Evaluate the effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of two strategies for reducing violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

A strategy is any plan of action or programme for reducing violence. It is appropriate for candidates to address models and theories related to strategies for reducing violence.

Examples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:

• a community based strategy, for example, Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS), 2002; Olweus, 1993
• group treatment programmes, such as the Duluth model (for example, Robertson, 1999)
• zero tolerance anti-bullying programmes (for example, Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld, 2011)
• jigsaw classrooms against bullying (for example, Aronson, 1979)
• empathy training (for example, Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982)
• computer-based strategies to improve empathy (for example, Figueiredo et al., 2007).

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:

• cultural, gender and ethical issues
• methodological issues
• long-term versus short-term effectiveness
• the difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of a strategy
• supporting and/or contradictory findings or explanations.

If a candidate focuses only on general issues related to violence and does not address any strategies for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

If a candidate evaluates more than two strategies for reducing violence, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. However, candidates may address other strategies for reducing violence and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.

If a candidate evaluates only one strategy for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.