The average overall mark for the exam was 87 out of 140, or 62%.

Transcription

1 Review of the 2015 Unit 3 & 4 Psychology Exam Meredith McKague Director of Teaching and Learning Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences The University of Melbourne mckaguem@unimelb.edu.au 2015 Exam Performance The average overall mark for the exam was 87 out of 140, or 62%. The mean score for SecDon A was 50/65 (77%) The mean score for SecDon B was 31/60 (52%) SecDon C: Research Scenario The average score for SecDon C secdon was 6 marks out of a possible 15, or 40%. This reflected a tendency for students to perform in the lower range on the extended response only approximately 1/3 of students scored greater than or equal to 5/10 on QuesDon 3. 1

2 SecDon C: Research Scenario The research scenario described an experiment designed to invesdgate how the introducdon of false informadon affects people s eyewitness tesdmonies. The scenario was based on actual experiments conducted by Elizabeth LoYus and her colleagues. The extended response (QuesDon 3) required students to write a Discussion secdon for the experiment, following the usual convendons. SecDon C: VCAA Advice on The extended response quesdon in SecDon C will be marked according to the following criteria: iden%fy and describe the key terms/theories/issues explain the relevant terms/theories/issues and make connecdons between psychological concepts/theories and data and research use appropriate examples/evidence/data to support the response interpret and analyse the issues/data/informadon evaluate issues/data/informadon and draw appropriate conclusions Ques&on 1 (3 marks) Construct a research hypothesis for this study. A research hypothesis should state a predicdon reladng to the expected effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable as a means for tesdng a theory, or for answering a specific research quesdon. Question 1 Marks Average %

3 To score 3 marks for this quesdon, students needed to: Include reference to the inidal manipuladon of memory (i.e., the independent variable) Include reference to the subsequent test of memory, with the mean percentage, likelihood, or number of false memories/false yes responses as the dependent variable. Indicate the direcdon of the predicted effect that is, the way in which the two groups were predicted to differ on the dependent variable (i.e., not simply that there would be a difference). Students could express their hypothesis in fully operadonalised terms, or in broader terms. Reference to a specific populadon was not required as the research quesdon related to human memory performance in general The researcher wanted to invesdgate how the introducdon of false informadon affects people s eyewitness tesdmony, and so it is implicit that the hypothesis pertains to people in general. Note the difference between this scenario and the very specific research populadon sdpulated in the 2014 SecDon C scenario, which did require the populadon to be idendfied. It was not correct to idendfy university students as the populadon. The most common error was a tendency to conflate the inidal quesdoning phase with the final test phase. That is, many students made no clear disdncdon between the inidal manipuladon of memory (the independent variable) and the subsequent test phase five days later (the dependent variable). For example, many responses went something like: ParDcipants who were asked misleading quesdons would be more likely to respond yes to objects or items that did not appear in the video than those who were asked open quesdons. Students who gave responses like this could score no more than 2 marks out of 3. 3

4 A number of example research hypotheses for this quesdon have been provided in the following slides. All of these examples meet the three criteria required to obtain the full 3 marks on this quesdon. Reference to the inidal manipuladon of memory (independent variable) is coded in red font; reference to the subsequent test of memory (dependent variable) is coded in blue font reference to the direcdon of the effect is coded by green font. It was hypothesised that the par&cipants in Group B who ini&ally answered misleading ques&ons in which the word the was used to refer to objects and events that did not actually appear in the video would produce a higher percentage of false YES responses to the same ques6ons phrased in open form on a memory test conducted 5 days later than those in Group A who were ini&ally asked the ques&ons in open form using a. It was hypothesised that people who were asked ques&ons referring to events that did not actually occur in a witnessed scene that were phrased misleadingly (e.g., did you see the ) would be more likely to say that they did witness those events on a subsequent test of memory than people who were asked the same ini&al ques&ons in an open form using the words did you see a. 4

5 It was hypothesised that the phrasing of ques&ons as either leading ( did you see the ) or non- leading ( did you see a. ) in an ini&al interview referring to events that did not actually occur would influence performance on a memory test 5 days later, such that those in the leading quesdon condidon would be significantly more likely to produce false yes responses than those in the non- leading quesdon condidon. It was hypothesised that ini&al leading ques&oning referring to events or objects that did not actually appear in a witnessed event would result in the reconsolidadon of false informadon for the events such that those exposed to misleading ques&ons would subsequently be significantly more likely to recall events that did not occur than people who were ini&ally asked non- misleading (open) ques&ons. Par&cipants who were asked open ques&ons about objects and events that did not occur in a video would be less likely to respond yes to objects/events that were not present than par&cipants asked misleading ques&ons when all par6cipants were ques6oned again using open ques6ons one week later. 5

6 Note the use of past tense for expressing hypotheses, which is appropriate because research reports always refer to work that has already been conducted. The use of past tense phrasing was not required, but is worthwhile nodng that this is the standard pracdce in sciendfic report wridng. SecDon C: QuesDon 2 Ques&on 2 (2 marks) IdenDfy either one decepdve element or one potendally harmful/distressing element of this experiment. What measure could be taken to address this to ensure that the study is conducted ethically? Question 2 Marks Average % SecDon C: QuesDon 2 PotenDally decepdve element: the use of misleading quesdons referring to events that did not occur. PotenDally harmful element: exposure to video of a distressing event. 6

7 SecDon C: QuesDon 2 The key ethical observadon to make regarding an experiment that requires decepdon is that the decepdon must be fully disclosed ayer the study by debriefing pardcipants (and pardcipants are usually given the opdon to withdraw their data at this stage if they wish, but this level of knowledge is not required for VCE). Students who said that the misleading element could be addressed by not asking misleading quesdons missed the point of the experiment, which depended on decepdon. SecDon C: QuesDon 2 The best ethical treatment for the harmful element is to ensure informed consent at the outset: advising pardcipants regarding the content of the video and/or screening pardcipants who might be affected by a prior road trauma advising pardcipants that they are free to withdraw at any stage if they find the content distressing. pardcipants should also be fully debriefed ayerwards to determine the impact of the content, and provided with sources for follow- up counseling/care if required. SecDon C: QuesDon 2 Some students suggested to ensure the video was staged, rather than real and to inform pardcipants that no one was injured. Others suggested using a scene that did not involve any form of accident or crime, although this may compromise the external validity of the experiment, so was not as strong a response. Any one of these suggesdons for ethical treatment of the distressing content was sufficient for the mark to be awarded. A number of students confused debriefing with informed consent, stadng incorrectly that debriefing should be used at the start of the experiment to warn them of the content; no mark could be awarded for this. 7

8 QuesDon 3 Ques&on 3 (10 marks) This quesdon asked students to construct a Discussion secdon for the experiment described in the scenario. Students were asked to include in their response: A statement of the aim of the experiment. A descrip%on of the results in the student s own words that clearly iden%fied and explained the observed effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. An interpreta%on of the results in rela6on to the theory being tested. ConsideraDon of the potendal limitadons of the study and whether there might be any alternadve interpretadon of the results. An evalua%on of the results in reladon to eyewitness tesdmony in a real- world context. Question 3 Marks Average % This question provided an opportunity for students to demonstrate their higher-order thinking and HolisDc Marking of SecDon C Gestalt the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. DeterminaDon of the mark is assisted by descriptors of the expected qualides for the mark range; These have been wrinen to reflect the level of achievement expected at a pardcular mark or mark range. The descriptors are only a general guide: they do not necessarily match precisely the performance of an individual response. Both the criteria and the descriptors are fully explored and directly related to the range of student responses during intensive assessor training before and during the examinadon assessment process. The response should be coherent and integrated. QuesDon 3 Provided an opportunity for high- performing students to demonstrate their higher- order thinking and reasoning skills. The majority of responses showed a limited anempt, or no anempt whatsoever, to link and interpret the data in reladon to the appropriate psychological theory. This was the primary reason that many students did not score in the upper ends of the marking criteria. This is an area for teachers and students to work on for future exams, which are likely to condnue to assess the ability to integrate knowledge of psychological theories with the interpretadon of data. The ability to interpret data in reladon to the relevant theory is a essendal skill for those students who intend to pursue psychology at terdary level. 8

9 SecDon C: The vast majority of responses consisted of a piece of connected text, somedmes with use of sub- headings, which broadly followed the convendons for wridng a Discussion secdon. Whilst dot- points are allowable for SecDon C, it would not be appropriate to write a Discussion secdon using dot- points. SecDon C: QuesDon 3 Naming LoYus was not required (although the stronger responses would have mendoned her name). It was sufficient to say that the results were consistent with theories of memory that emphasise the reconstrucdve/fallible/ malleable nature of memory And/or that there was reference to, or effecdvely a descripdon of, re- consolidadon theory. SecDon C: QuesDon 3 A response that met most of the basic criteria and made an a9empt to relate the results to theory scored at least 5. Common error: The dependent variable was the mean (or average) percentage for each group of incorrect yes responses to the quesdons regarding objects/events that did not appear, NOT the mean (or average) percentage of pardcipants in each group responding yes to quesdons about objects/events that did not appear. 9

10 SecDon C: QuesDon 3 Students should be caudous of using phrases like the results prove that. It is bener to say that the results support or are consistent with the hypothesis. A good limitadon, other than the non- representadveness of the sample, was that a matched- pardcipant design would have been bener than simple random allocadon to groups especially suggesdons to match pardcipants between groups on memory performance (in addidon to age, gender, etc.). SuggesDons for a repeated measures design needed to consider whether this might compromise the validity of the study by providing one memory condidon before the other, and whether counterbalancing could address this sufficiently. 10