I just wanted to know (since my evaluating sucks), would it be good to evaluate the procedures and results in the key study you're talking about or would it be more effective to talk about what other research supports/disproves it?
'Discuss whether brain training tasks are effective in increasing cognitive ability.'
Would it be better to:
A) After describing the procedure and results of the key study, critique the methods they used to conduct the research and analyse the results.
B) After describing the procedure and results of the key study, write about other research which supports or disproves the research and describe and explain why.
Turn on thread page Beta
evaluating in psychology essays? watch
- Thread Starter
- 05-03-2018 16:56
- 05-03-2018 16:57
- 05-03-2018 17:01
Not sure which is ideal but I study a level psychology and tend to do a bit of both; criticise the methodology of the key study then add in a couple of other studies to support/refute an argument.
Tbh I don't think it matters what you do as long as you make it relevant. E.g. If you criticise a study for using say, self report, you have to say why this is bad and what the implications are (the study may lack validity and then you can't draw conclusions from it!) Similarly, if you put it an another piece of research that refutes it, say what that may mean overall (if it refutes a theory you might say this suggests that the theory should be refined).
I think the best method is to evaluate methodology of a study, then use another piece of research that refutes the study but ALSO evaluate that. In our lessons now we are mostly just evaluating key studies as my teachers thinks it'll be too much to learn 3/4 extra studies per topic! Hope this helpsLast edited by Cxletteee; 05-03-2018 at 17:01. Reason: TDA Post Edit
- 11-03-2018 07:55
Maybe critique methodology first and then suggest supporting/challenging research.
Use clear connectives to show how your work is coherent and organised (however, whereas, although....)