[Sesshomaru24U]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Yeah I'm starting to feel the same.

Also, the average grade in PY1 and PY2 is a D hahaha

That did make me laugh a little xD
It's good that the average grade is low though, it means that grade boundaries get lower so people like us can get the high grades!
If I get an A in PY2, it means and A overall

[madders94]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Just thinking.. what are the chances that they'll reuse the same question twice in a year.. out of 10 case studies..

That could be like 6 less answers I have to revise.. like a day.. might be worth doing imo.

Don't leave ANYTHING out. WJEC examiners are getting nasty this year, they got into a bit of trouble last year by telling teachers what would be coming up in upcoming exams so the teachers knew what to teach, and this year they seem to be going out of their way to catch people out - they did it in PY1 in January I think , they have NEVER set the question for the assumptions of the behavioural approach (I think that's the one), and they know that's the one people will always revise more for because they think "it's bound to come up" so... yeah, they did it with my Drama exam too.

I found my "Aims and Context" answers in a notebook the other day; I'll upload them when I get a chance if anyone wants (some are fairly long and thorough iirc but I maintain that's how I got an A) , but it probably won't be this week because it's busy, and I'm trying to prepare for PY4 which makes PY2 look like a breeze

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Sesshomaru24U)
That did make me laugh a little xD
It's good that the average grade is low though, it means that grade boundaries get lower so people like us can get the high grades!
If I get an A in PY2, it means and A overall

Same here haha.

Hope I get an A so bad.

I woulda got an A in PY1 if I took it a year earlier, the grade boundaries went up 2 raw marks grr

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by madders94)
Don't leave ANYTHING out. WJEC examiners are getting nasty this year, they got into a bit of trouble last year by telling teachers what would be coming up in upcoming exams so the teachers knew what to teach, and this year they seem to be going out of their way to catch people out - they did it in PY1 in January I think , they have NEVER set the question for the assumptions of the behavioural approach (I think that's the one), and they know that's the one people will always revise more for because they think "it's bound to come up" so... yeah, they did it with my Drama exam too.

I found my "Aims and Context" answers in a notebook the other day; I'll upload them when I get a chance if anyone wants (some are fairly long and thorough iirc but I maintain that's how I got an A) , but it probably won't be this week because it's busy, and I'm trying to prepare for PY4 which makes PY2 look like a breeze

I worry my answers aren't long etc enough for me to get an A

And in regards to the WJEC thing, a few months ago we had a seminar where the ex head of History for WJEC gave us tips. He started it off by pretending to look up on the roofs and said "Just looking to see if there's any Daily Telegraph reporters" haha

[madders94]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I worry my answers aren't long etc enough for me to get an A

And in regards to the WJEC thing, a few months ago we had a seminar where the ex head of History for WJEC gave us tips. He started it off by pretending to look up on the roofs and said "Just looking to see if there's any Daily Telegraph reporters" haha

Don't worry about it too much, especially with the Aims and Context because quite often there isn't much, but as long as you get all the information in there, you'll be fine, and from looking at your answers you've posted you seem to have included everything - it's just a case of making sure you can remember it all, that's the biggest problem!

[Sesshomaru24U]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Same here haha.

Hope I get an A so bad.

I woulda got an A in PY1 if I took it a year earlier, the grade boundaries went up 2 raw marks grr

Thought the exact same thing when I saw the report from last year. I really want an A!

[madders94]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Same here haha.

Hope I get an A so bad.

I woulda got an A in PY1 if I took it a year earlier, the grade boundaries went up 2 raw marks grr

(Original post by Sesshomaru24U)
Thought the exact same thing when I saw the report from last year. I really want an A!

That's the good thing about the way the course is structured - it seems to let you ease yourself into it, so you can "redeem" yourself as it were with the second exam if you struggle at all on the first.

[Sesshomaru24U]

(Original post by madders94)
x

Any chance you can mark this for me:
Langer and Rodin aims:

Spoiler:

Show

Control refers to the extent to which an individual feels able to shape their own behaviour. Individuals may feel in control or controlled by other forces (internal bodily processes or external agents). It’s believed that perceived control may be more important than actual control. It’s possible that physically changes that occur in old age may not be biologically determined, but instead to due to the loss of the sense of personal control. As people become old, they experience of a loss of roles which lead to a loss of perceived competence and a decrease in sense of responsibility. Adler (1930) described the need to control ones personal environment as ‘an intrinsic necessity of life itself’.

Earlier studies have highlighted the link between increased sense of control reducing stress and pain. Langer et al. (1975) found hospital patients who felt a greater sense of control requested less pain relievers and were judged by nurses to show less anxiety. Furthermore, Stotland and Blumenthal (1964) found that students who were allowed to choose the order in which to take a series of ability tests were less anxious (measures by sweatiness, an indicator of activity of the autonomic nervous system) than those who were given a pre-determined order.
Martin Seligman (1975) linked a lack of control to depression. Seligman described a syndrome of learned helplessness that develops when an individual continually feels incapable of controlling events in their life, which leads to permanent feelings of helplessness and ultimately depression. Additionally, Ferrare (1962) found interesting data from his observations of geriatric patients. He questioned a number of individuals and found 17 who said they had no alternative but to move to an old people’s home. 1 month later eight of these individuals had died, eight more died within 10 weeks- all deaths classified as unexpected.

Langer and Rodin aimed to investigate the effects of enhanced personal responsibility and choice in a group of nursing home patients. They wanted to see if increased control and direct experience of personal responsibility would have generalised beneficial effects, and whether physical/mental alertness, sociability and general satisfaction are all affected.

Reckon it's the best essays i've done so far.
Also this:
Rosenhan's evaluation:

Spoiler:

Show

Rosenhan aimed to investigate whether psychiatrist could distinguish between the sane and insane and used naturalistic observation, in study 1. A strength of using naturalistic observation is that Rosenhan was able to observe psychiatric wards in its natural setting, with no adjustment to the actual environment, providing mundane realism. A weakness of the use of naturalistic observation in this study, is that Rosenhan could have demonstrated observer bias by recording details relevant to the study, for example, he noted a lot of negatives about psychiatric wards such as the amount of time staff spent with patients and highlight no positives – demonstrating bias, as he wanted damage the creditability of psychiatric wards. An advantage of the use of a field experiment was that both quantitative and qualitative data was obtained, allowing for easier analysis of data (quantitative) and in-depth description of interactions between staff and patients (qualitative), which allowed for conclusions to be drawn - resulting in better diagnoses and treatment of psychotic patients. However, such an experiment leads to bad publicity of psychiatric institutions, resulting in people not wanting to see doctors if they have a problem – meaning people who are ill will not receive treatment to get better.

In terms of reliability, a strength of the study is that is replicable, which results in the finding and conclusion drawn by Rosenhan being more valid. For example, Slater (2004) replicated Rosenhan study and reported she had presented herself at the emergency rooms of multiple hospitals with a single auditory hallucination and she was prescribed with antipsychotics or antidepressants. Proving Rosenhan findings quite reliable, however, unlike Rosenhans pseudopatients Slater has previously been diagnosed with a mental disorder (clinical depression). However, there are 2 dis-advantages of reliability in study. In study 1, only 8 pseduopatients were used and they all knew the hypothesis of the study and while observing psychiatric wards, they may have demonstrated observer bias which makes the results un-reliable – not to mention a small group of pseudopatients. Additionally, in the 2nd study, only one hospital was used meaning it isn’t reliable because it the ratings given weren’t from a decent sample of hospitals.

In terms of reliability, a strength was all doctors and nurses took part in the study and behaved naturally because they were unaware they were being studied. This was an advantage as there was there was no demand characteristics and had real life behaviour, furthermore, the study brought to light the issue with validity of psychiatric diagnoses making it of value and relevance to reality. Also, another strength of the validity was that the study used 12 hospitals, meaning the study had high ecological validity, meaning it could be generalised. On the other hand, a weakness of the validity in this study is that it lacks mundane realism, because it demonstrated the psychiatric system can be tricked, but doesn’t mean it isn’t effective on real patients assessment of psychotic illness. However, Rosenhan follow-up study showed that real patients were mistaken for pseudopatients, demonstrating psychiatrist tend to make a type 2 error.

An issue can also be highlighted in the sample used in this study, that being that the participants in this study were the nurses and doctors in the hospitals studies, and only 12 hospitals were used by Rosenhan. Showing there wasn’t a huge sample, meaning it could lack ecological validity. However, this can be justified as there were only 8 pseudopatients, expected a sample of 30-40 hospitals would be quite difficult.

There are some major ethical issues in this study that were breached. For example, doctor and nurses in hospitals didn’t know that they were being observed as part of a research so this means that there was no informed consent of the study, so staff were not offered the right to withdraw because they didn’t know they were taking part. However, this can be justified, as telling staff the aim of the study would just result in the studying not taking place at all. Furthermore, staff feel victim to deception from pseudopatients and believed that they were actually mentally ill, but once again this can be justified by the point made above. There are also some issues with confidentiality and privacy, as Rosenhan published the results of study 1 which highlighted the hospitals which admitted psudopatients and privacy was could be breached in study 2, were staff believed that there were pseudopatients in their workplace. Additionally this could cause psychological harm, knowing that there’s a pseudopatient in the hospital you work in and that results will be publicised in a few months, shaming hospitals that admitted healthy people as psychotically ill.

I really need this marked, because this if my first evaluation of the methodlogy and I want to make sure I'm doing it right.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Sesshomaru24U)
Any chance you can mark this for me:
Langer and Rodin aims:

Spoiler:

Show

Control refers to the extent to which an individual feels able to shape their own behaviour. Individuals may feel in control or controlled by other forces (internal bodily processes or external agents). It’s believed that perceived control may be more important than actual control. It’s possible that physically changes that occur in old age may not be biologically determined, but instead to due to the loss of the sense of personal control. As people become old, they experience of a loss of roles which lead to a loss of perceived competence and a decrease in sense of responsibility. Adler (1930) described the need to control ones personal environment as ‘an intrinsic necessity of life itself’.

Earlier studies have highlighted the link between increased sense of control reducing stress and pain. Langer et al. (1975) found hospital patients who felt a greater sense of control requested less pain relievers and were judged by nurses to show less anxiety. Furthermore, Stotland and Blumenthal (1964) found that students who were allowed to choose the order in which to take a series of ability tests were less anxious (measures by sweatiness, an indicator of activity of the autonomic nervous system) than those who were given a pre-determined order.
Martin Seligman (1975) linked a lack of control to depression. Seligman described a syndrome of learned helplessness that develops when an individual continually feels incapable of controlling events in their life, which leads to permanent feelings of helplessness and ultimately depression. Additionally, Ferrare (1962) found interesting data from his observations of geriatric patients. He questioned a number of individuals and found 17 who said they had no alternative but to move to an old people’s home. 1 month later eight of these individuals had died, eight more died within 10 weeks- all deaths classified as unexpected.

Langer and Rodin aimed to investigate the effects of enhanced personal responsibility and choice in a group of nursing home patients. They wanted to see if increased control and direct experience of personal responsibility would have generalised beneficial effects, and whether physical/mental alertness, sociability and general satisfaction are all affected.

Reckon it's the best essays i've done so far.
Also this:
Rosenhan's evaluation:

Spoiler:

Show

Rosenhan aimed to investigate whether psychiatrist could distinguish between the sane and insane and used naturalistic observation, in study 1. A strength of using naturalistic observation is that Rosenhan was able to observe psychiatric wards in its natural setting, with no adjustment to the actual environment, providing mundane realism. A weakness of the use of naturalistic observation in this study, is that Rosenhan could have demonstrated observer bias by recording details relevant to the study, for example, he noted a lot of negatives about psychiatric wards such as the amount of time staff spent with patients and highlight no positives – demonstrating bias, as he wanted damage the creditability of psychiatric wards. An advantage of the use of a field experiment was that both quantitative and qualitative data was obtained, allowing for easier analysis of data (quantitative) and in-depth description of interactions between staff and patients (qualitative), which allowed for conclusions to be drawn - resulting in better diagnoses and treatment of psychotic patients. However, such an experiment leads to bad publicity of psychiatric institutions, resulting in people not wanting to see doctors if they have a problem – meaning people who are ill will not receive treatment to get better.

In terms of reliability, a strength of the study is that is replicable, which results in the finding and conclusion drawn by Rosenhan being more valid. For example, Slater (2004) replicated Rosenhan study and reported she had presented herself at the emergency rooms of multiple hospitals with a single auditory hallucination and she was prescribed with antipsychotics or antidepressants. Proving Rosenhan findings quite reliable, however, unlike Rosenhans pseudopatients Slater has previously been diagnosed with a mental disorder (clinical depression). However, there are 2 dis-advantages of reliability in study. In study 1, only 8 pseduopatients were used and they all knew the hypothesis of the study and while observing psychiatric wards, they may have demonstrated observer bias which makes the results un-reliable – not to mention a small group of pseudopatients. Additionally, in the 2nd study, only one hospital was used meaning it isn’t reliable because it the ratings given weren’t from a decent sample of hospitals.

In terms of reliability, a strength was all doctors and nurses took part in the study and behaved naturally because they were unaware they were being studied. This was an advantage as there was there was no demand characteristics and had real life behaviour, furthermore, the study brought to light the issue with validity of psychiatric diagnoses making it of value and relevance to reality. Also, another strength of the validity was that the study used 12 hospitals, meaning the study had high ecological validity, meaning it could be generalised. On the other hand, a weakness of the validity in this study is that it lacks mundane realism, because it demonstrated the psychiatric system can be tricked, but doesn’t mean it isn’t effective on real patients assessment of psychotic illness. However, Rosenhan follow-up study showed that real patients were mistaken for pseudopatients, demonstrating psychiatrist tend to make a type 2 error.

An issue can also be highlighted in the sample used in this study, that being that the participants in this study were the nurses and doctors in the hospitals studies, and only 12 hospitals were used by Rosenhan. Showing there wasn’t a huge sample, meaning it could lack ecological validity. However, this can be justified as there were only 8 pseudopatients, expected a sample of 30-40 hospitals would be quite difficult.

There are some major ethical issues in this study that were breached. For example, doctor and nurses in hospitals didn’t know that they were being observed as part of a research so this means that there was no informed consent of the study, so staff were not offered the right to withdraw because they didn’t know they were taking part. However, this can be justified, as telling staff the aim of the study would just result in the studying not taking place at all. Furthermore, staff feel victim to deception from pseudopatients and believed that they were actually mentally ill, but once again this can be justified by the point made above. There are also some issues with confidentiality and privacy, as Rosenhan published the results of study 1 which highlighted the hospitals which admitted psudopatients and privacy was could be breached in study 2, were staff believed that there were pseudopatients in their workplace. Additionally this could cause psychological harm, knowing that there’s a pseudopatient in the hospital you work in and that results will be publicised in a few months, shaming hospitals that admitted healthy people as psychotically ill.

I really need this marked, because this if my first evaluation of the methodlogy and I want to make sure I'm doing it right.

I'd give the first answer 12/12 because you've covered everything I'd cover, infact I might use that answer.

And I'd definitely give you beyond 12/12 with the evaluation if I could, because you've done so much!

One thing I'd recommend is make subheadings of..

Method

Reliability

Validity

Sample

Ethical issues

My teacher said markers like it when the answers are put forth in their face, and she told me she'd me more likely to mark it in this format than a great wall of text

[Miracle Day]

Asch, Dull Gweithredu Welsh version:

Spoiler:

Show

Mae'r astudiaeth Solomon Asch ar cydymffurfiaeth yn berthyn i'r ymagwedd Ymddygiadol oherwydd mae'n edrych ar ymddygiad pobl ac beth sy'n effeithio ar eu lefelau o gydymffurfio.

Caiff Asch eu dylanwadu gan dwy astudiaeth gan Jenness a Sherif. Wnaeth Jenness ofyn i'w cyfranogwyr amcangyfrif sawl ffa roedd mewn jar. Rhoddodd y cyfranogwyr i fewn i grwpiau i drafod, ac wedyn roedd rhaid amcangyfrif un unigol. Darganfyddodd cydberthynas positif rhwng atebion aelodau pob grwp, ac roedd nhw i gyd yn debyg. Beirniadodd Asch yr astudiaeth yma, ac dwedodd mewn sefyllfa amwys mae bobl yn edrych i bobl eraill am ateb rhesymol ac nid yw'n mesur cydymffurfiaeth.

Wnaeth Jenness astudiaeth gan ofyn i'w cyfranogwyr mesur pellter golau spot sy'n symud o un pwynt i'r llall. Yn gyntaf cafodd amcangyfrif unigol, wedyn rhoddodd y cyfranogwyr mewn i grwpiau o 3 wedi selio ar pa mor wahanol roedd amcangyfrifion gwreiddiol y cyfranogwyr. Darganfyddodd, fel Jenness, roedd yr atebion i gyd yn debyg. Beirniadodd Asch yr arbrawf yma, a dwedodd mae'r canlyniadau yn ddangos penderfyniad y grwp ac nid cydymffurfiaeth.

Beirniadodd Asch Jenness a Asch, gan ddweud nid yw'r astudiaethau yn mesur cydymffurfiad oherwydd mae'r sefylffaoedd yn amwys ac felly mae'r cyfranogwyr, yn naturiol, yn edrych i bobl eraill am atebion. Bwriad Asch roedd i mesur cydymffurfiad pan mae'r atebion yn hollol amlwg. Roedd Asch am astudio cydymffurfiad gan newid llawer o wahanol ffactorau.

Asch, Aims and Context, English version.

Please mark this honestly, and make sure everything's right because I don't know if it is.

Asch's experiment of conformity belongs to the Behaviourist approach, because it looks at how people conform (behaviour) and how different factors change the levels of conformity.

Asch was influenced by Jenness and Sherif Studies of conformity. Sherif asked his participants to estimate how many peas were in a jar. He grouped the participants to discuss the answer, and then asked them for individual estimate. He wanted to see how many of the grouped participants answered with the same results, to see if they 'conformed' with eachother. Asch judges this study, saying that in ambiguous situations people look to others for reasonable answers and so the study does not measure conformity.

Asch was also influenced by Sherif, who asked participants to measure the distance a spotlight moves from one spot to the other. Firstly, he got individual estimates and then put the participants into groups of 3 based on who their different results during the first set of estimates. They had the time to discuss the distance, and then had to individually estimate the distance moved again. Sherif found that the three participants all had simular results. Asch judged this study, saying that it shows how the group as a whole came to a decission and does not measure conformity.

He also judged both studies on the fact that the questions asked were so ambiguous, and so naturally the participants would look to others for answers.

Asch's aims was to measure conformity when the answers are completely obvious, compared to both studies where they were ambiguous. He wanted to see see how different factors for example the ammount in groups effected on conformity levels.[/spoiler]

I think the aims is a bit short, what else should I add?

[Miracle Day]

Please help. What studies from aims and achievements are/did you guys going to reuse for Alt research?

(Original post by Sesshomaru24U)
You've already started =O I'm going to start next week. As for the perfect essay for PY2, I haven't got a clue :b I'm just going to try and do a really good essay and give it to my teacher and hope I get really high and then just all my essays similar to that.
Have you completed all the core studies? You know when the exam is?
Got to say though, Rahe study is just so boring xd

(Original post by madders94)
This website was a godsend to me - http://tonyryan.net/ contains tips, tricks and example answers for all the questions you may be asked in PY2 (or most of them, at least) - they're worth about 8 marks so it's better to combine what you get in the lessons and text books with these essays but it helped me tremendously (I got an A in the exam last year).

It seems like a hell of a lot, but if you break it down into the bare minimum facts, use flashcards for revision etc, it will really help. And don't get too hung up on remembering the names for alternative evidence etc - it's not necessary, as long as you remember what they found, apparently you don't lose any marks for not remembering the names.

The hardest question is by far the alternative evidence, because it's so easy to get confused, so as soon as you study each piece of research, pick out 4 or 5 alternative evidence studies that will be easy to remember - I think I got rid of my PY2 notes, unfortunately - and learn them, stick them on your bedroom wall, read over them, record them as an mp3 - whatever you can do to help you remember. The rest of the stuff is fairly easy. The exam itself is not hard because it will always be the same questions (the only thing that differs is whether you get two evaluate methodology or two alternative evidence questions), it's the remembering which is the hardest part.

A good memory should see you fine (I didn't do that much revision, to be honest, and got through on a good memory), but I can't stress enough the importance that you DO revise - if nothing else, it'll set you in good stead for PY3 and PY4, where a lot of revision is required.

[wellpastmybedtime]

[QUOTE=madders94;37340523]Don't leave ANYTHING out. WJEC examiners are getting nasty this year, they got into a bit of trouble last year by telling teachers what would be coming up in upcoming exams so the teachers knew what to teach, and this year they seem to be going out of their way to catch people out - they did it in PY1 in January I think , they have NEVER set the question for the assumptions of the behavioural approach (I think that's the one), and they know that's the one people will always revise more for because they think "it's bound to come up" so... yeah, they did it with my Drama exam too.

Who told you this? Or is it just your opinion? I agree that there was some controversy over the WJEC GCSE geography INSET where it seemed some examiners were giving answers ( I am not sure they actually said anything you couldnt work out actually).

Hopwever, I am concerned by what you say. I am going to write to the WJEC subject officer about this, because if what you suggest is true then I think the examination process could be considered unfair.

I am also very concerned because if (IFF) WJEC are doing this then they will be moving away from one of the basic precepts of their specification - that all questions will be clear and unambiguous and they are not there to " catch out" .

Further, as a teacher, if this is the case, then I think they should have sent a round robin out. I havent been told this and it annoys me to see it written by students on a site like this. Especially so if it is true as it would seem then that some teachers have been given inside information and others not - which effectively means that they are still employing dodgy practices.

I trust they are not.

As for your comment vis the PY1. I thought that paper was fairly standard and the marking equally so. I can see no justification for your comments.


Rant over.

[Miracle Day]

[QUOTE=wellpastmybedtime;37365942]

(Original post by madders94)
Don't leave ANYTHING out. WJEC examiners are getting nasty this year, they got into a bit of trouble last year by telling teachers what would be coming up in upcoming exams so the teachers knew what to teach, and this year they seem to be going out of their way to catch people out - they did it in PY1 in January I think , they have NEVER set the question for the assumptions of the behavioural approach (I think that's the one), and they know that's the one people will always revise more for because they think "it's bound to come up" so... yeah, they did it with my Drama exam too.

Who told you this? Or is it just your opinion? I agree that there was some controversy over the WJEC GCSE geography INSET where it seemed some examiners were giving answers ( I am not sure they actually said anything you couldnt work out actually).

Hopwever, I am concerned by what you say. I am going to write to the WJEC subject officer about this, because if what you suggest is true then I think the examination process could be considered unfair.

I am also very concerned because if (IFF) WJEC are doing this then they will be moving away from one of the basic precepts of their specification - that all questions will be clear and unambiguous and they are not there to " catch out" .

Further, as a teacher, if this is the case, then I think they should have sent a round robin out. I havent been told this and it annoys me to see it written by students on a site like this. Especially so if it is true as it would seem then that some teachers have been given inside information and others not - which effectively means that they are still employing dodgy practices.

I trust they are not.

As for your comment vis the PY1. I thought that paper was fairly standard and the marking equally so. I can see no justification for your comments.


Rant over.

I don't think it's unfairThey're making sure people don't cut corners.

As you teach PY2, are your students recycling Studies from Aims and context to Alternative research? If so, what ones?

[madders94]

(Original post by wellpastmybedtime)
Who told you this? Or is it just your opinion? I agree that there was some controversy over the WJEC GCSE geography INSET where it seemed some examiners were giving answers ( I am not sure they actually said anything you couldnt work out actually).

Hopwever, I am concerned by what you say. I am going to write to the WJEC subject officer about this, because if what you suggest is true then I think the examination process could be considered unfair.

I am also very concerned because if (IFF) WJEC are doing this then they will be moving away from one of the basic precepts of their specification - that all questions will be clear and unambiguous and they are not there to " catch out" .

Further, as a teacher, if this is the case, then I think they should have sent a round robin out. I havent been told this and it annoys me to see it written by students on a site like this. Especially so if it is true as it would seem then that some teachers have been given inside information and others not - which effectively means that they are still employing dodgy practices.

I trust they are not.

As for your comment vis the PY1. I thought that paper was fairly standard and the marking equally so. I can see no justification for your comments.


Rant over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-16082239

Aside from that, it's an opinion - an opinion shared by quite a few people, but an opinion nonetheless - not really anything to get your knickers in a twist about.

Re: PY1, I mean they seem to know every year that because they haven't set the Assumptions of the Behavioural Approach, they must realize that people are going to revise it more than others and yet they never set it - jesus christ, I'm not saying the marking was unfair, I'm saying it always catches people out which feels unfair as a student you seem to be taking my opinions very seriously, this is the second time in as many days this has happened

I never said they're still telling some teachers how to teach and others not - I have no idea whether they still are or not, it's just what I know from reading the news and what my teachers have told me about some examiners getting in trouble (which, before you assume they've been told something you haven't, I'm assuming they have probably seen from reading the news too).

Jeez...

[madders94]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Please help. What studies from aims and achievements are/did you guys going to reuse for Alt research?

I don't think I re-used any - I tried to keep it to purely studies before for the aims and context, and studies done after for the Alternative Research Evidence. I'm still attempting to dig out that list of Aims & Context things I did. I need to tidy up my bedroom, spent all day sorting out my A2 folders today

[wellpastmybedtime]

I dont think it is fair if they are as was suggested going to get " nasty" - that implies more than ensuring no one cuts corners.

I have left it to my students to decide whether they wish to recycle aims and context information into critically assess questions.
The examiners report makes it quite clear that this is acceptable and students are not disadvantaged for doing it.

I tend to teach students to present the aim of a study and then para " The background to this study comes from ..... name 2 pieces oif research and/ or evidence.

In the critically assess question, they start with the conclusions of the study and the write evidence that supports the study ( which can come from aims and context)

Then a paragraph which continues " however, ( or on the other hand) and cites evidence / studies which do not support the conclusions.

This tends to work. I have provided all my class with copies of model answers taken from past papers written by my ex students ( all top grade answers) . That is the way they revise.

We are currently running through aim and context/ critically assess questions for revision dealing with how to recycle information where possible as it can save on memory space.

Hope that helps.

[wellpastmybedtime]

Actually they have set assumptions of the behavioural approach. I dont have papers to hand but I recall it happeneing hence I knew it was not one to be expected and told the students so. I have been teaching WJEC since 2006 - I usually get 3/ 4 out of the five questions on the nail!

What did suprprise me this year was the therapy question. Pyschodynamic is the only therapy that hasnt been up for a while. However SD was my second guess on that question in January.

[madders94]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Asch, Dull Gweithredu Welsh version:

Spoiler:

Show

Mae'r astudiaeth Solomon Asch ar cydymffurfiaeth yn berthyn i'r ymagwedd Ymddygiadol oherwydd mae'n edrych ar ymddygiad pobl ac beth sy'n effeithio ar eu lefelau o gydymffurfio.

Caiff Asch eu dylanwadu gan dwy astudiaeth gan Jenness a Sherif. Wnaeth Jenness ofyn i'w cyfranogwyr amcangyfrif sawl ffa roedd mewn jar. Rhoddodd y cyfranogwyr i fewn i grwpiau i drafod, ac wedyn roedd rhaid amcangyfrif un unigol. Darganfyddodd cydberthynas positif rhwng atebion aelodau pob grwp, ac roedd nhw i gyd yn debyg. Beirniadodd Asch yr astudiaeth yma, ac dwedodd mewn sefyllfa amwys mae bobl yn edrych i bobl eraill am ateb rhesymol ac nid yw'n mesur cydymffurfiaeth.

Wnaeth Jenness astudiaeth gan ofyn i'w cyfranogwyr mesur pellter golau spot sy'n symud o un pwynt i'r llall. Yn gyntaf cafodd amcangyfrif unigol, wedyn rhoddodd y cyfranogwyr mewn i grwpiau o 3 wedi selio ar pa mor wahanol roedd amcangyfrifion gwreiddiol y cyfranogwyr. Darganfyddodd, fel Jenness, roedd yr atebion i gyd yn debyg. Beirniadodd Asch yr arbrawf yma, a dwedodd mae'r canlyniadau yn ddangos penderfyniad y grwp ac nid cydymffurfiaeth.

Beirniadodd Asch Jenness a Asch, gan ddweud nid yw'r astudiaethau yn mesur cydymffurfiad oherwydd mae'r sefylffaoedd yn amwys ac felly mae'r cyfranogwyr, yn naturiol, yn edrych i bobl eraill am atebion. Bwriad Asch roedd i mesur cydymffurfiad pan mae'r atebion yn hollol amlwg. Roedd Asch am astudio cydymffurfiad gan newid llawer o wahanol ffactorau.

Asch, Aims and Context, English version.

Please mark this honestly, and make sure everything's right because I don't know if it is.

Asch's experiment of conformity belongs to the Behaviourist approach, because it looks at how people conform (behaviour) and how different factors change the levels of conformity.

Asch was influenced by Jenness and Sherif Studies of conformity. Sherif asked his participants to estimate how many peas were in a jar. He grouped the participants to discuss the answer, and then asked them for individual estimate. He wanted to see how many of the grouped participants answered with the same results, to see if they 'conformed' with eachother. Asch judges this study, saying that in ambiguous situations people look to others for reasonable answers and so the study does not measure conformity.

Asch was also influenced by Sherif, who asked participants to measure the distance a spotlight moves from one spot to the other. Firstly, he got individual estimates and then put the participants into groups of 3 based on who their different results during the first set of estimates. They had the time to discuss the distance, and then had to individually estimate the distance moved again. Sherif found that the three participants all had simular results. Asch judged this study, saying that it shows how the group as a whole came to a decission and does not measure conformity.

He also judged both studies on the fact that the questions asked were so ambiguous, and so naturally the participants would look to others for answers.

Asch's aims was to measure conformity when the answers are completely obvious, compared to both studies where they were ambiguous. He wanted to see see how different factors for example the ammount in groups effected on conformity levels.[/spoiler]

I think the aims is a bit short, what else should I add?

It's really good, you've used the only two Aims & Context studies I was aware of for Asch, you described them really well and don't worry about it being brief - you got the facts in there and that's all you need. One point you could make is that as well as the ambiguity meaning that participants would naturally look to the others for answers, is that it is perfectly possible that because the questions were ambiguous, all the participants could have given wrong answers because they didn't know the right answer, as opposed to because they were conforming, so he wanted to do a study where the answer was so obvious that the only way someone could get the answer wrong was if they conformed to it (hope that makes sense!).

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by wellpastmybedtime)
I dont think it is fair if they are as was suggested going to get " nasty" - that implies more than ensuring no one cuts corners.

I have left it to my students to decide whether they wish to recycle aims and context information into critically assess questions.
The examiners report makes it quite clear that this is acceptable and students are not disadvantaged for doing it.

I tend to teach students to present the aim of a study and then para " The background to this study comes from ..... name 2 pieces oif research and/ or evidence.

In the critically assess question, they start with the conclusions of the study and the write evidence that supports the study ( which can come from aims and context)

Then a paragraph which continues " however, ( or on the other hand) and cites evidence / studies which do not support the conclusions.

This tends to work. I have provided all my class with copies of model answers taken from past papers written by my ex students ( all top grade answers) . That is the way they revise.

We are currently running through aim and context/ critically assess questions for revision dealing with how to recycle information where possible as it can save on memory space.

Hope that helps.

Why can't you be my teacher

My teacher has photocopied the textbook, and told us to chose 4 studies and to translate them to Welsh as homework. What sucks is I can't understand what alot of them mean

How did your students do in PY1?

[wellpastmybedtime]

Taking your opinions too seriously because this is the second time in recent days? Sorry, you are confusing me with someone else. I havent been around here for several months.