Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slowjamz)
    You get good marks so it just sounds like you have a conscise writing style and get straight to the point - and I'm guessing examiners won't mind that in the least when they have hundreds of long rambling scripts to get through. I honestly think the amount you write makes no impact compared to what you write. I could have condensed my answers today into fewer pages with some thought, or stretched them out into more - and I'd still get the same marks.

    Ooh, 9(ish) weeks to results day... goes by in a flash!
    hmm... if i get get crticised for my pscyh essays, its always "expand your AO2 points"... even tho i write at least two/three sentences per point. Call me silly, but I just don't see the point of writing out the blindingly obvious.

    p.s does "Supporting research..." mean AO2? (it better be!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perdurabo)
    Hey,
    Can someone go over how exactly marks are awarded?

    I mean, like on the sleep question, it was split into 2, 12 markers. 12 marks for each outline and evaluate.

    So do you make 6 facts and 6 criticisms? Or 6 facts and 3 criticisms cos AO2 is worth more? Cos i wasn't sure my criticisms consisted of the 'biggies' but then loads of naff 'ecological validity', 'indiv. diffs.' ones.

    Sorry if i sound stupid - I never had a teacher this year!
    Does nobody know then? :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perdurabo)
    Does nobody know then? :confused:
    its hard to say... its usually equal amount AO1 and AO2 but... just cos u write a point, dusnt guarantee u a mark... cos in my homework psych essays, sometimes, teh number of marks dusnt correspond with the number of points u make... as stupid as it is
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perdurabo)
    Does nobody know then? :confused:
    I'm not sure to be honest. The mark scheme is very vague; it doesn't appear that x amount of points raised = y amount of marks, so a lot of it is down to the examiner deciding what "band" your answer falls into overall, one for A01 (up to 12 marks per question) and one for A02 (ditto). Your best bet is probably looking at the past Psychology mark schemes on www.aqa.org.uk and trying to estimate where your answers would fall.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you look on the AQA website you can download the mark schemes.

    They don't give you a mark per point you make or per study you use, they look at the essay then decide which 'band' it qualifies for overall.

    There are 3 bands, and you can be low or high in each band. They use certain criteria which have to be achieved to reach each band.

    For example AO1 high band 3 worth 10-12 marks - "psychological content is accurate and well detailed, organisation and structure are presented coherantly, there is substantial evidence of bredth and depth, the essay is well balanced"

    If your essay meets those criteria, you qualify for that band.

    Or for example AO1 bottom band 2, worth 5-6 marks, "limited psychological content, generally accurate but lacking detail..."

    And the same thing for AO2.

    Hope that made sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh right, cheers all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the exam was better than expected. . Lets hope their not setting us up for a fall with PYA5, i haven't even started revision 4 this one . However no other exams to think about now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I didi Altuism, Evolution of Intelligence and Understudied relationships.
    Evolution & relationships was great - the best questions ever!!! I didn't have time to write as much as I wanted.
    Altruism was good too, but not as good as the other 2.
    I'm sure I got an A. :-)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perdurabo)
    Evolution of Intelligence.

    How did the rest of you find it?
    What did you put for this question?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Surfing Hamster)
    What did you put for this question?
    Realised afterwards i didnt explicitly state tool use theory and criticism although mentioned in a roundabout way.

    I said:

    2 Primary Theories; Social (Machiavellian) and Foraging.

    Foraging
    Talked about tool use then need for new strategies to survive when changing to meat eating diet. Wider 'home range' means more cognitive skills needed which includes procedural physical tasks tree climbing etc. Also cognitive needs; navigation, mind-mapping, inventing new tools etc.
    Those who could produce the cognitive 'goods' to meet these needs survived and passed their adaptive traits on. Stupid monkeys die.
    Then talked about extractive foraging. Need to extract nuts, monkeys use branches for mites etc.

    Criticisms
    Extractive Foraging - Birds do it all year round without intelligence evolution.
    But, for primitive man it was seasonal so need more cognitive abilities. (Memory, knowing when food is ripe etc.)
    If larger brains or more intelligence make us better at getting food, why not have foliovores he same? But, they have narrower diet, cant cope with metabolic demands larger brains have.

    Other pointless criticisms from AS. Cant really remember.


    Machiavellian
    Individuals who can use and exploit others without causing aggression increase reproductive fitness.
    Through alliances (grooming, sharing), they can move up heirarchy, have better selection of females etc.
    Meat sharing the key to human evolution of intelligence.

    In only complex primates will we make alliances based on the future.
    We also deceive. It has been observed that primates rarely ally with rivals, only deceive or do favours for those who may help 'fight the cause' in the future.

    To do all this deceiving and strategic planning, you need advanced cognitive abilities. (Planning ahead, manipulation etc.)

    Criticisms
    Neo-cortex linked to intelligence. Strong correlation between group size and neocortex size.
    In certain tribes today, we still meat share for pick of the ladies and power.
    However, other explanations of sharing given. Maybe it saves us energy. I.e. by sharing a little we dont have to waste energy in defending our kill.
    Another positive = base validity,

    Made other pointless criticisms from AS on both of them.

    That's basically what i put, only a little more eloquent and a bit more padding!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perdurabo)
    Realised afterwards i didnt explicitly state tool use theory and criticism although mentioned in a roundabout way.

    I said:

    2 Primary Theories; Social (Machiavellian) and Foraging.

    Foraging
    Talked about tool use then need for new strategies to survive when changing to meat eating diet. Wider 'home range' means more cognitive skills needed which includes procedural physical tasks tree climbing etc. Also cognitive needs; navigation, mind-mapping, inventing new tools etc.
    Those who could produce the cognitive 'goods' to meet these needs survived and passed their adaptive traits on. Stupid monkeys die.
    Then talked about extractive foraging. Need to extract nuts, monkeys use branches for mites etc.

    Criticisms
    Extractive Foraging - Birds do it all year round without intelligence evolution.
    But, for primitive man it was seasonal so need more cognitive abilities. (Memory, knowing when food is ripe etc.)
    If larger brains or more intelligence make us better at getting food, why not have foliovores he same? But, they have narrower diet, cant cope with metabolic demands larger brains have.

    Other pointless criticisms from AS. Cant really remember.


    Machiavellian
    Individuals who can use and exploit others without causing aggression increase reproductive fitness.
    Through alliances (grooming, sharing), they can move up heirarchy, have better selection of females etc.
    Meat sharing the key to human evolution of intelligence.

    In only complex primates will we make alliances based on the future.
    We also deceive. It has been observed that primates rarely ally with rivals, only deceive or do favours for those who may help 'fight the cause' in the future.

    To do all this deceiving and strategic planning, you need advanced cognitive abilities. (Planning ahead, manipulation etc.)

    Criticisms
    Neo-cortex linked to intelligence. Strong correlation between group size and neocortex size.
    In certain tribes today, we still meat share for pick of the ladies and power.
    However, other explanations of sharing given. Maybe it saves us energy. I.e. by sharing a little we dont have to waste energy in defending our kill.
    Another positive = base validity,

    Made other pointless criticisms from AS on both of them.

    That's basically what i put, only a little more eloquent and a bit more padding!
    Wow! That's much better than what I put! :rolleyes: Well done!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I talked about natural and sexual selection.

    I talked about the ecological & social theories, and compared them, and then concluded that social was better due to evidence (neocortex, concrete tasks etc)

    Then I said that natural selection is an inadequate explanation because, in evolutionary terms, intelligence has evolved so fast, it makes far more sense for it to have happened via intersexual selection, because sexual selection is direct. So I talked about intelligence being an important attraction in all cultures, and that vast research has shown this, and that it's been exaggerated as explained by the runaway hypothesis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the evolution of intelligence was the ques i wasnt so clued up on. i wrote about ecological theory, social theory and sexual theory, concluding that it is probable they are not mutually exclusive as explanations. I only gave one or two strengths and weaknesses for each though. Oh well, overall i thought that exam was ok- could've been worse. Anyone else do the ques on attribution of causality and applications of theories of cog development to education?

    At least there's less stuff to learn for unit 5 and you can generally pick up lots of marks for knowing little. Its all a question of structuring those essays!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nats_012)
    the evolution of intelligence was the ques i wasnt so clued up on. i wrote about ecological theory, social theory and sexual theory, concluding that it is probable they are not mutually exclusive as explanations. I only gave one or two strengths and weaknesses for each though. Oh well, overall i thought that exam was ok- could've been worse. Anyone else do the ques on attribution of causality and applications of theories of cog development to education?

    At least there's less stuff to learn for unit 5 and you can generally pick up lots of marks for knowing little. Its all a question of structuring those essays!
    I did the attribution of casuality question too
    Glad it went okay for you, I didn't think it was too nasty either - it could have been infinitely worse!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    quick question...you know the coursework was out of 90, well does your result out of 90 just added to your AS score or is it changed into a mark out of 100?? Also is it def 480/600 for an A?
    X
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nats_012)
    quick question...you know the coursework was out of 90, well does your result out of 90 just added to your AS score or is it changed into a mark out of 100?? Also is it def 480/600 for an A?
    X
    Course work stays at 90 UMS points, MOD 4 90 UMS and MOD 120 UMS. Yep it stays at 480UMS for a A
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allodoxa)
    I wrote between 2 and a half and 3 pages for each, and I have medium sized writing.

    Didn't ANYONE do animal behaviour? Having minor nervous breakdown here because I think I might have done it completely wrong.
    I did this one, you mean Q13 from Comparative Psych yeah? The question threw me a bit at first because usually they're more specific, say "Describe and evaluate 2 biological explanations of Apparent Altruism". Anyway, what did you write? If you went into any of kin selection/reciprocal altuism/manipulated altruism you're fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Surfing Hamster)
    Wow! That's much better than what I put! :rolleyes: Well done!
    Cheers. I'm sure you did great yourself though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by satin)
    I did this one, you mean Q13 from Comparative Psych yeah?
    Yeah, that's the one. Was begining to think it was only my school who did it. I used alturism, kin selection etc but linked it back to Darwin's theory of evolution and inclusive fitness and such.

    Other people in my class wrote all about Darwin and details of the theory of evolution and evidence for it and those stupid moths, but since the question clearly stated BEHAVIOUR I thought all that was a bit irrelevant.

    Anyway thanks, that's cheered me up.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.