What this lesson teaches
I can apply the inquiry process to community responses to climate change and to older residents' needs.
Syllabus 9173, Fieldwork. Students should devise geographical questions or hypotheses and follow through the fieldwork in the following areas: Community response to climate change; Needs analysis of the elderly living in an urban neighbourhood.
I can draw a supported conclusion and evaluate the data and the methods used to collect and present it.
Syllabus 9173, Fieldwork, 3. Post-fieldwork stage. Students should be able to: draw conclusions in relation to the question/hypothesis posed; Evaluate the validity of the fieldwork in terms of data collected and methods used to collect and present data.
Make a guess
Students survey older residents at a hawker centre and a void deck on a Saturday morning. Who are they most likely to miss?
- Residents who rarely leave home.
- Residents who are under 65.
- Residents who live within 300 m.
- Nobody, because older residents eat at hawker centres.
Show the answer
Residents who rarely leave home.
Both survey points only reach people already out and about. Those who find the journey hardest may have the greatest needs but were never asked.
Read the method before the results: who was asked, where, when and how decides how far the numbers can support the conclusion.
This lesson gives you a complete practice resource pack, like the one in Paper 1's fieldwork question. The estate, the data and the quotes are invented, but the method has the strengths and flaws that real student studies have. Work through it in order: map, field sketches, method, results.
Four students tested this hypothesis: "Residents aged 65 and over who live more than 300 m from Kebun Lama Neighbourhood Centre rate their access to daily needs lower than those who live within 300 m." The hypothesis names a group, a place, a distance threshold and a measurable outcome, so the data can support or reject it.
On one Saturday morning, from 9 am to 11 am, they asked residents who looked 65 or older to fill in a questionnaire. Twenty were near residents, asked at the hawker centre. Twenty were far residents, asked at the void deck of Block 418. This is convenience sampling. Of 52 people approached, 40 agreed. Each person rated four factors on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). The students also audited two walking routes to the polyclinic.
The results look clear. Far residents gave lower mean scores on all four factors, with the biggest gap for getting to a clinic: 4.2 near against 2.9 far. The route audit agrees. Route N is 150 m and fully covered. Route F is 650 m, only 45% covered, and crosses a road by an overhead bridge whose lift was out of service on the survey day.
But look at who could not be asked. Residents who rarely leave home, or who find the bridge too hard, were never at either survey point. A hawker centre attracts people who already go out. So both groups may be the more mobile residents, and real needs in the far zone may be worse than the scores show. One morning, one route per zone and a lift that happened to be broken also limit how far the results can be generalised.
Sort these
Tag each part of the Kebun Lama method: what kind of weakness is it, or is it a strength?
Groups: Sampling flaw, Timing flaw, Instrument flaw, Strength.
- The questionnaire was in English, translated aloud only when someone asked.
- Each route was audited by walking it only once.
- Students judged by appearance whether someone was 65 or older.
- Both zones rated the same four factors on the same 1 to 5 scale.
- All interviews took place on one Saturday morning, 9 to 11 am.
- Residents were chosen by convenience: whoever passed the survey point.
Show the answer
Sampling flaw
- Students judged by appearance whether someone was 65 or older. Some respondents may be under 65 and some older residents may be skipped, so the sample may not match the group in the hypothesis.
- Residents were chosen by convenience: whoever passed the survey point. Residents who rarely go out, often those with the greatest needs, were never asked, so the far-zone ratings may be too high.
Timing flaw
- Each route was audited by walking it only once. One walk cannot show whether the lift is often out of service or broke only that day.
- All interviews took place on one Saturday morning, 9 to 11 am. Residents who go out on weekdays or later in the day were missed, so one morning may not be typical.
Instrument flaw
- The questionnaire was in English, translated aloud only when someone asked. Residents who speak other languages may refuse or misread items, and spoken translations vary, which lowers reliability.
Strength
- Both zones rated the same four factors on the same 1 to 5 scale. Using one scale in both zones makes the near and far results directly comparable, which supports a fair test.
- Convenience sampling
- Asking whoever is easy to reach; quick, but it misses people who are not there.
- Validity of a conclusion
- Whether the data measure what the conclusion claims, for the people it claims.
- Route audit
- Scoring a real route against fixed criteria such as cover, steps and seats.
Step by step
Read the method first
Who, where, when, how many and how they were chosen.
Read the results
Quote figures, compare groups and spot exceptions.
Link method to result
Say how each flaw could push the figures up or down.
Judge the conclusion
How far is it supported, and what would make it stronger?
Worked example: Turn a result into an evaluation
Weak: "The sample was small, so the results are unreliable." Strong: "Far residents were all asked at one void deck, so residents who seldom leave home, perhaps because of the 42 steps on route F, were never included. This probably makes the far zone's 2.9 for clinic access too high, so the real gap may be larger than the data show." The strong answer names the flaw, uses the resources and says which way it pushes the result.
Watch out for this
The far zone scored lower on every factor, so the hypothesis is proven.
The data support the hypothesis for the people asked. Convenience sampling at two points, one morning and one route per zone mean it is not proven for all older residents.
Check your understanding
Which flaw most weakens the claim that the results represent all older residents in the far zone?
- Only people already out at one void deck could be asked.
- The students worked out the mean of every rating correctly.
- The questionnaire asked residents about four separate factors.
Show the answer
Only people already out at one void deck could be asked.
Yes. Residents who rarely leave home, often those with the greatest needs, were left out.