It was a bad year for Standard grade geography - but the picture was far rosier at Intermediate 2.
Overall, performance at Standard grade was described as "rather disappointing". This was most pronounced in the knowledge and understanding element across grades 1-4, where performance was "considerably weaker" and grades 3 and 4 were especially poor.
A "significant number" of candidates at Credit and General "lacked sufficient knowledge" of some topics. "Many relied on 'lifting' information from resources provided in the questions rather than demonstrating sound knowledge of the subject," the report stated.
Teachers were warned that, although there has been a "marked trend towards testing mainstream topics", all areas of the syllabus can be examined.
By contrast, the performance of the smaller, but fast growing, number of candidates at Intermediate 2 was "highly satisfactory". This success was partly explained by a big increase in S4 candidates, a large number of whom appeared "very able".
Performance at Intermediate 1 was "less satisfactory". Teachers were advised that, contrary to widespread opinion, Intermediate 1 does not "closely mirror" Foundation level at Standard grade; the expectation of extended written answers is more akin to General level.