COURSEWORK FEEDBACK GENERAL Read it through! – Some people clearly haven’t proof read their work – SPaG issues Flow – does it make sense? Is it a coherent piece of work as a whole? Sub titles and sections Candidate record forms Printing issues

INTRODUCTION AIMS AND KEY QUESTIONS There are lots of useful documents on the intranet! Use them! INTRODUCTION AIMS AND KEY QUESTIONS Make sure you explain why you have chosen your sub- aims/key questions and how they link to the overall aim. Links to specification need more development in some cases THEORY AND LIT. REVIEW (MORE THOROUGH) Much more comprehensive theoretical background needs to be included from a range of sources. Diagrams would have enhanced this as well. More context. Why is this topic important at a wider scale. Sediment cells/tourism. Synoptic links. Locational info generally sound however other studies and previous work not discussed in detail. Other examples etc.

METHODOLOGY Include more locational information. Sketch map with transect info. Where were your sites?? Ensure all methods are fully justified and link to aims and questions. Diagrams/photos to aid explanations Sampling! Ensure that your ethical dimensions aren’t too ridiculous.

Site 1- Portland

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Most data is quantitative – don’t be afraid to include some pictures/sketches from the day with annotations. Often a bit muddled. Have clear sections to your results. Either by sub-question or by data type. – could you combine analysis with results to make it clearer? Not clear where your results are referring to. Make sure results clearly link to locations otherwise data is meaningless to reader. Don’t include results and statistical data for the sake of it. Make sure it is relevant to your individual aims and questions/hypotheses. Make sure you have manipulated the data (averages, differences, percentages, proportions) and use more variety in graphs (Compound/comparative, rather than series of boring simple bar graphs)

ANALYSIS Do not just include analysis e.g. a spearman's rank test without explaining what it shows and linking it to theory. Every bit of analysis should be relevant, be talked about and mean something. APPLY EXISTING KNOWLEDGE Be critical of your data – comment on accuracy throughout.

CONCLUSIONS AND EVALUATIONS Conclusions should be before evaluation Ensure questions are thoroughly answered (tackle in separate sections. Break it up for the reader. Be logical) Make sure you include general trends and headline figures in your conclusion (no new information) Does it match previous studies? Who’s theory does it support etc. WIDER CONTEXTS (what does this mean for the sediment cell?) “Draws effectively on evidence and theory to make a well- argued case” EVALUATION – generally pretty good WIDER CONEXT – who would this be useful for? How could they use it? How successful??

REFERENCES Some need tidying up – make sure you use the Harvard style. https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/media/content-assets/ils/documents/Harvard.pdf REFERENCES http://www.neilstoolbox.com/bibliography-creator/ Some need tidying up – make sure you use the Harvard style. You should have at least 10. There is so much information in text books on this topic I would expect a range of background information and preliminary research.

Look at mark scheme and guidance in specification