iGeo 2014, Писмен тест — C. Section C · Global Ecological Footprint

Instructions for the Students

1. Fill in your name, team and iGeo student number on the front page of this Question and Answer Booklet.

2. Fill in your iGeo student number in the boxes on top of the pages in this Booklet.

3. This test consists of 6 Sections.

4. The maximum total mark is 90. The mark for each question is given in the margin at the beginning of the question. There are a maximum of 15 marks for each Section.

5. Answer all questions in the spaces provided in this Booklet.

6. Check the backs of pages as questions are printed on both sides of a page.

7. Give only the required number of answers (reasons, examples, etc.). For instance, if the question asks for 2 reasons and you give more than 2, only the first 2 reasons will be marked.

8. The Resource Booklet contains Sources referred to in this Booklet.

9. You may use a calculator during the test.

10. Time: 180 minutes for students not educated in English,

150 minutes for students educated in English.

11. Students not educated in English are allowed to use bilingual dictionaries during the test.

Good luck!

Instructions for the Markers

1. Check if the iGeo Student Numbers are on each sheet before dividing up the paper.

2. This test consists of 6 Sections.

3. One whole Section per marker and double-checker.

4. Check whether the answer continues outside the designated area. No credits will be given to answers in the Resource Booklet.

5. The maximum total mark is 90. The mark for each question is given at the beginning of the question. There are a maximum of 15 marks for each Section.

6. Get the hang of the full range of answers by reading through a few papers with your co-marker before you start your marking.

7. These answers are not exhaustive. Credit any relevant answer.

8. Mark only the required number of answers (reasons, examples, etc.). For instance, if the question asks for 2 reasons and there is more than 2, only the first 2 reasons should be marked.

9. Put your mark next to the question number in the column on the left – it eases the work of the person who has to put the numbers into MS Excel. Total the marks by the title of the Section.

10. The Moderators (Sue and Anu) will sample the marking of all teams.

Geography Olympiad 2014 - Krakow
Written Response Test Report
Student Performance
•
Overall the paper was accessible by all students. The total marks were out of 90
with the lowest score being 14 marks (compared to 9 marks in 2013) and the highest score reaching 70 marks (75.5 marks in 2013). The median mark was 47 out of
90 (43 in 2013). Overall this was a higher scoring paper than last year’s WRT.
•
The highest scoring section overall was Section F (Globalisation and Transnational
Corporations) where the median mark was 11 out of 15.
•
Section A (Geology and Coastal Landforms) was the only section where a student achieved full marks (15)
•
The lowest scoring section was Section C ( Global Ecological Footprint) where the median mark was 8 out of 15.
•
Section A had several students who did not score at all and Section C and E each had 2 students who didn’t score at all. However, Section A was also where the highest mark was achieved.
General Comments
•
The writing committee has continued to make a conscious effort to ask more
‘open’ questions which we hoped would encourage students to write in more extended prose.
•
Questions were structured so that generally, the easier more closed questions came at the beginning of each section using command words such as identify, outline, describe, name, and what?
•
The more open, challenging questions came towards the end using command words such as explain, suggest, comment on and justify.
•
As in previous years, the team also tried to produce sections that integrated physical and human geography topics.
•
We always try to provide a variety of data representation/visualisation (eg. maps, graphs, tables, etc.) to reflect the range of sources that geographers work with.
•
We also tried to introduce some more modern topics e.g. geography of health; the solar powered boat schools and the recent expansion of globalisation.
•
Some questions were very poorly answered by students:
o
In question C7 students were asked to comment on the differences between the data shown in the table for Africa and Oceania. 87 students did not score on this part.
o
QuestionA4 asked students to draw a series of diagrams to show the formation of a delta. 58 students did not score on this part.62 students were unable to give a reasonable definition of globalisation in question F1.

• However, other questions were more competently answered:

o
Question B2 asked about afforestation and only 8 students were unable to gain a mark here.
o
Section F2 asked students to give factors influencing the process of globalisation and only 21 students did not score on this section.
o
It was pleasing to see that more than half the students could explain the impacts of El Nino in Section D2.

Command words
•
There seemed to be fewer instances where students misinterpreted the command words. This may have been because again time was given for students who are not educated in English to read and digest the command words before the test starts.
•
The writing committee does not see this should be a particular problem for non-
English speakers.
Marking
Again, I am grateful to everyone who marked the WRT this year and especially to Anu
Printsmann and Dubravka Spevec whose academic backgrounds and meticulous approach contributed to a robust marking process.
Consistency and quality assurance is achieved by teams of two markers marking all the scripts of the students for one section. The provisional mark scheme was prepared by the writing team before the test took place. This was adjusted if necessary, by the paid of geography specialist markers and the moderators (Anu and Sue) after a sample of 30 papers had been marked. Each pair double marked papers where there was an issue or marked together and then the moderators sample marked papers from every team and marked each moderated question with a coloured dot. We moderated approximately 10% of all scripts and at least one question was moderated from a student from each participating country.
I am confident that this system is effective and robust.
Again, the writing team were pleased with the way in which students attempted all questions in the test. No topic seemed to be inaccessible to students, although certain parts appeared to pose a problem. This is still a small issue about command words we think for some countries where students are not educated in English. The writing team recognise that there is always room for improvement and will always strive to construct a fair and equitable test.
Additional points:
• We try hard to ensure that there is no cascading disadvantage, ie that students who get one question wrong are not penalised in subsequent questions.
• Correct exemplification is always considered for extra marks if the mark scheme allows.
• We want to credit what the students know, understand and can do in geography and so we use positive marking, unless the question requires a specific answer which can be right or wrong.

• For some of the more ‘open’ questions you will see from the mark scheme that we have used level marking rather than point marking. This arises from the increased opportunity for students to write extended answers. All the marking team were happy with this approach.
I would like to express my thanks to all the writing team:
Josef Tan, Anu Printsmann and Dubravka Spevec and to Kath Berg for the hours of work that went into producing the Written Response Test for the 2014 Geography Olympiad.
In order to support participating countries further, a selection of high scoring answers is appended below (Appendix 1). This is intended to be accessible from the iGeo website.

Sue Lomas
Chair, Written Response Test Committee
Assessment Coordinator sue-lomas@talktalk.net
October 2014