Specific evals in GCSE Psych: improving AO2

1. Specific evals in GCSE Psych: improving AO2

2. AO1 vs AO2 • AO1 = knowledge & understanding (AMRC) • AO2 = analysis & evaluation • Meth crits • Eth crits • AO2 is rarer, available on longer questions only • Must be specific to the study discussed

3. Making AO2 valid – don’t get 0/3 • “This study lacks ecological validity.” • (or any equivalent GENERIC comment.) WHY? In THIS case, WHY? In WHAT WAY? What MIGHT have been different, with the other group / at another time / in the field etc. Not enough to just point out the problem.

4. SPECIFY SPECULATE

5. Good peer revision for tests • Weak: working alone or just learning • Moderate: “tell me the AMRC for study X” / “what’s the main problem with this study” • Good: “explain that eval point” / “how does that apply specifically in the context of this particular study?”

6. Textbook – note of caution • book often has no AO2 beside studies • even when it does it just “signposts” • this is OK for grade C but not A or better • examiners are INSTRUCTED “give no credit to students just stating a generic criticism”

7. Use prompt structures • (in peer-revision, or to yourself in the test) • realise that you have to practice this in writing •  SPECIFY and then  SPECULATE • in that / because / insofar as… • on the other hand / girls might instead have / if conducted nowadays, / an alternative interpretation of the findings might be that / etc

8. So… In the next two slides, individually see if you can see the point that the GENERIC  SPECIFIES  SPECULATES. Where would you give the marks?

9. Libert & Baron (1972) p140 – AO2 only “Two criticisms are that this study has strong demand characteristics, and that it may be a ‘child of its time.’ The laboratory setup may have led the ppts or forced them to feel they ought to conform to the violence seen, whereas in natural contexts they might have been less prone to this behaviour; and in 1972 levels of TV exposure for young children were much lower than now – it might be argued either that higher current levels of exposure make children more immunised / less susceptible to social influence from TV, or the opposite – that this phenomenon is more likely to be prevalent in the age of playstations and cable TV and ought to be re-researched.”

10. Summer (1969) p36 – AO2 only “The study can be criticised methodologically in that it makes potentially serious and inaccurate presumptions about ppts. It generalises all white English, and all Arabs to single homogenous groups, which is unlike people’s real experience and implicitly denies any crossover identity territory; it ignores probably large differences within each group. In addition it could be ethically criticised because generalising and publishing results which imply a fixed difference without further investigation of possible causes of the difference (e.g.cultural, climatic, religious) may reinforce stereotypes and even encourage discriminatory behaviour. ”

11. Use this as a rule of thumb “Could I argue it with sir and persuade him?” • are you basically right / have a strong argument? • can you work it through and explain for this particular study? • did you pick the best line(s) of attack? • if you’re right, and the study is flawed – what is “real” instead / the alternative? • if at any point you’d have to back down… hmmm.

12. In the end… • … you will be able to just “respond” to a study as it’s described to you (like an experienced teacher or researcher) BUT FOR NOW • this can be methodically practised in preparation • this is excellent material for peer revision

13. Task: now try any or all of: • Charlton et al (2000) p141 • Sherif (1935) p101 • Tajfel (1970) p63 • Eysenck (1947) p43 • Lynn & Mynier (1993) p32 • Discuss with partner – plan – argue it out. • Write it up. Peer mark. Where are marks won?