Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Higher Psychology 2010-2011 :: Resources and Discussion Thread

Scroll to see replies

That was only 4 marks though, I just wrote crap about consent, debriefing just the real basics.... I'm sure you did better than you thought :smile:

I only wrote about 9 pages..

I did the same... Just explained some of the things you can't do because of ethics. And said that some group thought up the idea... and it keeps getting updated.

I couldn't answer either of the essay questions though, and as soon as I got into the exam room, all of the studies I knew except for Bowlby (1944) and Peterson and Peterson (1959) disappeared from my brain. I blame cue-dependency :colondollar:

, I'd have been fine in the school library or one of the classrooms we used.... Honest.... :rolleyes:

Reply 281

KenM

Original post by burial

Very fair paper, here's my analysis

Early Socialisation: I TOLD YOU ALL daycare would be in it! Lovely. I wrote about Bowlby for 1b but in hindsight, Schaffer and Emerson would have suited me better, I know it more extensively. Damn my exam-mind.

Memory: YES! These questions were approved by God himself, fantastic questions, especially the first one. However, I wrote studies for ALL processes of LTM and STM?! I analysed them all too, went over my "time-limit" for this question. Forgetting - I craftily used Jenkins and Dallenbach as it tackles both decay AND interference.

Research Methods: Natural experiments... like that person said (sorry I don't know your name). Very weird experiment. I was intimidated by that block of text, kind of anticipated a graph or some pictorial thing. The non-experimental question - 8 SODDING MARKS WHAT?! I said interviews and went through every type and analysed each so I should do well but 8 Marks?!

Conformity and Obedience: YES YES YES OMFG YES. Just what I wanted, factors of obedience OR conformity would have suited and there it was! I pillaged Asch and Sherif for all they were worth and name dropped Deutsch and Gerard and Kelman. My structure was a bit off but such a God send.

Intelligence: IQ Testing... erm... yeah. I knew 2 but not in great detail. I brain dumped a tonne of analysis so I might be covered.

A's in all NABs and my prelim so my appeal material is set so I felt I performed well enough in THE WORST EXAM ROOM EVER.

Hope you all did well too :smile:

I thought the 1st memory Q was ambiguous. I even wrote that on the paper as I was a bit tee'd off with the Q. I evaluated Baddely on encoding but I found it impossible to discuss duration and and capacity in stm and ltm without referring to the studies on them. On duration in stm, I referred to Reitman rather than Peterson and Peterson as I wanted to use that study for the 2nd memory Q on forgetting - which is a ridiculous restriction .

All in all a most unsatisfactory Q and I was almost tempted (like you were) to evaluate the studies as well but realised that it would have taken me an hour to do a 15 minute Q.

Think I got a decent mark in the Q, but a Q should test your knowledge, not confuse you as to what is required.

Research Methods was a bit harder than all the previous Qs on the subject in past papers but should have done reasonably well in it.

Conformity - no bother - Asch Perrin & Spencer and Asch extensions. Also mentioned Kelman and Gerard

Intelligence - not bad - did Yerkes to death but I didn't have too much on Binet and education, so busked that one a bit but should be reasonably covered.

Early socialisation - pretty good - Day care did that pretty well - used Operation Headstart and Kagan - emphasising quality and consistency. Did + and - of cognitive and socio-emotional development - a bit rushed as this was the last Q I tackled. Attachment - Mary Ainsworth - knew that back to front and battered out an answer in less than 10 min.

I got As in all NABs and 83% in prelim, but I don't think I got as high a mark this time - might scrape an A but need to keep my fingers crossed.

Reply 282

ilovelife1234

Original post by HeatherHatter

, I'd have been fine in the school library or one of the classrooms we used.... Honest.... :rolleyes:

EXACT same thing always happens to me, fortunetely I was okay this time thats so annoying after all that hard work. But honestly you will pick up marks along the way, as long as you answered most of the questions, sometimes I just write **** for the sake, maybe a couple of marks here and there you can get, I feel sorry for the marker who's marking my paper, my writing was so bad and messy, scored a sentence out every 5 mins :tongue:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 283

ilovelife1234

Original post by KenM

I evaluated Baddely on encoding but I found it impossible to discuss duration and and capacity in stm and ltm without referring to the studies on them. On duration in stm, I referred to Reitman rather than Peterson and Peterson as I wanted to use that study for the 2nd memory Q on forgetting - which is a ridiculous restriction . .

How many research studies did you do then for that question? Because I thought you only had to do one on one of the following, duration, encoding OR capacity :s-smilie:

Reply 284

Kelz_26

Original post by ilovelife1234

How many research studies did you do then for that question? Because I thought you only had to do one on one of the following, duration, encoding OR capacity :s-smilie:

You did only have to do one and you would have only got the marks for one.

Reply 285

KenM

Original post by ilovelife1234

How many research studies did you do then for that question? Because I thought you only had to do one on one of the following, duration, encoding OR capacity :s-smilie:

For the 1st part of the q I only evaluated one research study (Baddely with the acoustic coding for stm and semantic coding for ltm).

However I mentioned the Miller study when discussing capacity in stm, Tulving for capacity in ltm, Reitman for duration in stm and Bahrick for duration in ltm. (probably only a couple of sentences for these studies)

Peterson and Peterson would have been better than Reitman for duration in stm but I wanted to use that for part 2 of the q to evaluate for decay and interference mechanisms of forgetting.

I actually wrote about peterson to begin with in part 1 of the q and scored it out because it was a good one for me to describe and evaluate in part 2.

As I say, I thought it was a confusing q! :confused:

Reply 286

burial

I did say I wouldn't return to this thread... but yes, that memory question was very poorly worded. I used studies for everything, analysed most of them. I cannot see how 12 marks can be gained if you only reference one study?!

Regardless, you wrote what you wrote and it's done. Maybe the fools up at SQA Psychology Marking Dept. will realise their errors and hand over 12 lovely marks.