[chica123]

(Original post by Lollyage)
Ahh I understand exactly how you feel! I've made mind maps for each sub-section in the topics (3 studies on each mind map) which has actually been a lot more helpful than I had expected. Also another tip would be to not agonise over small details like exact numbers in results or complicated names for drugs, as long as you have a good grasp of the aims, methodology, results in general and conclusions you're all good.
I'm not particularly worried about section B, but looking through a few past papers there have been some ODD questions, like ones you couldn't even dream of preparing for, just to throw students off. This worries me for the crime section as we missed out an entire topic (After a Guilty Verdict) so if two questions from that come up, I won't have a choice with the ones I do as I'll inevitably have to do the other two..And if one of them has a horrible section B..

We have done the same! For Health and clinical we have missed out healthy living and for Forensic we have missed out Reaching a verdict. But don't worry because you have missed out a section it'll mean theres less revision and your more likely to know all the studies better I just hate comparing questions in section B!

[jessplease]

(Original post by pk92)
We have done the same! For Health and clinical we have missed out healthy living and for Forensic we have missed out Reaching a verdict. But don't worry because you have missed out a section it'll mean theres less revision and your more likely to know all the studies better I just hate comparing questions in section B!

For the comparing questions i found it easier if you do it basically the same as every other section b question and do it in issues
e.g 2 paragraphs on strengths 2 paragraphs on weaknesses on different issues

so I'd do a paragraph on reliability and then do a sentence on each of the studies or techniques to say how it is reliable or not
then a paragraph on um reductionism and then say how each is reductionist and if it is not then how it is hollistic.

My teacher said this is a better way of comparing rather than looking at each technique or method at a time

[KateJE]

I've made flash cards for each study, picked five key words for each study, made a mind map for each sub-section and I still can't see to get anything to stick. Looking at past papers, I know the gist of the relevant studies most of the time, but can't remember who conducted the study in the first place - or vice versa.

We had a sub for the first six or seven months of the year whilst our teacher was on maternity leave, so this really hasn't helped. Even now she's back though, when I do past questions, she keeps telling me to evaluate in part a questions... that's not right, is it?

If anybody has any other methods of revision I could try, it would be greatly appreciated? I'm going to try out GRAVER STANDERS, because it seems like it will work if I can remember it.

[gfm]

(Original post by pk92)
We have done the same! For Health and clinical we have missed out healthy living and for Forensic we have missed out Reaching a verdict. But don't worry because you have missed out a section it'll mean theres less revision and your more likely to know all the studies better I just hate comparing questions in section B!

I think u should have a look at reaching a verdict cuz if u look at past papers not many questions have been asked on tht topic so seems to be the most likely to pop up in the exam :/ we've missed turning to crime

[gfm]

(Original post by KateJE)
I've made flash cards for each study, picked five key words for each study, made a mind map for each sub-section and I still can't see to get anything to stick. Looking at past papers, I know the gist of the relevant studies most of the time, but can't remember who conducted the study in the first place - or vice versa.

We had a sub for the first six or seven months of the year whilst our teacher was on maternity leave, so this really hasn't helped. Even now she's back though, when I do past questions, she keeps telling me to evaluate in part a questions... that's not right, is it?

If anybody has any other methods of revision I could try, it would be greatly appreciated? I'm going to try out GRAVER STANDERS, because it seems like it will work if I can remember it.

Yh i would say your teacher is wrong by asking you to evaluate section a questions. Section is mainly descriptive you get no marks for evaluation all you need is an intro about the topic the question is about, then answer the question , i.e. if it asks you to describe a research describe it if its a concept or technique then explain that. And finally its really importatnt to have a conclusion otherwise you won't get high band marks!

[Lollyage]

Judging by what has come up so far, it is extremely likely that there will be two questions from After a Guilty Verdict under Forensic Psychology - the one topic we missed out in the whole damn syllabus.

Also could someone please explain ecological validity to me, like how to discuss the ecological validity of research into health promotion (past paper q) or how it applies to any question you've done? It's one of those random ones that I can't for the life of me find 3 points for.

Words cannot describe my hatred for this exam.

[Lollyage]

(Original post by princess271)
does anyone how i can revise for this exam

any tips will be appreciated x

Try mind maps? I've really found them to be quite useful

[princess271]

(Original post by Lollyage)
Try mind maps? I've really found them to be quite useful

thanks

[JessChappers01]

i really hope after a guilty verdict doesnt come up twice even though its highly likely because thats the one section weve missed out which means ill have no choice but to answer the other two DAMMIT ill just have to make sure i know the other 3 topics really well haha!
i hate this exam

[Lynndenial]

(Original post by princess271)
Attachment 153409

please can someone read this and tell me what mark it would get
thanks x

I'd say maybe a 5 or 6 if you're lucky... It was kinda confusing and your sentences ran on a lot - I think you only used like 2 full stops throughout! I forget what the mark scheme is like but if your answer is not well organised it makes it difficult to understand.

Also, your introduction begins by talking about genetics, but the study you're talking about is about life expectancy and risk taking because of evolutionary adaptive traits, so the first few lines weren't really relevant :P Plus the information you gave on Daly and Wilson wasn't that accurate either - you give information on Gudjohnsson, but I'm fairly sure what you've said there is actually from Daly and Wilson as well. XD

I hope that helps.

[zahra_xo]

i know this is a huge risk to take but i dont feel like i have enough time to learn everything really well and i feel if i concentrate on less i will know more, so i was looking at past questions it looks like for forensic no topics have been repeated, im planning on just learning the topics that havent come up, i am honestly terrified of taking the risk but for stuff like the biological section in turning to crime the three studies have come up, so do you think it is unlikely that they will come up?

I am planning on reading over the other topics but i dont think i will know them really well, i am so overwhelmed by the amount ocr expects us to learn when we only have to answer 2 questions it just seems impossible right now

thanks in advance

[Lollyage]

(Original post by zahra_xo)
i know this is a huge risk to take but i dont feel like i have enough time to learn everything really well and i feel if i concentrate on less i will know more, so i was looking at past questions it looks like for forensic no topics have been repeated, im planning on just learning the topics that havent come up, i am honestly terrified of taking the risk but for stuff like the biological section in turning to crime the three studies have come up, so do you think it is unlikely that they will come up?

I am planning on reading over the other topics but i dont think i will know them really well, i am so overwhelmed by the amount ocr expects us to learn when we only have to answer 2 questions it just seems impossible right now

thanks in advance

DO NOT DO THIS!!! This is the mistake I made for the Jan exam, OCR had never repeated anything ever so by process of deduction I was convinced (by teachers as well) that Individual Differences will come up for section B, so I did a bit of work on the others but really not much and spent all day re-writing ID answers until they were perfect. Got into the exam, went straight to section B ready to regurgitate my expertise and BAM. Social Approach.

You honestly never know with OCR, it's never worth the risk.

[Mizz_S]

(Original post by Lollyage)
Judging by what has come up so far, it is extremely likely that there will be two questions from After a Guilty Verdict under Forensic Psychology - the one topic we missed out in the whole damn syllabus.

Also could someone please explain ecological validity to me, like how to discuss the ecological validity of research into health promotion (past paper q) or how it applies to any question you've done? It's one of those random ones that I can't for the life of me find 3 points for.

Words cannot describe my hatred for this exam.

if you say after a guilty verdict, then i'm in the same boat. i never learnt it, nor did i learn disroders from health and clinical, lol.

ecological validity is how true the experiment is to real life. for health promotion, i'd say keating is true to real life due to the use of questionnaires about something that is already an issue, but ruiter and wineman (it is wineman, right? ) aren't really true to real life. only studies such as field experiment ones like reicher and haslam are truly high in eco validity. hope that makes sense.

[seventwoseven]

Does anyone have any tips for remembering the names of who did each study? It's so haaaaard

[princess271]

(Original post by Lynndenial)
I'd say maybe a 5 or 6 if you're lucky... It was kinda confusing and your sentences ran on a lot - I think you only used like 2 full stops throughout! I forget what the mark scheme is like but if your answer is not well organised it makes it difficult to understand.

Also, your introduction begins by talking about genetics, but the study you're talking about is about life expectancy and risk taking because of evolutionary adaptive traits, so the first few lines weren't really relevant :P Plus the information you gave on Daly and Wilson wasn't that accurate either - you give information on Gudjohnsson, but I'm fairly sure what you've said there is actually from Daly and Wilson as well. XD

I hope that helps.

haha thanks
will you check another one for me lol

[princess271]

disscuss the problems of conductiong research into what causes stress.rtf

can someone check this
much appreciated x

[princess271]

is this GRAVERS STANDERS
for the g544 exam or the g543 exam? x

[Lollyage]

PLEASE PLEASE someone look at this for me!! I've just had the biggest heart attack ever after hearing you have to cross-compare studies in ANY point you make on ANY issue, even if it's not actually a compare question. We were not taught this. This is how I do my section Bs (see word document in attachment).

Massive thank you in advance to anyone who gives me feedback on this.

[princess271]

(Original post by seventwoseven)
Does anyone have any tips for remembering the names of who did each study? It's so haaaaard

my psychology teacher said you dont have to remember the names of the study
you can just say "psychologists carried out a study on..."
but half the time he doesnt know what hes going on about
so not sure x

[Lollyage]

(Original post by princess271)
disscuss the problems of conductiong research into what causes stress.rtf

can someone check this
much appreciated x

You do it so differently to me it's actually insane, but I'd say it's good apart from you need to work on your counter arguments more and make them really clear!