Embedded Files
This is the age old question in all VCAA exams. How many marks is the question worth and where should the emphasis be in your answer.
There is no hard and fast rule for this, but there are some suggested guidelines:
1 MARK QUESTIONS:
Excluding multiple choice questions, a question worth one mark usually requires a very brief response. Most likely identifying a key factor using correct terminology or labelling a diagram appropriately. One mark questions aren't very common.
2 MARK QUESTIONS:
A 2 mark question will have two distinct components, sometimes denoted by two command terms. The question below is a VCAA example of a 2 mark question with two command terms
Note that this question asks you to both identify and justify. The identification in this case is correctly stating classical conditioning as the model of learning and the justification can be one of three options provided in the suggested response. With these questions you only need to justify your response with one statement. Be wary of using too many justifications as if you contradict your response by using an incorrect justification it can compromise a response that would have been correct had you answered with a shorter, more direct response.
If you can't find an obvious second mark in the command terms, it is a great idea to define the key term, but this is usually reserved for 3 mark questions. The other alternative is to make sure you refer to the scenario used in the question. In the example above the justification must relate to the scenario involving Hula, but sometimes the need to link to the stimulus may not be as obvious.
Below is an example of a 2 mark question that does not use two obvious command terms
In this scenario, the question is still asking you to identify and justify, its just not using that terminology. Looking at the response we can see that the examiner expects you to identify the type of conditioning used and justify that with an example from the stimulus.
This follows a rule we will follow of making a claim and using evidence to support that claim.
3 MARK QUESTIONS:
The more marks that are awarded to a question, the more we have to read the prompt to find where the marks are being awarded.
Sometimes the prompt won't obviously point you towards the 3 marks, rather it is asking a question about a process that has 3 distinct components. A good example of this is questions about classical or operant conditioning. In classical conditioning we would need to identify the three phases of before conditioning, during conditioning and after conditioning, while referring to the scenario in the question. This is demonstrated in the question below.
As the prompt in this question says "using the language of classical conditioning" it requires you to correctly identify the NS, UCS, UCR, CS and CR. Note that the first line of the response says "referring to the scenario", this is suggesting that you need to use the correct terminology, but in context of the provided scenario.
The question below is the follow up question to this and is much less obvious where the third mark is being awarded.
This is a unique question where the command terms are name and describe, which under normal circumstances, might be considered a 2 mark response. This presents the challenge of identifying the third mark. In this instance you are actually required to name the process of spontaneous recovery, but in the description you have to mention that spontaneous recovery can only happen after extinction. So the three marks are:
Naming spontaneous recovery
Identifying that it can only happen after extinction
Using the scenario to support your answer
This loosely follows the structure of claim, evidence and reasoning (CER) and this process is another useful tip to keep in mind when answering 3 mark questions
The process of Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) is highly effective for structuring answers, especially in subjects like psychology or the sciences, where logical argumentation is important. For a 3-mark question, applying CER concisely is key:
1. Claim: Start with a clear and concise statement that answers the question or addresses the scenario directly. This is your thesis or the point you are trying to make. Given the brevity required for a 3-mark question, keep this part brief.
2. Evidence: Provide a specific example, data, or a reference to theoretical models or empirical studies that supports your claim. This could be a brief mention of a study, a theoretical concept, or an observation that directly supports your initial statement.
3. Reasoning: Explain how your evidence supports your claim. This involves making a logical connection between the evidence and what you are arguing. In this step, it's crucial to articulate why the evidence you've provided validates or proves your claim within the context of the question.
For a 3-mark question, each component of the CER structure should be succinct. Here's how you might structure an answer for a psychology question:
- Claim: Make a direct statement answering the question. (e.g., "Stress affects memory recall.")
- Evidence: Provide a piece of evidence. (e.g., "According to a study by Smith (2020), high stress levels were correlated with decreased performance on memory recall tests.")
- Reasoning: Connect the evidence back to your claim. (e.g., "This suggests that stress can impair the cognitive processes involved in retrieving stored information, thus impacting memory recall.")
In answering, ensure that each part is clear and directly contributes to addressing the question, especially considering the limited marks available.
Is a definition required?
Sometimes if the third mark is not obvious it is a safe move to include a brief definition of the key term. For example, if the question is asking you Question: "Explain how observational learning can lead to the acquisition of new behaviours in children." (3 marks)
Claim: Children can learn new actions or ways of doing things just by watching and copying what other people do. This is because they look at others as examples and try to do model their behaviour
Evidence: A famous experiment called the "Bobo Doll" experiment showed this. In the experiment, some children watched an adult play roughly with a toy called a Bobo doll. Later, when these children had a chance to play with the same toy, they also played roughly with it, much like the adult did. This was different from children who hadn't seen the adult play like that; those children didn't play roughly with the toy.
Reasoning: This shows that children can learn by watching because they see what others do (attention), remember it (retention), try to do it themselves (reproduction), and decide to do it based on what they saw happening to others (motivation). This experiment helps us understand how kids can pick up new behaviours just by observing others, without being directly taught or told to do so.
While you wouldnt use the titles of claim evidence and reasoning in your response, this is a great example of how you could cover all bases in a response, with a quick definition in the claim, referring to a study used in this course (Bandura's bobo doll experiment) and using the language of observational learning in the reasoning (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation).
4 MARK QUESTIONS
These questions are not common and usually spell out what is required in the question. Before looking at a good example of this type of question, lets talk about some general approaches:
Consider the CER method, but read the prompt to find where the fourth mark may come from
Use data as evidence if possible. If the question presents data, use specific examples of that data to support your claims
Refer to the scenario. If a scenario is presented, use it to frame your question. A good way to achieve this is to refer to it in the first sentence of your response. For example "Jenny has learned her beahviour through operant conditioning". It is also a good idea to use it in the last sentence. "This is evident as Jenny's behaviour of stopping at a red light was repeated next time she was in the presence of the antecedent of the amber light".
Below is a tricky example of a 4 mark question:
Worth noting that the average result for this question is 2.1, which is quite low.
If we look at the prompt it asks us to identify 4 ways that sleep differs between infants and adults. Some people interpret this to mean that "adults sleep less and infants sleep more" as being 2 differences. Realistically, this is only one difference, and the statement used should be supported by evidence in the graph.
The response provided highlights 4 differences and uses data to support this where possible. The fact that the term "identify" is used really suggests that we are using the data presented to support our answer; we are identifying evidence in the data that supports the claims made in our response.
HERE IS A LINK TO SOME DIFFICULT PAST EXAM QUESTIONS. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT AS THE STUDY DESIGN WAS UPDATED IN 2023 THAT SOME QUESTIONS MAY ADDRESS CONTENT FROM A PREVIOUS STUDY DESIGN:
Page updated
Report abuse