PSYCHOLOGY 16 MARKER - What mark would i possibly get from thisWatch
The WWM was introduced by Baddeley in 1974 after the MSM by Atkinson and Shiffrin was criticised for being too simplistic. The WWM demonstrates that there are different stores for different types of information, it has 4 compartments: Central executive which drives the whole system and allocates information into their store, phonological loop which codes for auditory information, visuospatial sketchpad which codes for both visual and spatial information and lastly the episodic buffer which codes for all three visual, spatial and verbal information.
One research that supports the WWM is the dual park performance conducted by Baddeley. He found that ppts found it more difficult doing two visual tasks at once then doing both visual and verbal tasks. For example, they had to track a light and describe the letter F at the same time. This supports the WWM because it demonstrates there are two separate stores such as the verbal task would occur in the phonological loop and the verbal task would occur in the visuospatial sketchpad, thus shows that all information does not just go into one store. However, the research uses an artificial task of tracking a light and describing a letter which people are not often challenged to do in day to day life in the real world. This means that the research lacks ecological validity and cannot be generalised to the research population. Therefore, this shows that Baddeley’s research lacks in generalisability indicating that his results have low reliability.
Another research that supports WWM is the case study of KF who had brain damage by Shallice and Warrington. They found that KF had a better recall of information when he read himself his digit span was poor when he read out loud - KF could recall verbal information but not visual. This supports WMM’s claim that separate short-term stores manage short-term phonological and visual memories confirming that STM is not a single store. However, this case study only focuses on one individual, so we are unable to generalise to the population due to the small sample size which lowers ecological validity. Therefore, shows that this study also has low reliability in its findings.
Baddeley conducted another research to see if the word length influenced remembering. He found that ppts had difficulty remembering long words then short words, but this effect disappears when the ppt is given a articulatory task for example saying “la la la” which ties up the articulating process. This supports the WWM because it reinforces the fact that there are different stores for different information. However again the research uses an artificial task, people do not often say “la la la” thus shows that the results of this study have low reliability as it lacks in ecological validity.
Your ao3 points are okay, however you should branch out from just talking about any research, for example, you could talk about how there is little known about the central executive, and yet it is said to be the most important component, etc.
Additionally, your ao3 points are a little unclear in places, and perhaps a little ‘wordy’, you would benefit from making some descriptions a little more concise, and explicitly explain why it is either a strength or weakness of the WMM.
Not only this, but in order to achieve more marks, you need to incorporate some elements of Issues and Debates into your answer. For example, idiographic vs. nomothetic (case studies vs larger samples). Though, you may not have done this because you haven’t studied this before, and so this is understandable.
There are areas where you lack ‘good’ English, eg, when you say ‘Another research’, you should try saying, ‘a strength of the WMM is that there is a wealth of research support, for example...’ (or something to this effect)
Lastly, you keep mixing up WWM and WMM, your essay is on the Working Memory Model, and so is shortened to WMM as opposed to WWM. (Though you should write out ‘Workimg memory model’ at least once, and then put WMM is brackets, so examiners know exactly what you’re talking about)
I’m not an examiner, or experienced in marking essays by a long shot, but personally I do not think you would get above a 10 with this essay, perhaps an 8/9 at most. This is mostly because of your weak AO3 points, as you only relied on further research to formulate your points, and had no issues or debates to talk about. Your AO1 was also a little weak in important information.
(It is not necessary to know the years either, so do not exhaust yourself trying to learn these)