REVIEW OF THE 1999 AL GEOGRAPHY EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (PAPER I)

Back to Content Table of Vol. 16 . Issue 3

Hong Kong Geographer, Vol. 16, No. 1, July 1999

REVIEW OF THE 1999 AL GEOGRAPHY EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (PAPER I)

KWAN Yim-ling, WU HO Wan-yee

Sing Yin Secondary School

The following paragraphs summarize the findings of two markers for this year's AL geography examination - Paper I.

Overall, this year's questions are quite balanced, covering some main geographical concepts based on a range of data which included both local and world scales. As such, the questions should be able to measure the candidates' ability to apply theoretical concepts on real assignments.

Several questions are especially well designed, and are therefore welcomed by the candidates. The following we two good examples:

Question No.	Subject
7	Effects of chemical fertilizers on crop production; Pros and cons of organic factor
9	Urban hydrology; flood hazards in Mongkok and the remedial measures

Both questions make good use of current issues. They should be able to test the candidates' ability to use the geographical concepts they have learnt to understand contemporary world problems. In fact, these two questions virtually become "compulsory" questions, especially question 7. Most candidates who attempted these two questions were able to bring out the key concepts under concern. However when it comes to introducing the details of the actual situations, only a few candidates can show demonstrated a thorough understanding. Indeed there were quite a lot of misconceptions and a lack of common knowledge.

In fact, this is a problem for the whole exam paper. For many questions, candidates were able to point out the general ideas or the main concepts. Unfortunately they were rather weak in elaborating the details, or in applying the ideas to specific conditions. Some of the common misconception are as follows:

Questions No.	Misconception(s)/Shortcoming(s) 2
2	Unable to identify the upper and lower ceilings of the cloud formation and explain the process of condensation accordingly; Unable to calculate the temperature by using the lapse rate
3	Unable to identify the specific damage caused by a mudflow
4	Unable to match cities with climatic graphs
5	Unable to analyze the causal relationship between soil compaction and vegetation growth
7	Misconception: that chemical fertilizers are toxic
8	Wrongly identified CO2 arid SO2 as "particulates"; Misconceptions: that particulates cause lung cancer; Misconception: that green plants clear particulates

There are many other mistakes that indicated a lack of common knowledge among many candidates. Maybe it's high time that teachers guided the students to link theories with reality.

Sometimes poor performance of candidates is due to poor design of questions. In this year's Paper I, a few questions are not very clear. The data provided in those questions are not specific enough to guide candidates to the geographical concepts examined. The most serious cases are found in questions 10 and 3:

Question No.	Subject	Data provided
10	Sector model: land use density and zones and their effects on population change	A map showing population change
3	Effects and remedial location of a measures of a mudflow describing triggered off by a volcano eruption	A sketch map showing the volcano and a few sentences the casualty

An important feature of this yew's Paper I is its emphasis on graphical and statistical skills. Examples are as follows:

Question No.	Graphical/statistical skill tested
5	Interpretation of the "product moment correlation coefficient"
6	Bar chart to show deviation of annual rainfall from the mean
7	Line graph to show relationship between fertilizers and crop yield
9	Hydrographs for a village and a town
11	To draw isodapanes

Apart from these, there is of course the compulsory question 1 on map interpretation. This year's compulsory question is quite well designed. The subject matter is current and the printing of both map and aerial photo are clear enough.

As to basic geographical skills, most candidates' scores were acceptable. Their performance improved over the past few years'. A major weakness was the drawing of sketch maps, however. Also, in tackling question I, quite a few candidates were unable to use the map and photo evidence.