Fieldwork and Map Interpretation: Enquiry Design, Sampling and Evaluation
What this domain tests
Fieldwork questions test whether you can design a defensible enquiry, choose sampling and measurement techniques that fit the variable, present and analyse data, and evaluate reliability and validity. Map interpretation questions test inference of relief, drainage, land use and settlement from symbols, contours and grid references.
Core rules and concepts
- Enquiry structure: aim or hypothesis → geographical background → method → data collection → presentation → analysis → conclusion → evaluation.
- Sampling: random (unbiased but may miss key sites), systematic (even coverage, but can alias with periodic features), stratified (proportional within subgroups), opportunistic (convenient but biased).
- Match technique to variable: beach profiles use ranging poles, tape and clinometer; sediment size uses callipers on the long axis; infiltration uses a ring infiltrometer; river velocity uses a current meter or float; land use uses a recording sheet along a transect; questionnaires need neutral wording and adequate sample size.
- Reliability is improved by repetition, standardised procedure and calibration; validity means you measured the variable you claimed to measure.
- Map interpretation: infer relief from contour spacing and values, drainage from blue lines and valley shapes, land use from symbols, and check inferences against grid references so your answer is locatable.
Worked example
Hypothesis: 'Beach sediment size decreases with distance from the shoreline.' Sample systematically along a shore-normal transect at 5 m intervals, measure the long axis of 30 pebbles per site, calculate mean and range per site, plot size against distance, and test with Spearman's rank. Reasoning: wave energy and swash sorting explain the expected trend, but pebble selection bias (picking flat or conspicuous stones) and a single transect threaten validity, so repeat on a second profile and randomise pebble selection within a quadrat.
Traps that cost marks
Small or unrepresentative samples; describing results instead of evaluating the method; an evaluation that never refers back to the hypothesis; ignoring risk assessment, access permission and site safety; making map inferences you cannot locate with a grid reference.