Some More Practice Questions and Model Answers for IB Psychology Paper 3
Upgraded lessons for IB Psychology are now available on:
Thank you for visiting!
Andrade (doodling)
I, Jyotik a Varmani, tutor students of Psychology at all levels. I reside in Mumbai and tutor students online. You can contact me personally on my e-mail id jyotikapsychology@gmail.com or call/message me on 9892507784 for enquiries. --- Please note!!! This lesson is now available on YouTube with my narration: You can view the first part - the explanation of the study below: You can view the second part - the evaluation of the study below: You can view the third part - discussion of how to prepare this study for paper I below: You can view the fourth and final part - discussion of how to prepare this study for paper II below : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Welcome! This post presents and illustrates the Andrade (doodle) as per the requirements of the IB IGCSE AS 9990 syllabus including the study's background, aims, research
Thk youuuuuuuu!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting my blog and commenting again
DeleteThank you for the practice maam. Do the posters around the university not also count for extraneous variables?
ReplyDeleteIn what sense do you think they could influence the results?
DeleteIf some participants were influenced by the posters more than the flyers or interview perhaps?
DeleteWhat you've presented is an alternative explanation and not an extraneous variable. Remember that extraneous variables are those that can influence participant performance differentially. With regards to the posters, all participants were equally exposed to them so they were constants in this experiment and not variables.
DeleteSorry to bother you mam but I still don't understand?
DeleteYou're not bothering me, it's good to clarify your doubts completely.
DeleteHad the posters any influence on participants' conservation of water, that influence would have become a part of the participants' thinking - an internal variable (remember our discussion on participant variability?) since the posters had been around for some time. And do you remember how participant variability is controlled for in experiments? Through random assignment which can be taken as done in this experiment since nothing is mentioned in the stimulus.
Had only some participants been exposed to the posters, they would have counted as extraneous variables.
Thank you so so much maam!!!! I get it fully now.
Deletemaam then function of showers and noise also become constants no?
DeleteAre we assured of that? We know for a fact that the posters were on the university campus for all to see. Do we know that every participant who entered the shower had it functioning correctly for them? Or that any given participant was not distracted by some happening in the surrounding during his signing or interview? These factors are not accounted for in the stimulus.
Deletebut only sum may hav seen the posters?
DeleteYes and that is why we are counting it as a potential alternative explanation (which we need not have had random assignment been explicitly mentioned). Please revise your understanding of extraneous variables to see that they are those which give different participants a different environment to work with when they perform an experimental task. The posters were not differently available to different participants.
DeleteSome participants must have been more attentive to the interview than others. But how attentive participants are does not count as an extraneous variable, does it? Then how can how much they attend to posters count as an extraneous variable? In fact some participants may have stricter parents at home who urge them to conserve water. Even this can influence how much water they save. So many factors can.
The researcher can only control what is happening in the experimental environment and not what is happening within the participant. To control what is happening within participants, researchers can practice random assignment which we are assuming as having been done in this experiment.
In simple words, yes, some participants must have paid more attention to the posters but what are the chances that they all landed in the same group? And what are the chances that all who did not attend to the posters all landed in the other group?
bt sum participants may nt be distracted by noise also
DeleteOf course. What point are you trying to make? Please elaborate
Deleteconstant means that it is same in environment for all ps?
DeleteYes. That is right.
Deletethen researcher can keep anything contant and it won't be extraneous variable?
DeleteHow can a constant ever be a variable?
DeleteThen what happens inside p becoz of constant is the variable?
DeleteAbsolutely
DeleteIf p does not get affect by noise then is it extraneous variable?
DeleteIt is. It has only not affected the participant. But how will the researcher know this? The performance of the participant could have been very different had the noise not been there. But the researcher is testing the participant only once. The researcher cannot take the participant's performance for granted.
Deletemam u r too good. I want tuition from you.
DeleteKindly contact me on my e-mail id or phone number
ReplyDeletePlz mam cant you do the past paper solutions of third paper? It's a genuine request
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting my blog.
DeleteI am sorry but it is against the policy of the IB that it's papers be shared. So I cannot discuss its papers in my blog.
wow these posts n discusions are really useful. thanks for helping miss
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting my blog and writing this kind comment.
Delete