16 marker terminology

Hi, can someone please tell me what different terminology is asking me to evaluate. For example questions like:

“Discuss what research into X has told us”
“Discuss research into X”
“Discuss how X research has been conducted”

I’m not entirely sure how to really tackle these questions and what sort of AO3 evaluation they need.

Reply 1

Squiggles1238

The first question is asking about the findings of the research, and what these show/explain
The second question is the most generic question, and you can discuss the procedure, findings, and then obviously the eval
The third question is asking about the procedure the experimenter used

Reply 2

OVLD68

Original post by Squiggles1238

Hi so do I reference the findings of the research in the AO1 paragraph? Or does each question affect what AO£ points I can make if you know what I mean.

Also I know I've had a lot of questions over the past few days and I just want to say I really appreciate you going out of your way to answer them.

Reply 3

Squiggles1238

It depends to be honest. For example, just stating what the findings are would likely be A01 points, as you are demonstrating knowledge, but by explaining what they mean, that would be your A03 points if that makes sense? Like eg, ‘this shows it supports the theory of…… because…….’

Thats okay! Thats what TSR is for!

Reply 4

Psychidiot12

Original post by Squiggles1238

Hi, I just realised I answered on my alt account.

So let’s say one of those questions are on institutionalisation. My evaluation points for that is replicated by Hodges and Tigard, social desirability bias, attrition and the Romanian orphans situation is worse then normal, could I use these AO3 points for any of the questions in your opinion? Or do certain question types limit the choice of AO3 answers

Reply 5

Squiggles1238

Original post by Psychidiot12

If the question is asking you to discuss procedure, then only eval procedure, if it asks about findings, only eval findings, and if its a generic 'discuss research into', then you can use any eval point.
Its good to have a sort of A03 'bank' of things you can say about a topic, and then when it comes to answering a question, you can pick out which points are relevant

Reply 6

OVLD68

Original post by Squiggles1238

Hi, sorry to follow up on this again, but when it says evaluate the procedure, what sort of things would that include? Like what AO3 points if you know what I mean?

I'm guessing for the results one I evaluate if the results have generalised, if the results have replicated, if they are reliable over time etc? let me know if thats right.

And obviously for the generic one, I can do what I want.

Reply 7

Squiggles1238

Original post by OVLD68

So when evaluating the procedure, what kind of experiment is it? A field study? Lab study? Observation? All of these have pros and cons. Look at the task? Does it have mundane realism? Are the tasks artificial? What is the sample like? Is it ethnocentric? Is it a small sample size?
These are just some examples

Reply 8

OVLD68

Original post by Squiggles1238

I'm really sorry to keep pestering you, but honestly your help has been really invaluable. What studies do you think a question like that will be asked? I can only think of Milgram, the Strange situation, institutionalisation (i.e romanian orphans study) and the continuity hypothesis (Hazan and shaver). I only ask because prior to this, I have only ever seen the middle version of questions and now I want to try and make sure I have evaluation covered for the studies.

Reply 9

Squiggles1238

Original post by OVLD68

by all means, ask away, I'm happy to be of help however I can :smile:

Basically, any of the main studies that you learn in-depth, for example Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch (I know zimbardo isnt on advanced info, but just so you get a better idea of what I mean)
I reckon a question asking you to evaluate the procedure of a study will most likely come up in social influence or memory, as there arent any 'key' studies you learn about in psychopathology. There's always the potential for it to come up in attachment, eg Bowlby's 44 thieves study, you can talk about how there is researcher bias present, and there's Ainsworth's strange situation.

I suppose a good way to look at it is, if it's a study every psychology student is expected to know, such as Milgram, or the strange situation, then it's worth making a note of the possible critiques of the procedure, but if its research that is mainly used as a brief A03 point, that some students may know, others may not, then you only really need to focus on the findings of that study, and what they tell us