Psychology

This video focuses on three aspects of assessment in A-level Psychology. They are the link between the specification and exam questions, how to use appropriate language in assessment tasks and  how a mark scheme is written to reflect the question wording and to be a useful assessment tool.

Transcript

Hello, and welcome to this assessment training for AQA A-level Psychology. My name is Julie Pennington, and I'm a Senior Examiner for A-level Psychology. As a Senior Examiner I take part in the production of assessment materials, including examination papers, mark schemes and associated materials. Today, I'm going to share with you some ideas for creating your own assessment materials in psychology.

This training is a psychology-specific follow-on to the more general training you have already completed. In this session, we're going to focus on three things: The link between the psychology specification and assessment questions; how to use the language of assessment so that you word assessment questions appropriately; and how a mark scheme is written to reflect the question wording and be a useful assessment tool.

Here is a reminder of the principles of assessment you covered in the previous training session, where you focused on: Validity – that is, measuring what you want to measure; reliability – measuring consistently; differentiation, to enable a spread of marks; minimisation of bias, so specific groups are not disadvantaged; and avoidance of irrelevance, which might distract students unnecessarily. Let’s bear these important principles in mind as we look specifically at assessment in psychology.

At this point, it's worth reminding ourselves of the three skills we expect students to demonstrate. The AO1 skill of knowledge and understanding; the AO2 scale of application; and the AO3 scale of analysis and evaluation. All of our questions should be designed to elicit one, or more than one, of these skills.

The scope of assessment is determined by the wording of the psychology specification. When developing assessment materials, it is essential to look critically at the specification before you start to write. Look carefully at the wording of the individual points for the content. Here, the example is the Zimbardo content of the social influence section. Also, don't forget to look at the general points at the start of each section. Here, you will see that there are quite broad expectations of what students should be able to do throughout the whole of the section.

Focusing on our Zimbardo example, let us look at how the wording of the specification content largely determines the wording of a question. Here are some possible questions. The first three examples here are a clear reflection of the wording of the bullet point on the specification. However, the examples in red are not, because, in the first case, only one study appears by name. So, to ask for two would be unreasonable or invalid. In the second case, although everyone knows that the Zimbardo study is the Stanford Prison study, this is not a term used on the specification, so it would not be appropriate to use it in a question.

Let's try an example from another part of the specification: Approaches in Psychology – the psychodynamic approach. Look carefully at the wording here. There are plenty of ways in which you could ask questions.

Bearing in mind the specification wording, which of these example questions do you think would be appropriate assessment material? Here, we can see which examples would be appropriate and which would not. Those with ticks beside them are fine for the reasons stated. Those with crosses are not appropriate, again with explanations as to why not. The fourth example is worth considering. Although the specification does not name each individual stage, each stage must have been taught, and therefore, it is fair and appropriate to expect students to be able to name them.

Now let's consider the language of assessment – the language used to elicit the skills we’re testing. We call these command words. You will be familiar with various command words, but you might not be aware that there is a published list of acceptable commands for use in psychology. Here are a few that can be seen on specimen and past papers, plus a link to see the full list. Think carefully about whether the command word you are using matches the topic content, because some areas of the specification are not always suited to certain command words. This is nicely illustrated if we look at some of the bio-psychology content on Paper Two. It would not make much sense to ask students to 'evaluate' the endocrine system, as the endocrine system does not have strengths and limitations. Nor would it be sensible to ask students to 'discuss' the nervous system. What is there to critically analyse or comment on? Only the third example here is sensible. It is possible to critically comment on ways of studying the brain.

Once you've decided on a suitable question, you need to think about the tariff. How many marks should your question be worth? Will it be a long answer or a short answer question? Again, the specification should be your guide here. If an idea or a concept is minimal in relation to the overall topic content, then it would not be sensible to over-assess this tiny bit of the specification using a high tariff question. Just asking about consistency in a 16-mark minority influence question would be an example of over-assessment. Remember, too, that some commands are mini versions of another command. For example, 'outline' is a mini version of 'describe'. So, an 'outline' question would usually have a lower tariff than a 'describe' question asking about the same material.

We also need to think about how questions work together. In psychology papers, we assess whole topic content using a series of questions with a combined tariff of 24 marks. If you are writing questions to assess a whole topic area, perhaps for a mock exam, start by deciding what your extended writing question will be. Then frame the shorter questions around it, making sure you avoid overlapping content. Try to assess all three skills – knowledge, application and evaluation – across the 24 marks. The weighting of skills do not need to be equal, but there should be at least some marks for each skill. And if you want to be really ambitious, you could try to include some research methods or maths marks questions too. When you have mapped out your questions, check to make sure that none of your questions provide answers or clues to other questions. In other words, check that there is no overlap.

Let's look at what we mean by overlap. In each of the paired examples here, if the essay question was preceded by the four-mark question, students would be able to use the same material twice, which is obviously to be avoided. If we look at the second example, the notion of the unconscious is a key element of the psychodynamic approach. So, if students had already written about the unconscious in the short question, they would legitimately be able to use that information again in the essay question. Always check a series of questions for overlap.

Application questions usually involve the use of what we call a 'stem', which is a description of a novel situation. They are particularly tricky to write, but students do like them, so it is worth having a go at writing your own. What makes for a good application question? First, your stem should include hooks to draw out knowledge of psychology, so students can apply their knowledge effectively. Second, your stem should be focused. Do not include extra material that could distract students from what they're supposed to be writing about. Third, the language you use should be straightforward, with simple short sentences. You should avoid passives, and present events in chronological order so students are not expected to do too much time shifting. Think about the individual words you are using. Would a typical A-level student who has studied this topic understand all the words in the question? Think also about culturally- or socially-specific references. For example, giving students a stem about someone learning to ski would mean that many students might struggle to apply their knowledge.

Here is an example of a stem that has plenty of hooks to allow students to link what they know about psychic determinism to the scenario. These hooks are shown with ideas of how they might elicit application, given below. You will find lots of examples of similar stems in specimen and past papers. Look at some of these for more ideas of how to write your own.

Now let's look at the language used in the extended writing questions. This type of question allows you to assess more substantial areas of the specification, for example significant theories or therapies. A limited number of commands are useful here. For example, 'discuss', 'describe and evaluate', or 'compare'. These commands invite students to offer both knowledge and critical analysis. At A-level, these questions are worth either 16 marks or 8 marks, with a skills balance of 6 (AO1) and 10 (AO3), or 3/5 for a shorter extended writing question.

Many extended writing questions include an element of application too. In this case, remember that your AO1 skill mark allocation will always be fixed at six or three, with the remaining marks divided between AO2 and AO3. Exactly how much you decide to award for AO2 depends on how much scope there is for application in the question you have set. If there are lots of hooks in the stem, then you can allot more marks to AO2 – perhaps four. If there are few hooks, then maybe two AO2 marks would be enough.

Now let's have a look at writing mark schemes. It may seem perverse, but before you even start to write a question, you should think about what you want to put on the mark scheme. This is because knowing what you want the answer to look like will determine the wording of the question. You will need to decide whether to use a points-based or a levels-based mark scheme. Points-based mark schemes are for when there is a single correct answer or a fairly limited number of possible correct answers. With points-based mark schemes, the differentiator is simply the number of correct responses the student gives. Levels-based mark schemes work differently. These are for answers that can be differentiated through the use of verbal descriptors. Whatever kind of mark scheme you choose, the layout and the wording must be clear.

Here is an example of a straightforward points-based mark scheme where each valid point gets a mark, up to two marks. You can see here a limited number of the most likely correct answers – although, note that the mark scheme does allow for other valid answers to be credited. Whilst points-based mark schemes are useful and easy to mark, they're often not suitable for questions used in psychology papers. Levels-based mark schemes are often more appropriate, not just for long answer questions, but also for some short answer questions. Here is an example of a levels-based mark scheme for use with a short question. The differentiator between one and two marks is the quality of the answer in terms of clarity, coherence and elaboration.

For questions with a tariff of four marks or above, we normally use levels grids. At each level of the grid is a written paragraph or verbal descriptor which describes the qualities of an answer at that level. The words used in the verbal descriptors vary according to the skill being tested. Here are some examples taken from previous levels grids. Notice how words like 'accurate' and 'detailed' are used for the knowledge – AO1 – skill, and words like 'effective' and 'appropriate' are used for the application – AO2 – skill. For the AO3 skill of evaluation and analysis, words like 'thorough', 'focused' and 'effective' are often used. Also in the verbal descriptors, you will see descriptions of the answer as a whole – words like 'organised' and 'clear' – and for the students' use of specialist terminology.

Here is a typical levels grid, showing how those verbal descriptors appear in the grid. You will find that in most examples you look at, there are equal numbers of marks at each level. Generally speaking, the wording is fairly standard, but examples can differ according to the specific demands and the content of the question.

Under the levels grid is the expected content of an answer. The different skills are usually presented as separate sets of points for each skill, with the headings: Possible Content (for knowledge); Possible Application; and Possible Evaluation. Below these headings, information is normally presented as a list of points. These should be written to give enough information to be helpful, but not too much to overwhelm the marker. Here are some examples of helpful and unhelpful content points. The first point does not give enough information to be useful. What key terms would be important in an answer? The second gives far too much. It is written almost as you would expect an answer to be written by a student. The remaining points strike just the right balance, offering some detail and key psychological terms or material that you'd expect to see in an answer.

So, as we come to the end of the training, let's sum up. In this session, we’ve been reminded of the general principles of assessment. We've considered the link between the way the specification is written and the types of assessment questions you might set. We've looked at how to word assessment questions appropriately. And finally, we've noted how the mark scheme is written to reflect the question wording, and how mark schemes should be presented. I hope you’ve found the session useful, and that it has given you some ideas for producing your own quality assessment materials for use with your own students. Enjoy creating your assessments. Thank you.

Questions you may want to think about

• How can you use these insights to prepare your learners for exams?
• Do your internal assessments reflect the approach of the exam? To what extent do you want them to?
• What’s the most important or surprising thing that you’ve learned? How might it influence your teaching?