Evaluate one or more studies investigating influences on cognitive and/or social development.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating influences on cognitive and/or social development by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not the influences of cognitive and/or social development. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Candidates may evaluate one or more studies investigating specific aspects of cognitive and/or social development (for example memory, intelligence, gender development, peer relationship) or evaluate one or more studies investigating cognitive and/or social development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

The term “influence” may include, but is not limited to:

• genetic influence
• maturation of the nervous system
• trauma/deprivation
• resilience
• peers
• poverty
• nutrition
• educational programmes/support from parents/educators.

Responses to this question may also use Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theory. In these responses marks should be awarded depending on how effectively responses target and explain influences on cognitive and/or social development.

Relevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Waber's (2007); Giedd's (2004); Chugani et al.'s (2001) studies on the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development
• Deary et al.'s (2006); Bouchard et al.'s (1990) studies on genetic inheritance in intelligence
• Cowell et al.'s (2006); Corky's (1997) studies on brain damage and memory deficits
• Fagot's (1978); Condry and Condry's (1976) studies on the role of society in gender development
• Carly and Eagly's (1999); Eagly and Johnson's (1990); Maccoby and Jacklin's (1980) meta-analysis considering the influence of gender on group relations
• studies relating to Vygotsky addressing peer mentoring or the relevance of zone of proximal development.

Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological and ethical considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• supporting and/or contradictory findings
• application of the empirical findings
• how the findings of the research have been interpreted
• implications of the findings.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. If the response identifies which studies will be evaluated but there is also extra information that is not relevant or necessary for the specific question then [1] should be awarded. Responses that are clearly focused on evaluating one or more studies should gain [2].

Marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.

Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.

Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.

This was not a popular choice. Strengths included the correct identification of studies to illustrate factors which tend to influence cognitive and/or social development. Focus was often on trauma/deprivation, peers, poverty and nutrition as well as educational programmes/support from parents and educators. Weaknesses included a lack of focus on studies.