IB Geography SL common mistakes
IB Geography SL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing case-study answers that describe a place in general terms ("Kenya is a developing country with a growing population") without citing specific figures, dates, or named locations, so the response reads as background knowledge rather than evidence.
Candidates memorise a country name and a broad narrative during revision, then reproduce the narrative under exam pressure because it feels safe. They assume the examiner will infer the specific knowledge, but mark schemes reward precise, located detail and the generic answer scores in the lower band regardless of length.
What to do instead
Build a one-page case-study card per example with five fixed slots: named place and scale, two or three dated statistics, the process or policy involved, one consequence, and one limitation or counterpoint. Rehearse writing each card from memory in under four minutes so the figures come out automatically. In the exam, underline every statistic you use and check that at least three appear per case-study paragraph.
Treating the key concepts (space, place, scale, processes, change, systems, sustainability) as decorative vocabulary, dropping the term into a sentence and then writing purely descriptive content that never uses the concept to analyse.
The concepts are introduced early in the course and candidates learn definitions without practising application. Under time pressure the easiest thing to write is description, and the concept word gets bolted on as a label rather than driving the argument.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed sentence pattern for each concept: name the concept, state what it does to the case, then state the consequence. For example, for scale: identify the level at which a process operates, then state how the outcome differs at another level. For systems: name the input, throughput, and output, then identify the feedback. Write three such sentences per past-paper question and compare them against the mark scheme's conceptual language.
Confusing population measures and models: mixing up natural increase with net migration, CBR with fertility rate, population density with distribution, and describing the demographic transition model as a prediction for every country rather than a model with stated limitations.
The terms are taught close together and share vocabulary, so they blur in recall. The DTM is visually memorable and candidates reproduce its stages without noting that it was derived from European experience and fits poorly where migration or rapid policy-driven change dominates.
What to do instead
Make a two-column glossary: term, precise definition, formula or units, and one example value from a named country. For the DTM, always attach the caveat sentence about its European origins and its poor fit for migration-driven or conflict-affected populations. When a question asks about change, separate natural change and net migration explicitly in the first sentence before analysing either.
Answering climate change questions with only the physical mechanism (enhanced greenhouse effect, radiative forcing) and no differentiated impacts by place, scale, or vulnerability, or listing impacts without linking them to adaptive capacity.
The physical science is the most concrete and easiest part to revise, so it dominates answers. Impacts feel like common sense and get listed generically ("sea levels will rise, crops will fail") without specifying which places, which populations, and why some are more exposed or less able to adapt.
What to do instead
For every impact, write a three-part chain: hazard or trend, exposure of a named place or group, and adaptive capacity of that group. Keep two contrast cases ready, one high-income and one low-income or small-island context, with at least one statistic each. Add a sentence on timescale, since impacts differ between near-term and end-of-century projections, and a sentence on uncertainty where the evidence is contested.
Writing resource-security answers that treat scarcity as purely a physical supply problem, ignoring access, affordability, geopolitics, and the difference between consumption patterns in high- and low-income countries.
Textbook diagrams of supply and demand encourage a simple quantity story, and candidates reproduce it. The concept of security as access rather than mere availability is easy to state but hard to apply, so it is dropped when the answer gets rushed.
What to do instead
Use a four-part frame for every resource question: availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability. Apply it to one named resource in one named place, then contrast a second place at a different income level. Include one figure on consumption per capita or import dependence to make the access argument concrete rather than asserted.
In the optional themes, describing a coastal, freshwater, extreme-environment, or hazard system without naming the specific landform, process, or management strategy, and instead writing generic statements such as "the area is managed sustainably" or "erosion is a problem".
Optional themes are chosen late and revised quickly, so candidates learn headline topics without the process vocabulary and management detail. Generic sustainability language feels responsive to the question while avoiding the risk of naming a wrong process.
What to do instead
For each chosen optional theme, prepare a process list (for example longshore drift, hydraulic action, or the hazard characteristics of a named tectonic setting) and a management list with named hard and soft engineering or preparedness measures. For each measure, write one strength and one weakness. In the exam, name the process or strategy in the topic sentence of each paragraph so the specificity is visible to the marker.
In the internal assessment, choosing a fieldwork question that cannot be answered with the data collection method available, then presenting results as maps and graphs with no statistical test, no link back to the research question, and no honest evaluation of limitations.
Candidates pick a topic they find interesting rather than one that is measurable at their scale, and the report is written at the end under time pressure. Graphs are produced because they look like analysis, and limitations are written as generic apologies rather than as specific threats to the validity of the conclusion.
What to do instead
Before fieldwork, write the research question and the exact data table you will fill in, then check that each column produces a variable that can be compared. Plan one appropriate technique in advance, such as a Spearman rank correlation, chi-squared, or a simple index, and confirm the data type supports it. In the evaluation, name the specific sampling bias, measurement error, or timing issue and state the direction in which it would shift your result.
Ignoring command words and the mark allocation: writing a broad descriptive account for a question that asks to evaluate or examine, or spending equal time on a short-answer part and a high-tariff extended response.
Candidates read the topic rather than the instruction, and anxiety pushes them to write everything they know. The result is a long answer that never makes a judgement, or a high-tariff question answered in three lines because time ran out on earlier parts.
What to do instead
Before writing, circle the command word and the number of marks, then allocate minutes at roughly one minute per mark. For evaluate, examine, and discuss, plan two sides and a stated conclusion before starting. Practise timed papers where you write only the plan for the highest-tariff question first, so the judgement is locked in before the clock pressures you.
Presenting a single case study as if it were universal, with no acknowledgement that findings are scale-dependent or context-bound, and no counter-example or limitation.
One well-rehearsed example is efficient to revise and feels authoritative. Candidates fear that adding a limitation weakens the answer, when in fact a stated limitation demonstrates evaluative skill and is often explicitly rewarded.
What to do instead
End each case-study-based answer with two sentences: one stating how the outcome might differ at another scale or in another context, and one naming a limitation of the evidence, such as data reliability, timescale, or the influence of a factor not considered. Keep a bank of paired cases, one from a high-income and one from a low- or middle-income context, so the contrast is ready.
Misreading or omitting the units, scale, and time frame on data-response and graph questions: quoting a raw number without units, reading a logarithmic or indexed axis as linear, or describing a trend without stating the period over which it occurred.
Data-response questions are attempted quickly, and candidates transcribe the number nearest the point they are describing without checking the axis label or the year. Indexed and logarithmic axes look like ordinary axes and are misread under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before reading any value, label the axes in your own words and note the units and the year range. State every figure with its unit and its year in the sentence. Where an axis is indexed or logarithmic, say so and describe change in proportional terms. Finish by writing one sentence on the overall trend, one on any anomaly, and one on a limitation of the data shown.