Difficulty Verdict
This exam series represents a solid Level 4 difficulty. While the SAQs in Paper 1 Section A targeted well-established, highly accessible core concepts, the ERQs in Section B and Paper 2 demanded high-level conceptual integration, particularly concerning the interactions of technology with cognition and the critical evaluation of developmental factors.
Where the Marks Are Won
- Section A SAQs: Straightforward prompts such as describing localization of function or explaining Social Identity Theory allow well-prepared students to secure high AO1 marks quickly by describing classic studies like Maguire (2000) or Tajfel.
- Paper 3 Methodological Precision: Candidates who distinguished clearly between sampling methods and the characteristics of the sample itself easily obtained the initial 9 marks.
Common Examiner Pitfalls
Examiners highlighted major areas where candidates lost marks due to preventable errors:
- In Paper 3 Q1(b), candidates frequently described the demographics of the sample rather than explaining the mechanics of convenience/opportunity sampling, resulting in zero marks for that sub-part.
- In Paper 1 and Paper 2 ERQs, evaluating only strengths or only limitations restricted the Critical Thinking (Criterion D) mark to a maximum of 3 out of 6. A balanced appraisal is strictly required for high-tier marks.
- Describing studies without explicitly linking their findings back to the core concept (e.g., how the 5-HTT gene actually relates to depression) prevented candidates from reaching the top markband.
Preparation Strategy & Future Predictions
In upcoming sessions, the core cognitive approach is highly likely to move from a basic SAQ to an ERQ format, focusing on models of memory or schema theory. For the biological approach, neurotransmission or neuroplasticity should be prioritized as genetics was heavily tested in this series. In Paper 3, students must practice identifying qualitative approaches, as this series focused on quantitative surveys.