CHIP Advice Annotated Bibliographies –Good Abs –Bad Abs Examination –Structure Example MCQs Example Essay Questions –Good Essays –Bad Essays A question

The bibliographies that achieved a pass mark included a majority of the following: A brief, clearly written exposition of the nature of the question being addressed A replicable method section that –described and justified the databases/search engines used –supplied reasons for the selection of the search terms used –provided the search terms and their combinations –explained and justified the final selection of journal articles/book chapters/etc included in the bibliography Used appropriate (APA) referencing for the selected articles etc.

Cont.. Annotations that provided –brief background information on the authors/institution –a clear statement of the research question addressed –a precise summary of the research findings –critical comments on the adequacy of the research methodology –critical comments on the authors’ conclusions –cross-referencing to other papers in the bibliography A summary/conclusion section that –summarised how the articles listed in the bibliography addressed the question asked. –drew a constructive conclusion on the basis of the bibliography. –was critical of the overall research area

The following problems were identified. The introduction was either too short or too long providing either –insufficient information about the bibliography –too much irrelevant background The introduction was –not focussed on the question asked –pre-judged the outcome of the literature search. The method section –was absent –was unclear and/or not replicable –failed to explain how the selected papers were chosen

Cont… The Annotations –did not focus on a single issue or failed to draw together disparate issues –were too often selected from a limited source (e.g. a single journal) –did not directly address the set question –did not present the relevant information –failed to critically comment on the research –were too out of date to be relevant –contained errors or inaccuracies that indicated that the papers had not been read The summary/conclusion –did not draw directly upon the citations in the bibliography –drew inappropriate and sometimes clearly biased conclusions –did not draw a conclusion –was not critical of the overall research area

Structure of the Examination 3 hrs in total 60 MCQ’s (1 hr) –30 CHIP –30 PIN 1 Essay (out of 6) for CHIP (1hr) 1 Essay (out of 6) for PIN (1hr)

Example MCQ Which of the following best describes how Gestalt psychologists influenced the development of psychological thought? a)by contending that most human behaviors can be reduced to the examination of biological motives b)by describing how the conscious mind goes about making rational decisions c)by arguing that experiences should be seen as whole entities that are greater than the sum of their parts d)by cautioning psychologists about the potential limitations of single- subject research

Example MCQ Freud’s term ‘polymorphously perverse’ refers to –The male ego’s ability to attach sexual importance to any object –The id’s ability to obtain sexual satisfaction outside the normative range of sexual activities –The unconscious mind’s ability to attach sexual meaning to asexual objects –The ability to be sexually aroused by a wide variety of fetishistic objects

Example Essay Questions A psychologist today should be a rationalist. Discuss How has one historical character impacted upon modern psychology? Is it better to be a dualist or a monist? Give reasons for your answer. Can machines think? What is associationism and how has it influenced modern psychological thinking? Were the behaviorists right after all?

Good essays demonstrated a number of features: Integration of material across time (e.g. drawing out the relationship between British Associationism and American Behaviourism) Integration of historical material with modern Psychology (e.g. Bain’s and/or Lashley’s neuropsychology and the relationship between cognition and emotion) Evidence of reading outside the lectures Critical insights and clear evidence of understanding the material Knowledge of dates and names Knowledge of the meaning of different terms and how they have changed over time

The poor essays had the following features: Failure to draw different themes together Failure to understand psychological and philosophical terms (e.g. stating that eliminative materialism suggests that physical material doesn’t really exist) Relying solely on both the content and the structure of the lectures (at least 20 essays wrote almost word for word the material on Darwin – this was a dispiriting experience). Getting names and dates wrong Not answering the question – (e.g. when asked whether it is better to be an empiricist or a rationalist it is worth talking about Locke, Hume and Hobbes etc vs Descartes and Kant, etc) Not drawing sensible conclusions or conclusions at all