commentary on candidate evidence psychology (national 5 ... · commentary on candidate evidence...

Commentary on Candidate Evidence

Psychology (National 5): Assignment

National 5 Psychology Assignment - Session 2017-18 Commentaries and candidate evidence

SQA | www.understandingstandards.org.uk 1 of 20

Commentary on candidate evidence

The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for each Task of this course assessment task.

Candidate 1

Task A: Describe behaviour associated with a chosen psychological topic B & G

The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of a potential 2 because the topic is

clearly defined and associated behaviour is described. However, the candidate

has not outlined why this area is of psychological importance.

Task B: Explain features of the topic with reference to psychological research evidence, and Task G: Use appropriate terminology and provide basic references

The candidate was awarded 4 marks out of 9 because the candidate provided

detailed and accurate information from two studies (Asch and Mori & Arai) and

reference is made to psychological concepts, but no links between the concept

and research are made. The mark available for G was awarded as the candidate

did use appropriate terminology and provide basic references.

Task C: Describe an aim for research on this topic

The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 1 because an aim was clearly

described that is relevant to the topic and background research.

Task D: Give an experimental/alternative hypothesis for the proposed research study

The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 2 because although the hypothesis

was clearly connected to the topic and the stated aim of the research study, it

was not clear what the measure of the DV would be, for example, estimates of

beans in the jar.

Task E: Describe a suitable research plan, including method, sampling, variables and procedures

The candidate was awarded 9 marks out of 12 in the following ways:

Method: 2 marks were awarded for describing a suitable research method for

their planned study and for providing a potential strength. However, the



candidate did not provide a valid weakness nor a justification for their choice

of method, so some potential marks were unavailable.

Sampling: as the candidate has described their chosen sampling method and

given information about its suitability for their study, 2 marks were awarded. If

they had provided a justification for their choice of sampling method, another

mark could have been given.

Variables: as two relevant variables (DV and extraneous) have been

adequately described, 2 marks were awarded. As the candidate has not

accurately described the IV (which was whether participants were male or

female), the third available mark could not be accessed.

Procedures: sufficient information has been provided on the candidate’s

planned procedure, including types of data to be collected (estimates of how

many beans in a jar), and the steps to be followed by researchers, 2 marks

were given.

Task F: Describe ethical issues and ways of addressing these

The candidate was awarded 0 marks, here, as their planned procedure was

unethical: it could have caused harm to participants (by involving them in a

discussion of estimates).



Candidate 2


The candidate was awarded the full 2 marks because the topic of sleep and

mood is clearly defined and associated behaviour has described. The candidate

also outlines why this area is of psychological importance (could enhance

physical and psychological wellbeing).


The candidate was awarded 8 marks out of 9 because detailed and accurate

information is drawn from two studies (Randy Gardner, 1969, and Wood, 2013)

along with detailed and accurate links being made with Oswald’s restoration

theory (Gardner) and the biological approach (Wood). The mark available for G

was awarded as the candidate did use appropriate terminology and provide basic

references.


The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 1 because an aim was clearly

described that is relevant to the topic and background research.


The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 2 because the hypothesis was clearly

connected to the topic and the stated aim of the research study. However, the DV

was not clearly expressed (there was no indication of how mood would be

measured).



Method: 3 marks were awarded as the type of questionnaire being used was

identified, but not described. However, a potential strength and weakness

were explained and a justification given for the choice of method ‘it is very

familiar with people because almost everyone has completed one so no

guidance needed’.



Sampling: 1 mark awarded for the sampling method was described, but no

information was provided about the suitability of the sampling decision for this

study, or a justification.

Variables: as two relevant variables (IV and DV) have been adequately

described, 2 marks were awarded. The full 3 available marks were not given

as only 2 variables were described.

Procedures: the candidate has provided the steps to be followed when

conducting the research (1 mark) but has not given information on the type of

data to be collected, which would have allowed the allocation of another

mark.


The candidate was awarded the full 4 marks available, here, as the study is

ethical, and detailed and accurate information about avoiding at least two ethical

issues (informed consent, privacy and protection from harm) has been provided

which is relevant to their own study.



Candidate 3


The candidate was awarded 1 mark because the topic has been defined, but not

very clearly. However, associated behaviours have been described in the first

paragraph of B. The candidate has not outlined why this area of study is of

psychological importance therefore the full 2 marks could not be awarded.


The candidate was awarded 5 marks out of 9 because at least 2 studies (Hess,

1959; Hess, Seltzer & Schlien, 1965; Simms, 1967) have been provided, from

which basic information has been drawn (although some detail is provided for

Hess, 1959, the others are less detailed). Basic links to the concept of pupil size

have also been made from the studies. The mark available for G was awarded as

the candidate did use appropriate terminology and provide basic references.

It is important that candidates are encouraged to avoid plagiarism – this section is largely taken from www.bodylanguageexpert.co.uk and it is unclear if the candidate understands how the studies link to the concepts/theories.


The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 1 because the aim was described and

relevant to the topic.


The candidate was awarded 1 mark out of 2 because the hypothesis was clearly

connected to the topic and the stated aim of the research study. However, the DV

was not clearly expressed, for example, how participants rated attractiveness.



Method: 3 marks were awarded as the method has been identified but not

described. However, key features of the method chosen are given in the

explanation of the strengths and weaknesses. However, no justification for

their choice of method was provided.

Sampling: 2 marks the chosen sampling method (random) has been

described, along with a justification for the choice (so that every member has



http://www.bodylanguageexpert.co.uk/

an equal chance of being selected). However, the suitability of the chosen

sampling method has not been provided which would have allowed the

allocation of another mark.

Variables: 1 mark was awarded as one accurate, appropriate variable has

been described (the DV), the IV is inaccurate (the IV is the relative size of the

pupils in the photos; not the way they have been photoshopped).

Procedures: the candidate has provided the steps to be followed when

conducting the research (1 mark) and given information on the type of data to

be collected, ‘write on a piece of paper which picture they found more

attractive’.


The candidate was awarded 2 marks as some information about how the

candidate would ensure confidentiality has been provided. However, for informed

consent, no such information has been provided.



Candidate evidence



Candidate 1



Candidate 2



Candidate 3



commentary on candidate evidence psychology (national 5 ... · commentary on candidate evidence...

Documents