EJC 2025 JC2 H1 Geography Prelims SMG

EUNOIA JUNIOR COLLEGE JC2 Preliminary Examination 2024 General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Higher 1 H1 GEOGRAPHY Paper 1 Suggested Marking Guide 8834/01 02 September 2025 3 Hours READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Please note that this Suggested Marking Guides contains possible responses only and other responses could be considered as well. This document consists of 12 printed pages.

2 Section A Cluster 2: Fieldwork 1 A group of 4 students is investigating whether the urban neighbourhood of Kampong Admiralty is a supportive environment for elderly residents to live in. They crafted the following hypothesis: “Kampong Admiralty is a liveable neighbourhood that meets the social and psychological needs of the elderly.” To test the hypothesis, the students conducted the survey questionnaire that was translated into English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. As it was during the June school break, the students could only afford time on a single Friday during the June holidays, fro m 1 -2pm to conduct their investigation. The students conducted their fieldwork at the Community Plaza in Kampung Admiralty , approaching any passers-by who looked like they could be 65 years and above. The group ended up with a total of 15 responses. Resource 1 shows an infographic of infrastructure and amenities in Kampung Admiralty Integrated Development. Resource 2 shows the questionnaire survey used by the students to gather responses from the elderly. Resource 3A shows responses to Questions 4 and 7 of the survey questionnaire, while Resource 3B shows selected responses to Question 9 of the survey questionnaire. a) Explain why the students’ hypothesis is suitable for investigation. [4] Award 1 mark for each explanation of why the hypothesis is suitable for investigation. Award 1 additional mark for further development of explanation, where applicable. Possible responses include: [At a suitable scale] • The hypothesis focuses on Kampong Admiralty, a specific neighborhood that is spatially manageable and of a suitable scale for fieldwork by a small group of 4 students. [1 mark] • This localised scale allows students to conduct on-site investigation efficiently within time and resource constraints, in line with syllabus expectations for fieldwork in an urban setting. [1 additional mark] [Researchable or measurable] • The hypothesis is measurable given the method chosen—questionnaire surveys—which is appropriate for capturing elderly residents’ perceptions of whether their social and psychological needs are met. [1 mark] • The simplicity and accessibility of the method made the hypothesis practical to investigate using tools readily available to students, ensuring that it was researchable in a real-world fieldwork setting. [1 additional mark] [Clearly defined] • The hypothesis is clearly defined, phrased and focused, making it easier to operationalise in the field - specifies the population of interest (elderly residents) / the geographical location (Kampong Admiralty) / the dimensions of liveability being assessed (social and psychological

3 needs). [1 mark] • This clarity helps guide the planning of appropriate data collection methods and enables meaningful analysis and evaluation of findings. [1 additional mark] b) Explain how the students can address possible issues related to research ethics when conducting their fieldwork. [4] Award 1 mark for explanation on how to minimise impacts. Award additional 1 mark for further development of explanation, where applicable. Possible responses include: • Obtain informed consent by clearly explaining the purpose of the survey, ensuring participants voluntarily agree to take part, allowing them to opt out at any point if needed [1 mark] o This respects the autonomy of elderly individuals and ensures ethical data collection. [1 additional mark] • Assure the elderly respondents of the confidentiality of their responses. [1 mark] o This would help them feel safe, especially when discussing sensitive topics related to their personal lives and well-being. [1 additional mark] This assurance increases the likelihood of honest and accurate responses, leading to more reliable data, as concerns about privacy can discourage the elderly from participating or being open in their answers. • Use clear language that would be accessible to all elderly in all questionnaires and interactions [1 mark] o Including translated materials in languages commonly spoken by the elderly (e.g. Chinese, Malay, Tamil). This reduces confusion and ensures inclusiveness. [1 additional mark] • Be sensitive to physical and cognitive limitations by keeping the questionnaire short, avoiding technical jargon, and allowing participants ample time to respond. [1 mark] o This reduces respondent fatigue or discomfort, allowing respondents to complete the survey questionnaire [1 additional mark] • Conduct surveys in a safe and comfortable environment, such as shaded seating areas at the Community Plaza, and avoid pressuring individuals who are unwilling to engage. [1 mark] o This helps to promote the physical and emotional well-being of respondents during fieldwork, giving them a safe space to respond to the survey questionnaire. [1 additional mark] • To be mindful of the surroundings, keep clear of pathways, and keep noise levels down during fieldwork to show respect for both local communities and the environment. [1 mark] o This helps ensure the safety and comfort of other residents using the public spaces, minimizes disruption to daily activities, preserves the integrity of the environment, and upholds the ethical standards expected of responsible research. [1 additional mark]

c) With reference to Resource 2, suggest how the design of the questionnaire can be improved. [6] Award 1 mark for each limitation identified and explained. Award 1 mark1 for further development of explanation, where applicable. Possible responses include: Limitations • [Questionnaire design] Limited scope of liveability dimensions – While the questionnaire touches on social and psychological aspects, it does not adequately explore economic needs, such as affordability of food, medical care, or housing which may also influence perceptions of liveability among elderly residents. [1 mark] • Include additional questions that address economic wellbeing, for example, “Do you find the cost of food and services in Kampung Admiralty affordable?” or “Is the housing cost within your means?” This ensures a more holistic assessment across the economic, social, and psychological dimensions of liveability. [Additional 1 mark] • [Questionnaire design] Insufficient depth in responses – Most questions are closed-ended, which may limit nuanced insights into individual experiences. Although Question 9 is open-ended, it is only one question and may not fully capture complex perspectives or underlying reasons. [1 mark] • Incorporate more open-ended follow-up questions after key closed- ended items, such as “Please explain why you rated your satisfaction with healthcare services as high/low.” This would allow respondents to elaborate on their ratings, adding depth and qualitative detail to the findings. [Additional 1 mark] • [Questionnaire design] Subjective or vague wording - Questions such as Q4 ("Do you feel Kampung Admiralty is easy for you to move around safely on your own?") and Q8 ("Do you feel Kampung Admiralty supports your sense of belonging and mental well-being?") use subjective terms like "easy", "sense of belonging", and "mental well-being". These concepts may be interpreted differently by different individuals depending on their mobility, mental health awareness, or social expectations, resulting in responses that are not based on a common understanding. [1 mark] • Use more