1. Review of the 2015 Unit 3 & 4 Psychology Exam Meredith McKague Director of Teaching and Learning Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences The University of Melbourne mckaguem@unimelb.edu.au

2. 2015 Exam Performance The average overall mark for the exam was 87 out of 140, or 62%. – The mean score for Section A was 50/65 (77%) – The mean score for Section B was 31/60 (52%)

3. The average score for Section C section was 6 marks out of a possible 15, or 40%. This reflected a tendency for students to perform in the lower range on the extended response only approximately 1/3 of students scored greater than or equal to 5/10 on Question 3. Section C: Research Scenario

4. The research scenario described an experiment designed to investigate how the introduction of false information affects people’s eyewitness testimonies. The scenario was based on actual experiments conducted by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues. The extended response (Question 3) required students to write a Discussion section for the experiment, following the usual conventions. Section C: Research Scenario

5. The extended response question in Section C will be marked according to the following criteria: – identify and describe the key terms/theories/issues – explain the relevant terms/theories/issues and make connections between psychological concepts/theories and data and research – use appropriate examples/evidence/data to support the response – interpret and analyse the issues/data/information – evaluate issues/data/information and draw appropriate conclusions Section C: VCAA Advice on Extended Response

6. Section C: Question 1 Question 1 (3 marks) Construct a research hypothesis for this study. A research hypothesis should state a prediction relating to the expected effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable as a means for testing a theory, or for answering a specific research question.

7. To score 3 marks for this question, students needed to: – Include reference to the initial manipulation of memory (i.e., the independent variable) – Include reference to the subsequent test of memory, with the mean percentage, likelihood, or number of false memories/false “yes” responses as the dependent variable. – Indicate the direction of the predicted effect that is, the way in which the two groups were predicted to differ on the dependent variable (i.e., not simply that there would be a difference). Students could express their hypothesis in fully operationalised terms, or in broader terms. Section C: Question 1

8. Reference to a specific population was not required as the research question related to human memory performance in general – The researcher wanted to “investigate how the introduction of false information affects people’s eyewitness testimony”, and so it is implicit that the hypothesis pertains to people in general. – Note the difference between this scenario and the very specific research population stipulated in the 2014 Section C scenario, which did require the population to be identified. It was not correct to identify university students as the population. Section C: Question 1

9. The most common error was a tendency to conflate the initial questioning phase with the final test phase. – That is, many students made no clear distinction between the initial manipulation of memory (the independent variable) and the subsequent test phase five days later (the dependent variable). For example, many responses went something like: – “Participants who were asked misleading questions would be more likely to respond ‘yes’ to objects or items that did not appear in the video than those who were asked open questions.” Students who gave responses like this could score no more than 2 marks out of 3. Section C: Question 1

10. A number of example research hypotheses for this question have been provided in the following slides. All of these examples meet the three criteria required to obtain the full 3 marks on this question. – Reference to the initial manipulation of memory (independent variable) is coded in red font; – reference to the subsequent test of memory (dependent variable) is coded in blue font – reference to the direction of the effect is coded by green font. Section C: Question 1

11. It was hypothesised that the participants in Group B who initially answered misleading questions in which the word ‘the’ was used to refer to objects and events that did not actually appear in the video would produce a higher percentage of false “YES” responses to the same questions phrased in open form on a memory test conducted 5 days later than those in Group A who were initially asked the questions in open form using ‘a’. Section C: Question 1

12. It was hypothesised that people who were asked questions referring to events that did not actually occur in a witnessed scene that were phrased misleadingly (e.g., “did you see the…”) would be more likely to say that they did witness those events on a subsequent test of memory than people who were asked the same initial questions in an open form using the words “did you see a…”. Section C: Question 1

13. It was hypothesised that the phrasing of questions as either leading (“did you see the…”) or non-leading (“did you see a….”) in an initial interview referring to events that did not actually occur would influence performance on a memory test 5 days later, such that those in the leading question condition would be significantly more likely to produce false “yes” responses than those in the non-leading question condition. Section C: Question 1

14. It was hypothesised that initial leading questioning referring to events or objects that did not actually appear in a witnessed event would result in the reconsolidation of false information for the events such that those exposed to misleading questions would subsequently be significantly more likely to recall events that did not occur than people who were initially asked non-misleading (open) questions. Section C: Question 1

15. Participants who were asked open questions about objects and events that did not occur in a video would be less likely to respond ‘yes’ to objects/events that were not present than participants asked misleading questions when all participants were questioned again using open questions one week later. Section C: Question 1

16. Note the use of past tense for expressing hypotheses, which is appropriate because research reports always refer to work that has already been conducted. The use of past tense phrasing was not required, but is worthwhile noting that this is the standard practice in scientific report writing. Section C: Question 1

17. Section C: Question 2 Question 2 (2 marks) Identify either one deceptive element or one potentially harmful/distressing element of this experiment. What measure could be taken to address this to ensure that the study is conducted ethically?

18. Potentially deceptive element: – the use of misleading questions referring to events that did not occur. Potentially harmful element: – exposure to video of a distressing event. Section C: Question 2

19. The key ethical observation to make regarding an experiment that requires deception is that the deception must be fully disclosed after the study by debriefing participants – (and participants are usually given the option to withdraw their data at this stage if they wish, but this level of knowledge is not required for VCE). Students who said that the misleading element could be addressed by not asking misleading questions missed the point of the experiment, which depended on deception. Section C: Question 2

20. The best ethical treatment for the harmful element is to ensure informed consent at the outset: – advising participants regarding the content of the video – and/or screening participants who might be affected by a prior road trauma – advising participants that they are free to withdraw at any stage if they find the content distressing. – participants should also be fully debriefed afterwards to determine the impact of the content, and provided with sources for follow-up counseling/care if required. Section C: Question 2

21. Some students suggested to ensure the video was staged, rather than real and to inform participants that no one was injured. Others suggested using a scene that did not involve any form of accident or crime, although this may compromise the external validity of the experiment, so was not as strong a response. Any one of these suggestions for ethical treatment of the distressing content was sufficient for the mark to be awarded. A number of students confused debriefing with informed consent, stating incorrectly that debriefing should be used at the start of the experiment to warn them of the content; no mark could be awarded for this. Section C: Question 2

22. Question 3 Extended Response Question 3 (10 marks) This question asked students to construct a Discussion section for the experiment described in the scenario. Students were asked to include in their response: – A statement of the aim of the experiment. – A description of the results in the student’s own words that clearly identified and explained the observed effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. – An interpretation of the results in relation to the theory being tested. – Consideration of the potential limitations of the study and whether there might be any alternative interpretation of the results. – An evaluation of the results in relation to eyewitness testimony in a real-world context.

23. Holistic Marking of Section C Gestalt – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Determination of the mark is assisted by descriptors of the expected qualities for the mark range; These have been written to reflect the level of achievement expected at a particular mark or mark range. The descriptors are only a general guide: they do not necessarily match precisely the performance of an individual response. Both the criteria and the descriptors are fully explored and directly related to the range of student responses during intensive assessor training before and during the examination assessment process. The response should be coherent and integrated.

24. Provided an opportunity for high-performing students to demonstrate their higher-order thinking and reasoning skills. The majority of responses showed a limited attempt to link and interpret the data in relation to the appropriate psychological theory. – This is an area for teachers and students to work on for future exams, which are likely to continue to assess the ability to integrate knowledge of psychological theories with the interpretation of data. – This higher-level thinking skill is essential for those students who intend to pursue psychology at tertiary level. Question 3 Extended Response

25. The vast majority of responses consisted of a piece of connected text, sometimes with use of sub-headings, which broadly followed the conventions for writing a Discussion section. – Whilst dot-points are allowable for Section C, it would not be appropriate to write a Discussion section using dot-points. Section C: Extended Response

26. Naming Loftus was not required – (although the stronger responses would have mentioned her name). It was sufficient to say that the results were consistent with theories of memory that emphasise the reconstructive/fallible/malleable nature of memory And/or that there was reference to, or effectively a description of, ‘re-consolidation theory’. Section C: Question 3 Extended Response

27. A response that met most of the basic criteria and made an attempt to relate the results to theory scored at least 5. Common error: – The dependent variable was the mean (or average) percentage for each group of incorrect “yes” responses to the questions regarding objects/events that did not appear, NOT the mean (or average) percentage of participants in each group responding ‘yes’ to questions about objects/events that did not appear. Section C: Question 3 Extended Response

28. Students should be cautious of using phrases like “the results prove that…”. It is better to say that the results “support” or “are consistent with” the hypothesis. A good limitation, other than the non- representativeness of the sample, was that a matched- participant design would have been better than simple random allocation to groups – especially suggestions to match participants between groups on memory performance (in addition to age, gender, etc.). Suggestions for a repeated measures design needed to consider whether this might compromise the validity of the study by providing one memory condition before the other, and whether counterbalancing could address this sufficiently. Section C: Question 3 Extended Response