site 8, and the scatter graph showed a positive correlation. This fits the theory that, downstream, the channel becomes wider and deeper, so a smaller share of the water touches the bed and banks, less energy is lost to friction, and the water flows faster. However, the results don't fully support it. Site 4, at 0.12 m/s, was an anomaly, lower even than site 1. It was probably in a deep pool, where water slows. We also measured only eight sites, on one day after dry weather, so our results may not show the river's usual velocity, and a single odd result had a big effect on the pattern. Overall, our results supported the hypothesis to a large extent, but the conclusion is only as reliable as our small sample allows; more sites and visits in different seasons would make it more secure.

Why this level: Detailed use of data and theory, the anomaly explained, limits weighed and a clear, qualified judgement. This is Level 3. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Take the quiz