PLS Help. Psychology A-Level
I'm doing my Alevel in 2025 and I am really struggling with writing 16 markers for AQA. I don't have a teacher who will mark my essays. So I have no clue whether im writing 16 markers properly. I'm struggling with writing 16 markers and I don't know what to do. So could anyone please mark my essay and give me feedback. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You.
Discuss what research has shown about the localisation of function in the brain (16 marks).
Localisation of function in the brain suggests that different areas of the brain are responsible for specific behaviours and functions. It allows researchers to understand how damage to different areas of the brain can cause illnesses or mental disorders.
The visual cortex, located in the occipital lobe, is responsible for processing visual information. Nerve impulses are transferred from the retina to the visual cortex via optic nerves. The motor cortex,which is located in the frontal lobe controls voluntary movement (ex. Raising your arm). This is where nerve impulses are sent to the motor neuron,which stimulates glands/effectors to carry out a response. The somatosensory cortex processes information which is associated with touch and perception. It is found within the parietal lobe. Lastly, the auditory cortex is located in the temporal lobe, which hears information and processes sound based information.
However, localisation of brain function can be over-simplified. Derjene’s case study on a man who had difficulty reading words, found that communication between the wernicke’s area and the visual cortex was damaged. He showed no signs of damage to the areas of the brain, yet he was unable to understand the information being presented to him. This matters because it suggests that the interactions between different areas of the brain produce complex behaviours. Therefore, the damage between the connection could cause impairments, rather than damage to the localised brain region. However, there is an issue with generalising information from case studies. Case studies are detailed information on a single person / small group of people. This means that they fail to represent the wider population, and the findings obtained cannot be generalisable to others as damage can vary between individuals. Therefore, it is harder to form valid conclusions.
Paul Broca identified an area in the frontal lobe, which is widely known as the broca’s area. Broca’s area is responsible for the production of speech. Individuals with broca’s aphasia have difficulty in producing fluent speech. Wernicke also identified an area in the temporal lobe, which is widely known as the Wernicke's area. It is responsible for understanding speech and language. Individuals with Wernicke’s aphasia, produce nonsense words, as they are unable to understand the content of speech.
One strength of localisation of brain function is research support. Petersen et al. used brain scans to find out that the wernicke’s area was active during a listening task, whereas the broca’s area was active during a reading task. The use of highly controlled and objective methods, allows researchers to form valid conclusions about the functions associated with different areas of the brain. However, Lashley proposes the equipotentiality theory which criticises the idea of localisation of function. Lashley, removed the cortex of rats which were involved in learning the route of a maze. They found that the other cortex’s were just as important, in helping the rats learn the route of the maze. This suggests that complex behaviours such as learning, require different areas of the brain. Therefore, the localisation of brain function may fail to provide an adequate explanation of the processes within the brain.
Another limitation of the localisation of brain function, is that it fails to recognise gender differences. Harast et al found that women have a larger Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area as compared to men, as they use language more.This is a weakness as it suggests that male and female brains operate and process information differently, which is not explained by the localisation of function theory. However, this is a form of alpha bias as it exaggerates the differences between men and women. It suggests there is differences in sizes between the areas of the brain yet it doesn’t explain how these differences affect language abilities.
Discuss what research has shown about the localisation of function in the brain (16 marks).
Localisation of function in the brain suggests that different areas of the brain are responsible for specific behaviours and functions. It allows researchers to understand how damage to different areas of the brain can cause illnesses or mental disorders.
The visual cortex, located in the occipital lobe, is responsible for processing visual information. Nerve impulses are transferred from the retina to the visual cortex via optic nerves. The motor cortex,which is located in the frontal lobe controls voluntary movement (ex. Raising your arm). This is where nerve impulses are sent to the motor neuron,which stimulates glands/effectors to carry out a response. The somatosensory cortex processes information which is associated with touch and perception. It is found within the parietal lobe. Lastly, the auditory cortex is located in the temporal lobe, which hears information and processes sound based information.
However, localisation of brain function can be over-simplified. Derjene’s case study on a man who had difficulty reading words, found that communication between the wernicke’s area and the visual cortex was damaged. He showed no signs of damage to the areas of the brain, yet he was unable to understand the information being presented to him. This matters because it suggests that the interactions between different areas of the brain produce complex behaviours. Therefore, the damage between the connection could cause impairments, rather than damage to the localised brain region. However, there is an issue with generalising information from case studies. Case studies are detailed information on a single person / small group of people. This means that they fail to represent the wider population, and the findings obtained cannot be generalisable to others as damage can vary between individuals. Therefore, it is harder to form valid conclusions.
Paul Broca identified an area in the frontal lobe, which is widely known as the broca’s area. Broca’s area is responsible for the production of speech. Individuals with broca’s aphasia have difficulty in producing fluent speech. Wernicke also identified an area in the temporal lobe, which is widely known as the Wernicke's area. It is responsible for understanding speech and language. Individuals with Wernicke’s aphasia, produce nonsense words, as they are unable to understand the content of speech.
One strength of localisation of brain function is research support. Petersen et al. used brain scans to find out that the wernicke’s area was active during a listening task, whereas the broca’s area was active during a reading task. The use of highly controlled and objective methods, allows researchers to form valid conclusions about the functions associated with different areas of the brain. However, Lashley proposes the equipotentiality theory which criticises the idea of localisation of function. Lashley, removed the cortex of rats which were involved in learning the route of a maze. They found that the other cortex’s were just as important, in helping the rats learn the route of the maze. This suggests that complex behaviours such as learning, require different areas of the brain. Therefore, the localisation of brain function may fail to provide an adequate explanation of the processes within the brain.
Another limitation of the localisation of brain function, is that it fails to recognise gender differences. Harast et al found that women have a larger Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area as compared to men, as they use language more.This is a weakness as it suggests that male and female brains operate and process information differently, which is not explained by the localisation of function theory. However, this is a form of alpha bias as it exaggerates the differences between men and women. It suggests there is differences in sizes between the areas of the brain yet it doesn’t explain how these differences affect language abilities.
Reply 1
So I added your essay on Tilf website for psychology AQA and it gave me the feedback below. Heads up: Tilf is not 100% accurate. It tends to be either a bit harsh or a bit lenient depending on the subject so I'd focus more on the feedback which is 100% spot on and the mark is more a way to give you an idea where you are but don't take it religiously.
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
Reply 2
Original post
by lohibaSo I added your essay on Tilf website for psychology AQA and it gave me the feedback below. Heads up: Tilf is not 100% accurate. It tends to be either a bit harsh or a bit lenient depending on the subject so I'd focus more on the feedback which is 100% spot on and the mark is more a way to give you an idea where you are but don't take it religiously.
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
Thank you for replying. I will try re-writing it and adding some of the suggestions. I guess I’m just struggling writing clearly
Reply 3
Original post
by stuclhThank you for replying. I will try re-writing it and adding some of the suggestions. I guess I’m just struggling writing clearly
14/16 is a great mark! you're doing well!
Reply 4
Original post
by stuclhThank you for replying. I will try re-writing it and adding some of the suggestions. I guess I’m just struggling writing clearly
Hey are u doing it priv?
Reply 5
Original post
by mxalikhxbxhHey are u doing it priv?
soz I don't understand what you mean lol.
Reply 6
Original post
by lohibaSo I added your essay on Tilf website for psychology AQA and it gave me the feedback below. Heads up: Tilf is not 100% accurate. It tends to be either a bit harsh or a bit lenient depending on the subject so I'd focus more on the feedback which is 100% spot on and the mark is more a way to give you an idea where you are but don't take it religiously.
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
Paragraphs Feedback
The introduction provides a clear overview of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and mentions specific areas such as the visual cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and auditory cortex. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these areas function and their significance.
The second paragraph introduces a case study (Derjene's case) to discuss the limitations of localisation. This is a good attempt to show the complexity of brain functions, but the explanation could be more detailed and clearer.
The third paragraph discusses Broca's area and Wernicke's area, providing relevant information about their functions and associated disorders. However, it could benefit from more detailed examples or studies to support the points made.
The fourth paragraph mentions Petersen et al.'s research, which supports localisation. It also discusses Lashley's equipotentiality theory, providing a balanced view. However, the explanation of Lashley's study could be more detailed.
The fifth paragraph discusses gender differences in brain function, citing Harast et al.'s research. This is a relevant point, but the explanation of alpha bias and its implications could be clearer.
The conclusion ties together the various points discussed, but it could be more cohesive and provide a stronger final argument.
What Went Well
The essay covers a range of topics related to the localisation of function in the brain, including specific brain areas, case studies, and research findings. It also discusses limitations and alternative perspectives, providing a balanced view.
Even Better If
The essay would benefit from more detailed explanations and examples to support the points made. Additionally, improving the clarity and cohesion of the arguments would enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall Feedback
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept of localisation of function in the brain and discusses various relevant studies and theories. However, it lacks depth in some areas and could benefit from more detailed explanations and clearer arguments. The balance between supporting and opposing views is commendable, but the cohesion and clarity of the essay could be improved.
Mark
Score: 14
Level: 4
whats tilf
Reply 7
Original post
by stuclhsoz I don't understand what you mean lol.
u said u don't have. teacher to mark it, so I assumed ur not doing it at school?
Reply 8
Original post
by mxalikhxbxhu said u don't have. teacher to mark it, so I assumed ur not doing it at school?
nope i am doing it at school, but my teacher just doesn't have any time to mark apparently
Reply 9
Original post
by lohiba14/16 is a great mark! you're doing well!
my teacher had time to mark it just this one 😕 and she gave me 8/16. so now i really don't know. i have mocks in one week and she's really stressed me out
Reply 10
Original post
by stuclhmy teacher had time to mark it just this one 😕 and she gave me 8/16. so now i really don't know. i have mocks in one week and she's really stressed me out
Teachers always mark harshly, there’s several reasons as to why they do that in ur mocks. I would say trust your instincts, get help from other teachers if you can, and maybe try to ignore this teacher but take her advice on board. And ignore the rest, some teachers know how to plainly give negatives but not positives. So I would say take these negatives include them, and bring out the positive. Play the game, with yourself like that. And don’t take anything she says to ur head.
Reply 11
can i help?
Reply 12
Original post
by odedesolomoncan i help?
yes please. im actually desperate lol
Reply 13
Considering this thread is a few months old now, I'm moreso aiming this reply at anyone who may be looking for similar answers but this may also be useful for you. I achieved an A* in the 2024 aqa psychology series and I used to structure my essays a little differently. So, for 16 markers, 6 marks will be your AO1 and then the other 10 will be comprised of AO2 and AO3 if there was a stem with the question, or just AO1 and AO3 if there was no stem. I honestly don't think I've seen this question as a 16 marker before, mostly 8 markers so I can't tell you exactly what I would add, as I'm unsure. Anyway, usually, my first paragraph would be all of my AO1 points so I can get those 6 marks out of the way - e.g. in my first paragraph I would define what localisation of function means, examples of lobes/ areas and what they do - as you mentioned, the occipital lobe/ visual cortex is responsible for identifying and processing visual information to produce an image within the brain. I would also mention wernicke's and broca's area in the first paragraph as well as they're key studies. You could also potentially mention neuroplasticity and functional recovery here as well. (I truly do not know, don't take my word as gospel, I'm moreso trying to share the structure)
The rest of the essay would be evaluation paragraphs - so, one of my paragraphs would be about the lack of population validity from case studies from wernicke's and broca's case studies. Also, I believe these were post mortems? so that there is low temporal resolution - you can't validly conclude that the aphasias were caused by damage to these areas because the brains were studied post death, so that you can't measure activity across the brain during speech or language apprehension. This paragraph would be done as a PEEAL paragraph. However, you could also add in this paragraph that despite the low population validity, case studies do provide researchers with lots of detail regarding a particular brain abnormality, so while they may not generalise to everyone, they still give researchers the opportunity to gain detail and depth that they may not have been able to achieve with any other type of study.
Just repeat your evaluation points in subsequent PEEAL paragraphs like that until you have 3-4 evaluation paragraphs. Of course, everyone writes essays differently and that's perfectly fine. But, it is useful to have a consistent structure so that you're ensuring that you're covering all of the assessment objectives and getting as much marks as possible. I did skim read your essay, and while it was quite good, I couldn't really identify any type of structure. At school, I was also taught to kind of integrate my AO1, AO2 (if applicable) and AO3 points into each PEEAL paragraph but I preferred to start of with the AO1s first as that made most sense to me. I hope this was clear to understand, please do ask me questions if this wasn't a clear enough answer.
Also, I'm not sure what year you're in so I'm unsure as to how much content you have covered but for all of your essays, I would absolutely recommend bringing in any research methods/ issues and debates knowledge as part of your evaluation. you did do this here - e.g. the bit about low generalisability and also the bit about minimising the differences between men and women (beta bias), which is good so I'd definitely continue doing that.
The rest of the essay would be evaluation paragraphs - so, one of my paragraphs would be about the lack of population validity from case studies from wernicke's and broca's case studies. Also, I believe these were post mortems? so that there is low temporal resolution - you can't validly conclude that the aphasias were caused by damage to these areas because the brains were studied post death, so that you can't measure activity across the brain during speech or language apprehension. This paragraph would be done as a PEEAL paragraph. However, you could also add in this paragraph that despite the low population validity, case studies do provide researchers with lots of detail regarding a particular brain abnormality, so while they may not generalise to everyone, they still give researchers the opportunity to gain detail and depth that they may not have been able to achieve with any other type of study.
Just repeat your evaluation points in subsequent PEEAL paragraphs like that until you have 3-4 evaluation paragraphs. Of course, everyone writes essays differently and that's perfectly fine. But, it is useful to have a consistent structure so that you're ensuring that you're covering all of the assessment objectives and getting as much marks as possible. I did skim read your essay, and while it was quite good, I couldn't really identify any type of structure. At school, I was also taught to kind of integrate my AO1, AO2 (if applicable) and AO3 points into each PEEAL paragraph but I preferred to start of with the AO1s first as that made most sense to me. I hope this was clear to understand, please do ask me questions if this wasn't a clear enough answer.
Also, I'm not sure what year you're in so I'm unsure as to how much content you have covered but for all of your essays, I would absolutely recommend bringing in any research methods/ issues and debates knowledge as part of your evaluation. you did do this here - e.g. the bit about low generalisability and also the bit about minimising the differences between men and women (beta bias), which is good so I'd definitely continue doing that.
Reply 14
Original post
by Mollyhayes234Considering this thread is a few months old now, I'm moreso aiming this reply at anyone who may be looking for similar answers but this may also be useful for you. I achieved an A* in the 2024 aqa psychology series and I used to structure my essays a little differently. So, for 16 markers, 6 marks will be your AO1 and then the other 10 will be comprised of AO2 and AO3 if there was a stem with the question, or just AO1 and AO3 if there was no stem. I honestly don't think I've seen this question as a 16 marker before, mostly 8 markers so I can't tell you exactly what I would add, as I'm unsure. Anyway, usually, my first paragraph would be all of my AO1 points so I can get those 6 marks out of the way - e.g. in my first paragraph I would define what localisation of function means, examples of lobes/ areas and what they do - as you mentioned, the occipital lobe/ visual cortex is responsible for identifying and processing visual information to produce an image within the brain. I would also mention wernicke's and broca's area in the first paragraph as well as they're key studies. You could also potentially mention neuroplasticity and functional recovery here as well. (I truly do not know, don't take my word as gospel, I'm moreso trying to share the structure)
The rest of the essay would be evaluation paragraphs - so, one of my paragraphs would be about the lack of population validity from case studies from wernicke's and broca's case studies. Also, I believe these were post mortems? so that there is low temporal resolution - you can't validly conclude that the aphasias were caused by damage to these areas because the brains were studied post death, so that you can't measure activity across the brain during speech or language apprehension. This paragraph would be done as a PEEAL paragraph. However, you could also add in this paragraph that despite the low population validity, case studies do provide researchers with lots of detail regarding a particular brain abnormality, so while they may not generalise to everyone, they still give researchers the opportunity to gain detail and depth that they may not have been able to achieve with any other type of study.
Just repeat your evaluation points in subsequent PEEAL paragraphs like that until you have 3-4 evaluation paragraphs. Of course, everyone writes essays differently and that's perfectly fine. But, it is useful to have a consistent structure so that you're ensuring that you're covering all of the assessment objectives and getting as much marks as possible. I did skim read your essay, and while it was quite good, I couldn't really identify any type of structure. At school, I was also taught to kind of integrate my AO1, AO2 (if applicable) and AO3 points into each PEEAL paragraph but I preferred to start of with the AO1s first as that made most sense to me. I hope this was clear to understand, please do ask me questions if this wasn't a clear enough answer.
Also, I'm not sure what year you're in so I'm unsure as to how much content you have covered but for all of your essays, I would absolutely recommend bringing in any research methods/ issues and debates knowledge as part of your evaluation. you did do this here - e.g. the bit about low generalisability and also the bit about minimising the differences between men and women (beta bias), which is good so I'd definitely continue doing that.
The rest of the essay would be evaluation paragraphs - so, one of my paragraphs would be about the lack of population validity from case studies from wernicke's and broca's case studies. Also, I believe these were post mortems? so that there is low temporal resolution - you can't validly conclude that the aphasias were caused by damage to these areas because the brains were studied post death, so that you can't measure activity across the brain during speech or language apprehension. This paragraph would be done as a PEEAL paragraph. However, you could also add in this paragraph that despite the low population validity, case studies do provide researchers with lots of detail regarding a particular brain abnormality, so while they may not generalise to everyone, they still give researchers the opportunity to gain detail and depth that they may not have been able to achieve with any other type of study.
Just repeat your evaluation points in subsequent PEEAL paragraphs like that until you have 3-4 evaluation paragraphs. Of course, everyone writes essays differently and that's perfectly fine. But, it is useful to have a consistent structure so that you're ensuring that you're covering all of the assessment objectives and getting as much marks as possible. I did skim read your essay, and while it was quite good, I couldn't really identify any type of structure. At school, I was also taught to kind of integrate my AO1, AO2 (if applicable) and AO3 points into each PEEAL paragraph but I preferred to start of with the AO1s first as that made most sense to me. I hope this was clear to understand, please do ask me questions if this wasn't a clear enough answer.
Also, I'm not sure what year you're in so I'm unsure as to how much content you have covered but for all of your essays, I would absolutely recommend bringing in any research methods/ issues and debates knowledge as part of your evaluation. you did do this here - e.g. the bit about low generalisability and also the bit about minimising the differences between men and women (beta bias), which is good so I'd definitely continue doing that.
thank you for your reply. im in year 13 now and i think the alevel stress is getting to me. I've had no help from school on how to structure my ao3. I do find it hard to write essays but ive seen so many people writing evaluation with the PEEAL paragraph but i struggle with writing them. Im stressed now that your saying you couldn't identify a structure lol. please i need any type of help. pls could you share an essay if you have any
Reply 15
10
Original post
by stuclhthank you for your reply. im in year 13 now and i think the alevel stress is getting to me. I've had no help from school on how to structure my ao3. I do find it hard to write essays but ive seen so many people writing evaluation with the PEEAL paragraph but i struggle with writing them. Im stressed now that your saying you couldn't identify a structure lol. please i need any type of help. pls could you share an essay if you have any
Hi.I am in year 13 currently and if u r doing aqa psychology i would recommend using the aqa psychology textbook for evaluation which are in PEE structure. They have alot of evaluation for each topic and as 16 markers without application require 10 marks of evaluation, it would be best to memorise at least 3 evaluations for each topic and using them accordingly. Use active recall and blurting to try memorise the evaluations and spaced repetition as it is very easy to forget the eval due to the amount of topics there are
(edited 10 months ago)
Reply 16
Original post
by stuclhthank you for your reply. im in year 13 now and i think the alevel stress is getting to me. I've had no help from school on how to structure my ao3. I do find it hard to write essays but ive seen so many people writing evaluation with the PEEAL paragraph but i struggle with writing them. Im stressed now that your saying you couldn't identify a structure lol. please i need any type of help. pls could you share an essay if you have any
Hi, I've just re-read it properly and I think that a lot of your paragraphs are well structured and despite not necessarily strictly adhering to a PEEAL structure, I agree with one of the first comments that you would achieve marks in the top band as there is a good amount of AO1 content and AO3. Essay structures and preferences are honestly subjective and I appreciate that not everyone likes to adhere to a structure, but I think it can be good to loosely adhere to a structure to ensure your answer remains focused and that you're hitting the marks. I think also using a PEEAL structure can help in your revision. Your essay was good though, so don't sweat too much
I'm going to re-write your second to last paragraph with a PEEAL structure, as I felt it lacked depth within the explanation and got a bit distracted. While you had two very good evaluative points in this paragraph, it seems you kind of forgot to explain in depth what your point was. This paragraph mar look like this:
Point: One strength of the theory of localisation is that it uses brain scans to provide research support, such as fMRI scans*.
Example: For example, Peterson et al. conducted fMRI scans on a group of volunteers and found that during tasks that required reading, Broca's area displayed increased neural activity and during listening activities, wernicke's area displayed an increase in neural activity.
Explanation: This provides evidence for the theory of localisation of function because different parts of the brain e.g wernicke and broca's area displayed an increase in neural activity in response to specific tasks, as indicated by an increased movement of blood to these areas as shown by the fMRI scans, so that these areas may be largely responsible for the production of certain behaviours and abilities such as language production and comprehension.
Evaluation: The use of brain scans, such as fMRI scans, to provide research support for the localisation of brain function is positive because they are objective and done in highly controlled settings - for example, distractions can be limited and conditions and tasks/ stimuli can be standardised and repeated across experimental groups, in order to increase the internal validity of the results obtained. This means that researchers can draw valid and accurate conclusions regarding localisation of function within the brain. (you could also talk about the benefits of fMRI scans etc. as opposed to post mortem examinations previously used - e.g. greater temporal resolution so you can see changes in neural activity in real time instead of examining dead brain tissue and assuming that any potential damage caused the aphasia when the person was alive, because researchers can't validly assume this because they can't go back in time and assess the person as they're dead...)
You could also counterpoint this evaluation: However, increased neural activity doesn't always equate to the area being entirely responsible for the function, and the brain works in an interconnected fashion (something like that, similar to what you said, leading on nicely to your next paragraph)
Link: Therefore, localisation of function does have research support, e.g. brain scans, to provide evidence and support for this theory.
Your next paragraph could then be about the study conducted by Lacey as well. You could also mention functional recovery and neuroplasticity, so that when one area becomes damaged, other areas of the brain can actually take over this function so that it is not lost, indicating that localisation of function may not be entirely accurate as different regions of the brain can work together to perform the same function or take over from damaged areas entirely.
Next paragraph would be about gender differences.
I genuinelu don't remember what the 'A' within PEEAL stands for, in my first comment. I think I meant 'counterpoint' - it's basically an evaluation within an evaluation, where you're evaluating what you just said. E.g. brain scan good, but fMRI have lower spatial resolution than post mortem and sometimes increased blood flow doesn't actually mean the area is responsible for the function
Honestly, this is a really strange essay question and I haven't seen it before so I can't really direct you with what to write. Whenever you're unsure, I'd absolutely recommend looking at the mark scheme to see where you would've gotten marks. The PEEL structure honestly just feels like yapping a lot. I will submit an essay on a topic I'm more comfortable writing about soon, so that you can see what a model essay would look like
*i'm assuming fMRI scans were used.
Reply 17
Original post
by mollyhayes234hi, i've just re-read it properly and i think that a lot of your paragraphs are well structured and despite not necessarily strictly adhering to a peeal structure, i agree with one of the first comments that you would achieve marks in the top band as there is a good amount of ao1 content and ao3. Essay structures and preferences are honestly subjective and i appreciate that not everyone likes to adhere to a structure, but i think it can be good to loosely adhere to a structure to ensure your answer remains focused and that you're hitting the marks. I think also using a peeal structure can help in your revision. Your essay was good though, so don't sweat too much
i'm going to re-write your second to last paragraph with a peeal structure, as i felt it lacked depth within the explanation and got a bit distracted. While you had two very good evaluative points in this paragraph, it seems you kind of forgot to explain in depth what your point was. This paragraph mar look like this:
Point: One strength of the theory of localisation is that it uses brain scans to provide research support, such as fmri scans*.
Example: For example, peterson et al. Conducted fmri scans on a group of volunteers and found that during tasks that required reading, broca's area displayed increased neural activity and during listening activities, wernicke's area displayed an increase in neural activity.
Explanation: This provides evidence for the theory of localisation of function because different parts of the brain e.g wernicke and broca's area displayed an increase in neural activity in response to specific tasks, as indicated by an increased movement of blood to these areas as shown by the fmri scans, so that these areas may be largely responsible for the production of certain behaviours and abilities such as language production and comprehension.
Evaluation: The use of brain scans, such as fmri scans, to provide research support for the localisation of brain function is positive because they are objective and done in highly controlled settings - for example, distractions can be limited and conditions and tasks/ stimuli can be standardised and repeated across experimental groups, in order to increase the internal validity of the results obtained. This means that researchers can draw valid and accurate conclusions regarding localisation of function within the brain. (you could also talk about the benefits of fmri scans etc. As opposed to post mortem examinations previously used - e.g. Greater temporal resolution so you can see changes in neural activity in real time instead of examining dead brain tissue and assuming that any potential damage caused the aphasia when the person was alive, because researchers can't validly assume this because they can't go back in time and assess the person as they're dead...)
you could also counterpoint this evaluation: However, increased neural activity doesn't always equate to the area being entirely responsible for the function, and the brain works in an interconnected fashion (something like that, similar to what you said, leading on nicely to your next paragraph)
link: Therefore, localisation of function does have research support, e.g. Brain scans, to provide evidence and support for this theory.
Your next paragraph could then be about the study conducted by lacey as well. You could also mention functional recovery and neuroplasticity, so that when one area becomes damaged, other areas of the brain can actually take over this function so that it is not lost, indicating that localisation of function may not be entirely accurate as different regions of the brain can work together to perform the same function or take over from damaged areas entirely.
Next paragraph would be about gender differences.
I genuinelu don't remember what the 'a' within peeal stands for, in my first comment. I think i meant 'counterpoint' - it's basically an evaluation within an evaluation, where you're evaluating what you just said. E.g. Brain scan good, but fmri have lower spatial resolution than post mortem and sometimes increased blood flow doesn't actually mean the area is responsible for the function
honestly, this is a really strange essay question and i haven't seen it before so i can't really direct you with what to write. Whenever you're unsure, i'd absolutely recommend looking at the mark scheme to see where you would've gotten marks. The peel structure honestly just feels like yapping a lot. I will submit an essay on a topic i'm more comfortable writing about soon, so that you can see what a model essay would look like
*i'm assuming fmri scans were used.
i'm going to re-write your second to last paragraph with a peeal structure, as i felt it lacked depth within the explanation and got a bit distracted. While you had two very good evaluative points in this paragraph, it seems you kind of forgot to explain in depth what your point was. This paragraph mar look like this:
Point: One strength of the theory of localisation is that it uses brain scans to provide research support, such as fmri scans*.
Example: For example, peterson et al. Conducted fmri scans on a group of volunteers and found that during tasks that required reading, broca's area displayed increased neural activity and during listening activities, wernicke's area displayed an increase in neural activity.
Explanation: This provides evidence for the theory of localisation of function because different parts of the brain e.g wernicke and broca's area displayed an increase in neural activity in response to specific tasks, as indicated by an increased movement of blood to these areas as shown by the fmri scans, so that these areas may be largely responsible for the production of certain behaviours and abilities such as language production and comprehension.
Evaluation: The use of brain scans, such as fmri scans, to provide research support for the localisation of brain function is positive because they are objective and done in highly controlled settings - for example, distractions can be limited and conditions and tasks/ stimuli can be standardised and repeated across experimental groups, in order to increase the internal validity of the results obtained. This means that researchers can draw valid and accurate conclusions regarding localisation of function within the brain. (you could also talk about the benefits of fmri scans etc. As opposed to post mortem examinations previously used - e.g. Greater temporal resolution so you can see changes in neural activity in real time instead of examining dead brain tissue and assuming that any potential damage caused the aphasia when the person was alive, because researchers can't validly assume this because they can't go back in time and assess the person as they're dead...)
you could also counterpoint this evaluation: However, increased neural activity doesn't always equate to the area being entirely responsible for the function, and the brain works in an interconnected fashion (something like that, similar to what you said, leading on nicely to your next paragraph)
link: Therefore, localisation of function does have research support, e.g. Brain scans, to provide evidence and support for this theory.
Your next paragraph could then be about the study conducted by lacey as well. You could also mention functional recovery and neuroplasticity, so that when one area becomes damaged, other areas of the brain can actually take over this function so that it is not lost, indicating that localisation of function may not be entirely accurate as different regions of the brain can work together to perform the same function or take over from damaged areas entirely.
Next paragraph would be about gender differences.
I genuinelu don't remember what the 'a' within peeal stands for, in my first comment. I think i meant 'counterpoint' - it's basically an evaluation within an evaluation, where you're evaluating what you just said. E.g. Brain scan good, but fmri have lower spatial resolution than post mortem and sometimes increased blood flow doesn't actually mean the area is responsible for the function
honestly, this is a really strange essay question and i haven't seen it before so i can't really direct you with what to write. Whenever you're unsure, i'd absolutely recommend looking at the mark scheme to see where you would've gotten marks. The peel structure honestly just feels like yapping a lot. I will submit an essay on a topic i'm more comfortable writing about soon, so that you can see what a model essay would look like
*i'm assuming fmri scans were used.
legend thank you so much🙌.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Help applying for sonography
- psychology a level revision
- Pls help me😢☺️😢Wycombe Abbey
- AQA PSYCH predicted papers 2024 R THEY WORTH IT???????
- Any psychology tutors here
- Edexcel psychology!!
- can u prepare a study timetable?
- Free revision resources for psychology and geography
- a levels pls helpp
- a-level subjects help please !!!!
- psych aqa alevel
- Criminology jobs
- This or that??
- Simplified AQA Chemistry Specification
- send 3rd a-level option help!!
- How to get into educational psych
- a-level choices help
- do i need maths a level for medicine?? help
- LAE offers
- classics or psychology a level??
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Possible for someone to mark my question (is Psych Paper 1 Q4 2025)Last reply 5 months ago
AQA A-Level Psychology AO1 + AO3 Forensic Psychology Pack for an A/A*Last reply 5 months ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 9th June 2025How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
