OCR AS Psychology: G542: Core Studies - Wednesday 5th June 2013

It's not impossible to revise every single thing. The vast majority of people who get As will have revised every single thing.

I'm sitting on my computer screen because I don't have the opportunity to say it in any other way. If I did, I would. I would say it to the face of absolutely any one who complained that they hadn't revised everything and then found the paper difficult.

Yes there is limited time. But the difference between people who get good grades and the people who get average grades, is that they know there is limited time and instead of use this as an excuse for not revising properly, they plan for it. They make sure they understand the content throughout the year rather than leaving it all to the last minute to learn, and they start revising far enough ahead that there will be time to fit it all in. They don't just revise the content as it's been taught in class, they do extra work on top of that, and they do all the past papers and they plan answers.

In Section C there is absolutely no excuse for not being able to get a good mark, as the structure is exactly the same every year with the exception of what is asked on the b part question. The other questions such as improvements&implications, assumptions and strengths/weaknesses can all be planned in advanced and checked over by a teacher to make sure they are good. This is the only pattern you should rely on.

You should not rely on the other patterns, such as Thigpen and Cleckley coming up in January means it's unlikely it'll come up in June. Unlikely, but not impossible. Most people on this thread were sure one of the perspectives would come up and it looked like they would, but they didn't. OCR can give whatever questions they want, and they are likely to throw in a curve ball every so often to stop people getting too reliant on the patterns. People who get good grades know that, and revise everything anyway just in case. I'm sure a lot of people didn't revise Thigpen & Cleckley, and I'm sure they will be the people who get average marks.

To some extent I believe you get what you deserve, but I also do appreciate that there are things out side of your control that can affect how you do in exams. However, I don't believe that many of the factors being used as "outside of control" are legitimate excuses for not being prepared, eg not enough time, not a good memory, not a good teacher. You plan for limited time and start revising far enough in advance that you do have enough time, and if you have a bad teacher or bad memory you work harder to make up for that. I myself spent the 4 days running up to our psychology exam in hospital, but I will not use that as an excuse. I still managed to revise everything on the course despite being extremely ill for a good 2 weeks before the exam, because I care so much about doing well. I also expect to do well, because I worked hard. I would never, ever, ever think I could get away with not revising everything and still get top marks. If we didn't need to revise it, why would we be taught it?

At the end of the day, the people who care the most work the hardest and usually do the best. You can either use your excuses or you can get good results, you can't have both. I think many people will properly realise this on results day when they haven't done as well as they wanted to.

This is a really good answer. Thank you so much. How did you think of this?

Hey, sorry I didn't reply! Too caught up in hectic revision, but it's all over now! =D
And I looked in the textbook for their discussion on mentalistic significance of the eyes and linked it with ecological validity... A bit useless replying now. Sorry
How did you find the exam? =)

This isn't really related to the exam, however I thought its the only place where everyone taking Psychology would be at.

How did your teachers teach you the material? I'm just curious.

We had booklets for each core study. The booklets had a lot of information. At the start I assumed we had to know everything in that booklet, so I used to spend time reading it. Then I realised it was actually irrelevant. The information was from Holah and other resources, I also think my teacher wrote some of the information.

So we'd get given a booklet. My teacher would go through a core study. It wasn't very clear though. She would explain the procedure however we wouldn't really know the sample, design method ect. We were always told the information was in the booklets. So she'd briefly explain the procedure. We wouldn't really make any notes on anything as everything we needed to know was in our booklets. We would do meaningless tasks though which didn't really help. How did other people's teachers go through the core studies? And how long did you spend on them? At the start we seemed to spend 2 weeks on one study, but towards the end we were doing 2 studies a week!

Whilst I did know that lets say Bandura had issues in ethics. I didn't really know anything specific about it if that makes sense. I just knew a sort of generic explanation. I think we spent very little time on Section B. I knew each study had strengths and weaknesses but I didn't really know how to properly structure my answers.

I didn't even know Section C was a big deal until towards the end. We would do a studies so Thigpen and Cleckley, Rosenhan and Griffiths and after that we would fill in sheets about Individual differences but this would be copied from the board or somewhere. So we didn't really know what individual differences was.

In the end though... My teacher went over some of the studies again. We got given other booklets which were helpful. We went through Section B. And for Section C we got given answers however I later found out these answers were a past students answers so I don't know how reliable they were, also some of the answers were from mark schemes.

Looking back I think time could have better. I was off for a while and when I came back I hadn't really missed anything in comparison to other subjects.

Did other people's teacher teach Section C? How did people cover Section B?

I think G541 was okay because it was a lot less content and I could revise from past papers very easily.

The reason why I'm interested is because in other subjects when I'm in the exam or whatever else I can remember my teacher saying x... Whereas in Psychology I can't really remember anything because I don't really think we covered it in that much detail. Although I'm not sure because I don't know what other people did.

i have 2 psychology teachers.. one takes a more involved, practical approach, whereas the other teacher gives us booklets and helps us with memory.

at the start, we were given work booklets on the cognitive and developmental studies. Also later on for the biological, but none for social and individual differences as by then we were working more practically.

our teachers would show us presentations and we would jot notes (also some would take the presentations onto a memory stick). then we'd fill in the booklets and occasionally do exam style questions

my more practical teacher would organise us into groups and give us 1 hour to research the background info of a study (or sometimes one group would do background, another aim sample method, other results conclusion and slight evaluation). in this time we would create a powerpoint on the topic. then we'd present it to the class. I found this very useful as you have a very short time to research something.. so you get it done quick and surprisingly it stuck in my head from researching it from scratch by myself! also sometimes this would be a homework task where we would have about 3 days to complete it.

we were also shown relevant videos, as some people may find this more helpful as they may be a visual learner.
My teacher who worked on our memory would give us various tasks after we had completed a study. for example, we were told to write down everything we could remember, then go over this in a different colour to fix any mistakes or add anything we forgot.
She'd also tell us to create spider diagrams or flow charts, and make it visual and completely random. for example, for Maguire's study, place the word hippocampi in the middle of a picture of an elephant (or more relevant, a hippo!) and you'd remember it cause it was so completely random.
We were also told to create word clouds, so basically write (or draw) relevant words.the most important words would be the biggest, then less important words would be of a smaller size. For example, Maguire would be the biggest, followed by hippocampi, navigation, spatial memory, taxi drivers, posterior, MRI scans.. etc etc.

also, both teachers would go on psychexchange.com and print us out LOOOADS of resources! my 1 teacher gave us so many different summaries on ALL the studies!

and finally, to relate the content to the exam, we did section C questions after 3 of the approaches were completed. We never really went over HOW to answer this section.. and we didn't go over assumptions or strengths at all. but we were given a booklet of model answers for all 7 assumptions/perspectives.

we also did a few section B questions on a couple of studies

we took about 2 weeks to go over a study, and towards the end, about 1 week

Is there a particular reason why you have two teachers?

Thanks for reply. What you said seems really good. We did watch videos but only for a few studies. We went through powerpoints but we didn't really take any major notes as they were all online anyway. What you said though its really interesting. Although I don't think researching something would help me, lol.

a

haha well if you think about it, researching a study before you have been taught it helps because you learn it in your own way.. then when it comes to the lesson where the teacher introduces the study, you already understand the gist of it and it's reinforcing your memory for the study

and in my school, for A levels you have 2 teachers per subject :L i have no idea why..

We were shown OCR PowerPoints for each study and were told to take notes, VERY boring. Each study we did over 2/3 lessons. We finished going over the studies quite early and so basically started again (revising the studies with the PowerPoints)

The perspectives and approaches we weren't taught in great detail at all, it was kind of a last minute thing in the last few weeks before the exam.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You know, everything you said... Its true. I can't really disagree with it tbh. Its more the way you said it. That is the issue.

You don't need to believe me nor does anyone else. Regardless of whether anyone does or not is irrelevant because I can't change the grade. I do work hard and I know I do. I don't leave revision to the last minute and I do plan my time wisely. It may not come across that way and may be it comes across like I am the type of person who complains but never actually does anything about it. The truth is I do work exceptionally hard but its never enough.

I think there a time and place to say these things. You have no idea who I am. I do work hard and you can think otherwise like I mentioned before but it won't change anything.

You see its people like you who makes people like me quite upset actually. You seem to be under this illusion that people like me somehow are stupid because we leave things to the last minute and don't really revise. It really does annoy me. I do work hard and I'm not excusing anything i.e a crap teacher ect.

What happens when your best isn't enough? You see not just for this subject but every exam, x person will get the grade and that's it. It's irrelevant how much work they put in, the hours they spent perfecting their answers ect. Its just that one grade that matters. It doesn't even matter if your 1 mark away from an A because in the end you got a B.

I did do extra reading. I did do a lot of answers for my teacher to mark. I did revise a lot earlier than 2 months before the exam. But at the end of the day all of this is irrelevant because it won't be taken into consideration. Its that one letter that matters, nothing else.

What is the need for you to come onto this thread and say 'maybe if you had revised properly you would have found it easier'. What is the need for that? By making that comment its just rubbing it into someone else's face that fact that they have just ****ed up an exam.

I don't see why I should feel bad when I know I have tried my best. I don't need someone like you to make such comments, well done for revising every little detail. Well done on getting an A. Well done on getting into Oxford. What do you want me to say?

I was simply saying my thoughts on the exam. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Maybe you in your world because do revise everything and maybe in your world people are arrogant and nasty human beings. In the real world most people don't revise everything. Even if people do revise everything and do get As they don't make such pathetic comments to other people to make them feel bad about it.

You're making an assumptions based on very little information. I know what I didn't do. But I also know what I did do. I did a lot of revision. But somehow its never enough to compete with people like you.

ah well people are different and have different methods that suit them best, how about you just leave it?

what's effective for you may not be effective for someone else. And if someone else was in hospital before the exam and cared so much for their performance, who's to say they will act the same way as you did? no one. because everyone is an individual and goes through things differently.

seriously dude just leave it and stop expecting people to behave the way that you do. if you do good in this exam, then great. but stop making others feel bad, and just go will you

Once again you have completely missed the point of my comment. YOU were the one who said you had only revised 2 of the approaches, and were complaining that Section C was a disaster for you, so effectively admitted that you hadn't revised thoroughly. I wouldn't have said it if you had been more along the lines of "man I'm so disappointed, I revised as hard as I possibly could and still found the paper hard", but I don't believe that only revising 2 approaches when there are 7 that could come up is revising as hard as you possibly could. So no, my comment was directed to the part of your comment that admitted leaving huge gaps of content out of your revision. Are you really going to carry on saying you revised your best when you didn't revise over 70% of what could have been on Section C? If you really think that's the best you could do then I take it back, but I don't see how someone bright enough to cope with psychology could genuinely only manage to revise that much.

I do struggle with the concept of my best not being good enough because I push myself and have very high expectations of myself. Luckily so far my best has always been good enough but I dread the day that it isn't. However, I think I'll be able to cope with failure if I know there was nothing else I could have done to prepare. But if I failed and it was because I didn't work hard enough then I'd never forgive myself, so I take measures to help me not be in that position. That's why I'll always revise 7 approaches even if it's unlikely that 2 of them will come up because they were on the most recent paper (metaphorically speaking). I appreciate that sometimes even when you work your hardest there are still tough questions, for example in Section B the apparatus question threw me and I left it til the end and probably haven't got full marks on it. At least I still know I did my best though and I couldn't have done any thing else to better prepare for it.

I'm sorry that you've taken such offense, I am actually a lovely person and not surrounded by arrogant and nasty human beings as you suggest. I don't agree that in the real world people don't revise everything, because I am surrounded by hard working people who achieve well and are at the top of their games, and they are the people who revise everything so I'll continue to revise everything. I don't mean this to sound rude, but maybe next year you will remember having this conversation and at least try to revise everything once, just in case there's an unexpected question again.

And I'm actually trying to get into Cambridge not Oxford, but thanks!

Once again you have completely missed the point of my comment. YOU were the one who said you had only revised 2 of the approaches, and were complaining that Section C was a disaster for you, so effectively admitted that you hadn't revised thoroughly. I wouldn't have said it if you had been more along the lines of "man I'm so disappointed, I revised as hard as I possibly could and still found the paper hard", but I don't believe that only revising 2 approaches when there are 7 that could come up is revising as hard as you possibly could. So no, my comment was directed to the part of your comment that admitted leaving huge gaps of content out of your revision. Are you really going to carry on saying you revised your best when you didn't revise over 70% of what could have been on Section C? If you really think that's the best you could do then I take it back, but I don't see how someone bright enough to cope with psychology could genuinely only manage to revise that much.

I do struggle with the concept of my best not being good enough because I push myself and have very high expectations of myself. Luckily so far my best has always been good enough but I dread the day that it isn't. However, I think I'll be able to cope with failure if I know there was nothing else I could have done to prepare. But if I failed and it was because I didn't work hard enough then I'd never forgive myself, so I take measures to help me not be in that position. That's why I'll always revise 7 approaches even if it's unlikely that 2 of them will come up because they were on the most recent paper (metaphorically speaking). I appreciate that sometimes even when you work your hardest there are still tough questions, for example in Section B the apparatus question threw me and I left it til the end and probably haven't got full marks on it. At least I still know I did my best though and I couldn't have done any thing else to better prepare for it.

I'm sorry that you've taken such offense, I am actually a lovely person and not surrounded by arrogant and nasty human beings as you suggest. I don't agree that in the real world people don't revise everything, because I am surrounded by hard working people who achieve well and are at the top of their games, and they are the people who revise everything so I'll continue to revise everything. I don't mean this to sound rude, but maybe next year you will remember having this conversation and at least try to revise everything once, just in case there's an unexpected question again.

And I'm actually trying to get into Cambridge not Oxford, but thanks!

I actually wrote what you said in the exam! Thanks for your help. Erm, I posted some stuff about it before... But yeah. It wasn't too good tbh. Section C I only revised the perspectives so I made stuff up on the spot about the Physiological approach. Section B was tough in terms of the material questions. And Section A was tough because I only had 30 minutes to do it! So I was rushing it, plus I didn't really know the core studies that well. Even basic information about the results on Thigpen and Cleckley. The whole paper was a rush and overall quite hard tbh. What did you think?

Also, its not useless replying now.

Zzzzz tired of this. I've never criticised anyone's revision technique or said mine is better, but what I have criticised is the fact that someone thought they could leave out huge amounts of course content and then still expect to be able to answer questions on it. Not bothering to revise something at all is not a revision technique and you only have yourself to blame if that's the reason you don't do as well as you want to. I just don't understand why people think they can get away with only revising bits and bobs and still find the exam easy. Even the brightest person in the world wouldn't get an A if they didn't learn everything, it's just setting yourself up for failure.

Once again you have completely missed the point of my comment. YOU were the one who said you had only revised 2 of the approaches, and were complaining that Section C was a disaster for you, so effectively admitted that you hadn't revised thoroughly. I wouldn't have said it if you had been more along the lines of "man I'm so disappointed, I revised as hard as I possibly could and still found the paper hard", but I don't believe that only revising 2 approaches when there are 7 that could come up is revising as hard as you possibly could. So no, my comment was directed to the part of your comment that admitted leaving huge gaps of content out of your revision. Are you really going to carry on saying you revised your best when you didn't revise over 70% of what could have been on Section C? If you really think that's the best you could do then I take it back, but I don't see how someone bright enough to cope with psychology could genuinely only manage to revise that much.

I do struggle with the concept of my best not being good enough because I push myself and have very high expectations of myself. Luckily so far my best has always been good enough but I dread the day that it isn't. However, I think I'll be able to cope with failure if I know there was nothing else I could have done to prepare. But if I failed and it was because I didn't work hard enough then I'd never forgive myself, so I take measures to help me not be in that position. That's why I'll always revise 7 approaches even if it's unlikely that 2 of them will come up because they were on the most recent paper (metaphorically speaking). I appreciate that sometimes even when you work your hardest there are still tough questions, for example in Section B the apparatus question threw me and I left it til the end and probably haven't got full marks on it. At least I still know I did my best though and I couldn't have done any thing else to better prepare for it.

I'm sorry that you've taken such offense, I am actually a lovely person and not surrounded by arrogant and nasty human beings as you suggest. I don't agree that in the real world people don't revise everything, because I am surrounded by hard working people who achieve well and are at the top of their games, and they are the people who revise everything so I'll continue to revise everything. I don't mean this to sound rude, but maybe next year you will remember having this conversation and at least try to revise everything once, just in case there's an unexpected question again.

And I'm actually trying to get into Cambridge not Oxford, but thanks!

You know what, people like you amaze me. Yes, I am saying I revised all I could. Yes, that means I revised 2 perspectives. If that isn't good enough for the exam and what not, then its all I could do.

You sound very arrogant. So I'll be a bad person and be arrogant. You go a private school where you have the best teachers (most likely) in the country you get everything handed to you on a plate. Then come on here criticising other people. Anyone with half a brain cell wouldn't bother. Just acknowledge you have a good memory.

Trust me, next year I will not be remembering this. Exams are based around memory. No one can revise everything and even if they could there's much more to getting an A.

"I don't see how someone bright enough to cope with psychology could genuinely only manage to revise that much" - Exams don't test your intelligence. They test mainly your memory and exam technique. Clearly this is why you continue to carry on because you think intelligence is defined by exams. Its not. Someone can know the whole Psychology specification but not know how to write essays properly. Exams are simply a test of memory and writing it down. If you think its intelligence, then think that.

i didn't say you criticised their revision technique. the point is, you're expecting that person to perform similarly to you.

so you say you were in hospital before the exam (sorry to hear about that) and that you still managed to revise. well that's great, i hope you being in hospital hasn't affected your grade.
but what i'm trying to say is that maybe this person didn't revise everything because they perform differently than you in different situations. They could have had problems going on at home or had multiple exams or were just stressed from pressure to do well. In your situation it appears that you would not let this affect your revision and grade. But others deal with it differently, and it may affect them in different ways than it affects you.

i do understand your point and i agree.. but please do not make comments about other people until you know the whole situation..