GCSE: Psychology Essays, Coursework and Assignments

"You have really helped me understand these theories better by making them real. Thankyou"

"#1# This is a piece of coursework based on explaining the highly complex Psychodynamic Perspective of Psychology. The answer is incredibly well-focused and addresses all the necessary factors that contribute to the perspective. The candidate shows a very well-developed, profound knowledge of the perspective and retains a consistent focus on the three main theories that make up Freudian psychoanalysis: The Stages of Psychosexual Development, The Three Constituents of the Psyche and Retrospection. The candidate also provides a very well-structured and well-informed analysis, commenting on how the big debates of psychology such as Free Will vs. Determinism play parts in Freud's theories. #2# The Level of Analysis shown he is very good, and each and every evaluation point is nicely backed up with psychological evidence from Freud's case studies (e.g. - Little Hans and the Oedipus Complex) or other, extended works on Freud's theories. The candidate very systematically - and therefore very clearly - elaborates on the contribution of the Id, the Ego and the Superego in determining our thoughts and desires, though it may have been a good idea to comment further on when these constituent parts of the psyche develop and present themselves with age, as this directly ties in with the candidate's next point about the Psychosexual Stages of Development, as determined by the case study of Little Hans. Tying the answer over itself to create a more cohesive answer is a good way of showing the examiner the knowledge you have of the subject you are studying is proficient and you have confidence in expressing said knowledge of it. #3# The Quality of Written Communication (QWC) is fair, though a misuse of grammar drastically reduces the QWC mark when the candidate discusses the Ego's defence mechanisms. Though an extremely well-informed description, there is a disregard for the standards of grammar in that list items are separated by full stops instead of commas or, in this case, what should be semi-colons as the list items contain many words each. An attention to this detail is required for a high QWC, and QWC is just as important as the analysis because if the clarity of your written expression is at a point where the examiner cannot read your answer fluidly, then you will lose marks for not being able to express yourself using the appropriate and correct English."

"#1# Response to Question The candidate is instructed to "describe and evaluate" and this essay fulfils both of these instructions with detailed exploration of both aspects of the question. The use of alternative evidence to assess the psychodynamic approach shows some understanding of the context of Freud's theories in psychology as a whole. The failure to include a conclusion to his/her essay suggests a lack of care or appropriate timing taken by the candidate. #2# Level of Analysis The candidate's explanation of the tripartite theory of personality development and the conflicts inherent in this is of a very high standard. They clearly set out the three different parts of the mind, their roles and the way in which they develop. The inclusion of the defence mechanisms of the ego does not seem wholly relevant to the question, and as the link between personality development and the mind's defence mechanisms is not made clear, I feel that it may be ignored by an examiner. The evaluation of the psychodynamic approach takes into account a number of issues in psychology (ethics, reliability, bias) and shows a good standard of knowledge of psychology. However, the candidate often fails to expand on the arguments made. For example, (s)he writes "also this research is unethical", but fails to explain why the research is so, and it seems that this point comes as an afterthought. There is also a brief inclusion of criticisms made by other approaches in psychology, which places the psychodynamic approach within wider psychological thought, but the fact that this extends to a single sentence is poor. #3# Quality of Writing The candidate expresses his/her ideas clearly and the quality of written communication is generally of a good standard. Some of the syntax feels clunky ("For instance, the oral personalities don’t manifest themselves until childhood. So their findings are meaningless.") and I feel that the candidate could have paid more attention to making the essay flow better, as this would give a better impression to examiners. There are some errors (referring to Freud's patients as "Venetian" as opposed to "Viennese"), but they are generally of a minor nature and I feel that candidates would be given some leeway at GCSE."

"#1# Overall, the writer has answered the question well – they demonstrate a wide range of knowledge concerning whether the findings of particular psychological studies do indeed justify the methods used. It is very clear in terms of its structure, beginning with defining obedience and applying it to everyday life. It then proceeds to describe the studies, commenting on both its strengths and weaknesses systematically. I think this essay was well planned and considered, which leads to a good conclusion. However I feel this conclusion could be improved slightly, simply by expanding it – it would be useful to refer to Milgram’s study also, in a summative statement. This shows that a conclusion has been reached in regard to all three studies asked about in the question. #2# The writer is clearly aware of what terminology and issues the psychology essay requires, and uses them continually throughout. This shows that their analytical skills are very good, as they are able to evaluate the methods of the studies used in relation to a range of issues, for example reliability, validity and of course ethical considerations. The writer’s evaluative points may be deemed stronger if they were to use more examples though. An example would be when they state, “Being put into such a serious situation would quite clearly cause a large amount of stress”, they could mention that stress was identified when the participants exhibited signs of nervous laughter, or bit their fingernails. I think that this would just demonstrate more effectively that they know the studies inside out, and it provides definitive evidence for their evaluative statements. A mistake that people frequently make is not continually referring to the specific question asked throughout the essay. It is obvious that the writer has the knowledge and understanding to answer the question, but to establish that this is the case more effectively to the examiner, the essay would be improved by explicitly writing, “therefore it does/does not justify the methods used” after criticising a study. #3# The quality of writing is of a fairly high standard, however there are a few grammatical mistakes present. In these two sentences, “First, they were asked to go to the cabinet and check it was there, this gave them the chance tee see the bottle was labelled ‘maximum dosage 10mg’. the doctor the asked the nurse to give the patient a 20mg dosage”, the capital letter at the start of the second sentence is missing, “tee” needs to be altered to “to” and “this” needs to be altered to “which”. But these are only minor details. Spelling and punctuation is of a high standard. "

"Wicked, thanks!"