A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY SPECIFICATION B

Transcription

1 A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY SPECIFICATION B PSYB3 Child Development and Applied Options Report on the Examination 2185 June 2014 Version: 1.0

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PSYB3 JUNE 2014 PSYB3 General Comments In previous years the summer examination for this paper has included a large number of re-sitting students. This summer, however, almost all students were entering for the first time and it was evident that diligent students had planned their revision time and been able to revise thoroughly, despite the overall increased examination burden. At the top end answers were well informed, thoughtful and a pleasure to read. It was notable that many answers included material pertinent to Unit 4, although references to concepts such as reductionism and determinism were sometimes perfunctory, demonstrating lack of understanding in as much as they were not properly used to answer the question. On some questions there was clear evidence that students are being drilled in model answers, with students from whole schools and colleges offering the same sequence of pre-learned paragraphs for a given essay. Although it is difficult to determine how such students might have fared if they had simply been taught the content then left to their own devices, one suspects that stronger students might have done rather better. Students from some schools and colleges are still spending a good proportion of their examination time offering methodological evaluation of studies mentioned in their extended writing responses without making any link to the question set. Rather than enhancing the response, such redundant generic criticism detracts from the answer as whole. Perhaps more so than usual there were, speculative evaluative comments, for example, that a researcher might have been observing alone so might have been biased. Some answers were made up of a succession of generic content, for example, suggesting higher concordance rates for MZ than DZ twins without noting which study, the specific concordance rates or even the behaviour/trait being tested. This was frequently followed by a remark along the lines of They (who?) were not 100% (what?) so it (what?) must be environment. As has been noted in previous series, quality of written communication in some cases was so poor that meaning was thoroughly obscured and others were unable to convey their knowledge with any degree of clarity and fluency. 3 of 10

4 Section A Child Development Topic: Social Development Question 1 Question 01 proved to be a good differentiator, with some very thoughtful responses based on individual differences at one end of the spectrum, and some decidedly less thoughtful answers in which students used terms like reliability, validity and generalisation with no evidence of understanding. Question 2 Most students using Harlow performed well on question 02, although just occasionally the findings related were inconsistent with the conclusion given. For example, students presented as findings the delinquency when the young monkeys were returned to their group, whilst stating as a conclusion that the animals attached for comfort rather than food. The few students who did not use Harlow offered Lorenz for this question. Question 3 Students who knew the very obvious difference between Bowlby and Schaffer (number of attachments) tended to score full marks on question 03, although those who failed to explain the meaning of monotropy were only awarded one mark. It was rare to see any other effective answer to this question although some managed to focus usefully on the likely role of the father or reasons for attachment eg desire for proximity versus satisfactory interactions. Question 4 Question 04 yielded some long and often anecdotal answers, where students strayed from the question and instead focused on more general attachment theory. Even where answers were founded in psychological knowledge and reasonably well focused, discussion was often quite weak. In many instances, what could have been relevant content was not used to answer the question, or it was unclear whether the information presented was meant to illustrate cause or consequence. There were some attempts to conjure up discussion, for example, discussions of implications including the possibility of surgery to make children more attractive. 4 of 10

5 Topic: Cognitive Development Question 5 Students who simply recounted separately the respective strengths of each of the methods mentioned in the stem of question 05 had clearly missed the point of the question. Stronger answers explained how results from the different sources might be used to establish reliability of effect. Weaker answers focused on the amount of data. Question 6 In question 06, most students gained credit for knowledge of the term although the example created problems for many who simply described scaffolding without reference to a shift from actual ability to potential ability. Purely physical examples, such as riding a bike, were not credited. Question 7 Most students gained some credit in question 07, but the example of a behaviour/ability that is thought to be innate required an outline rather than mere naming for full credit. Question 8 Question 08 worked to differentiate between students who had pre-prepared the Piaget essay and those who could think on their feet and tailor their material appropriately. Common misunderstandings included confusion between conservation and class inclusion research, and confusion with the sensori-motor stage. Material on the key concepts of conservation and egocentrism was necessary to access the higher bands. Topic: Moral Development Question 9 Many students answered question 09 effectively, although the knowledge element was often better addressed than the application to Annie. In many cases, the application amounted simply to judgment along the lines of Annie does not understand right from wrong. Some responses were couched in behavioural rather than cognitive terms, stating that bad behaviour is punished and good behaviour is rewarded, and this is how children learn. Question 10 In question 10, a good number of students wasted time describing the moral dilemma technique or the Heinz dilemma itself, rather than offering evaluation of the technique. In some cases, students focused on Kohlberg s use of dilemmas rather than the technique itself so answers became a discussion of Kohlberg s research rather than a discussion of the technique. 5 of 10

6 Question 11 Performance on question 11 was better. Gilligan and Eisenberg were the most frequently seen alternatives and responses addressed differences that were appropriate. Answers based on Damon s work were also well done. Question 12 Most students could outline the psychodynamic theory of moral development in question 12, however use of Piaget in discussion was often not effective. Weaker answers tended to get side-tracked into long descriptions and discussions of Piaget s theory. Where students attempted comparisons they were sometimes mundane eg Piaget was cognitive, Freud was psychodynamic. Section B Applied Options Topic: Cognition and Law Question 13 A wide range of studies gained credit in question 13, although sometimes marks were limited because detail was grossly inaccurate or key information was omitted. Question 14 Most students managed to gain some credit for question 14, although those who suggested that using different verbs in leading questions studies might have created demand characteristics, which thus confounded the estimates of speed, seemed to have completely missed the point. Question 15 Some students apparently missed the dual instructions in question 15 with the result that they only answered half of the question, omitting any discussion. Far fewer than might have been expected explained repression as deliberate and intentional forgetting. Useful discussion focused on testability, implications and evidence for or against. Question 16 Question 16 yielded some excellent answers where students understood the material well and were able to juggle the triple demands of knowledge, discussion and application. There were many references to bottom-down, top-up, FRUs and PINS that showed very limited understanding. A significant number of students presented the cases in the stem as support for established theory, as in feature theory is a good theory because Parveen supports it, where what they probably meant was that Parveen s experience is consistent with or illustrates the theory. 6 of 10

7 Topic: Schizophrenia and Mood Disorders Question 17 Large numbers of students failed to access the full range of marks for question 17 because they did not use all the given information in their answer. Most stated correctly that the evidence suggested a genetic component, and went on to get a second mark for some discussion of MZ versus DZ rates or for MZ rates not being 100%. Very few indeed managed to make useful reference to DZ and ordinary sibling rates, and many of those who did mention them mistakenly suggested that the concordance rates were higher for DZs because they shared more DNA than did ordinary sibling pairs. Large numbers of students confused incidence rates and concordance rates. Question 18 In question 18 the dual requirement was often missed or explanations of community care were inadequate for credit. Assumptions that people in community care are cared for by their family and do not take any medication were fairly widespread. Most students did present a relevant symptom and some of these were linked well to the context. Question 19 Question 19 was often well answered, especially by those students skillful enough to integrate the answers and compare the two treatments all the way through. There were some accurate descriptions of the mode of action of various antidepressants although this was an area where less able students gave muddled accounts of synaptic transmission and enzyme action. Quite a few offered schizophrenia medication in error. Knowledge of cognitive treatment was variable; students who failed to gain credit often did so because they offered the general aims of the treatment rather than describing in concrete terms what the treatment entails. Pre-learned evaluation points presented without thoughtful development were evident in many answers. Topic: Stress and Stress Management Question 20 and Question 21 Few students attempted this topic. Those who did tended to perform well on questions 20 and 21. Credit was given to those students who outlined external behavioural responses to stress as well as the originally anticipated internal, psychological responses. Question 22 There were many different approaches to answering question 22 depending on which type of technique was being used. Students sometimes based their answer on a specified technique (eg the GSR) rather than the general type of technique (physiological), which was fine as long as the strength and limitation of the specific technique apply readily to the general type of technique. Just occasionally this was not clearly the case. 7 of 10

8 Question 23 Social support answers to question 23 seemed to be rather better than on previous occasions when this question has appeared, although less effective discussion was general rather than focused on the specific types of social support as expected given the nature of the question. Topic: Substance Abuse Question 24 This was a popular topic. Question 24 required an account of how a health promotion campaign had been carried out. Seemingly many students failed to notice the how in the question, and as a consequence many answers made no reference to how the campaign or programme was conducted. A number of students failed to gain any marks for this question. Question 25 On question 25 there were many strong answers focused on psychological findings in relation to persuasive communication. Weaker answers managed to gain some credit here, with sensible if somewhat anecdotal suggestions. Question 26 It was interesting to note how answers to question 26 tended to be school and college specific, suggesting that classical conditioning had been thoroughly addressed in some schools and colleges and less effectively covered in others, where students seemed to be guessing. Question 27 Question 27 did not present many problems, with most students gaining the mark. Question 28 The limited scope of question 28 presented a challenge for those who had very little to offer beyond a reference to genetics and a twin study, followed by an account of other explanations without any link to the question. Again there was evidence of pre-prepared answers with cursory or confused discussion points in a list of mini-paragraphs. Stronger answers made informed reference to dopamine receptors, metabolic rate, enzyme activity and selective breeding, coupled with thoughtful discussion. 8 of 10

9 Topic: Forensic Psychology Question 29 As ever, this remains a popular option. There were many full-mark answers to question 29 with extensive accounts of why official statistics might be unreliable, including underreporting and failure to record, although some answers were marred by evident confusion between reporting and recording. Changes in police recording rules also formed the basis of many useful responses, as did answers focused on what official statistics could not tell us. Question 30 Definitions of offender profiling were often very weak and tautological in question 30, illustrating the point that whilst students can learn detail (eg of a process or a theory) and thus appear to be well informed, they often have a very limited understanding when it comes to general psychological ideas. Question 31 Quite a number of students gained no marks for question 31, either because they did not attempt the question, or because they offered a case history rather than a study of effectiveness. Some students contrived to link studies that were only marginally relevant to effectiveness and therefore were credited. Question 32 Answers to question 32 needed to focus on comparison for more than very limited credit. It was heartening to see that many students could offer effective and sustained comparison and there were some excellent responses. At the lower end, answers appeared to show very little knowledge of either technique; this was especially in the case of behaviour modification where there were many misconceptions. 9 of 10

10 Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 10 of 10