Difficulty Verdict
This assessment is categorized as moderate (3 stars out of 5). While the papers contain several direct retrieval questions (such as defining multi-store model features or outlining the somatosensory cortex), they demand a high level of critical evaluation in the 20-mark essay questions and require exact context application in scenarios.
Where the Marks Are Won or Lost
Marks are heavily concentrated in the extended-writing sections, specifically the 20-mark essays on Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development and Behavioral Treatments of Phobias. Students routinely lose marks by focusing exclusively on description (AO1) while neglecting the detailed critical evaluation (AO3). In the practical research methods section, minor errors in drawing the scattergram (e.g., incomplete titles or missing axis labels) led to preventable loss of marks.
Examiner Pitfalls & Misconceptions
- The 'No-Context' Trap: In scenario questions (such as Chan witnessing a theft or Pavel touching a hot pan), candidates often write abstract textbook answers without linking their explanations directly to the named characters.
- Working Memory Model Error: When critique of the Working Memory Model was asked, many students claimed it is limited because it 'does not explain long-term memory'. The marking guidelines explicitly state this is not creditworthy unless the student specifically focuses on the *connection/link* between the WMM and LTM.
- Hypothesis Construction: A recurring error in Research Methods was writing a hypothesis stating a difference instead of a correlation/relationship for a correlational design.
Preparation and Exam Strategy
To master future papers, students should practice planning 20-mark responses using a balanced 8-mark description / 12-mark evaluation structure. Additionally, active practice with research methods calculations, graphing rules (including operationalized titles), and scenario-mapping of psychological models (e.g., Ellis's ABC model) is vital to securing top-band marks.