Free Response Grading
Sample 1:
The student was asked to define core-periphery, distance-decay and child migration in part A. One point for each definition could have been awarded to the student. Sample 1 student did not receive a point for the definition of part A number one because the student solely focused on the financial well-being of specific countries rather than the unequal distribution of cultural, political and economic power. Spatial distribution should have been mentioned, a specific example of economical core-periphery does not substitute for the definition of core-periphery. The student was awarded 1 point for part A number two because she briefly explained the definition of distance-decay by writing in terms of migration. Farther away people are from a location, the less chance they will migrate there, the closer they are to a location, better chance they will migrate there. She supported her definition with an example that exhibits this. A person migrating from Colorado to a warmer climate will choose Arizona over Florida because of the closer distance. The student was rewarded the point for part A number three because she accurately displays the definition of chain migration by stating when a pattern arises from migration, more people will go to this location. She has an additional …show more content…
The student could have been rewarded points if they spoke of South Americans leaving that area because there is a pull factor of economical opportunities in Japan. There is only a minor stream rather than a major stream because there is a greater distance so there won’t be as much interaction between the two countries. It is possible that there is even a minor stream because if a chain migration and that’s why a few South Americans venture the
Sample 1:
The student was asked to define core-periphery, distance-decay and child migration in part A. One point for each definition could have been awarded to the student. Sample 1 student did not receive a point for the definition of part A number one because the student solely focused on the financial well-being of specific countries rather than the unequal distribution of cultural, political and economic power. Spatial distribution should have been mentioned, a specific example of economical core-periphery does not substitute for the definition of core-periphery. The student was awarded 1 point for part A number two because she briefly explained the definition of distance-decay by writing in terms of migration. Farther away people are from a location, the less chance they will migrate there, the closer they are to a location, better chance they will migrate there. She supported her definition with an example that exhibits this. A person migrating from Colorado to a warmer climate will choose Arizona over Florida because of the closer distance. The student was rewarded the point for part A number three because she accurately displays the definition of chain migration by stating when a pattern arises from migration, more people will go to this location. She has an additional …show more content…
The student could have been rewarded points if they spoke of South Americans leaving that area because there is a pull factor of economical opportunities in Japan. There is only a minor stream rather than a major stream because there is a greater distance so there won’t be as much interaction between the two countries. It is possible that there is even a minor stream because if a chain migration and that’s why a few South Americans venture the