I revised, I thought I knew the content, so why am I not getting the grades I expect in A level psychology?

You learned how to revise for GCSEs (for example, GCSE Psychology) in a way that got you the grades you wanted, so you followed what worked for you before. But your marks for A Level are not matching up - what’s going wrong?

This is one of the most confidence-sapping, frustrating points when you jump to A-Level Psychology . The obvious answer, 'revise more', is not necessarily the right one. Sometimes the problem is not how much Psychology you know.

Knowing Psychology and Scoring Marks in A Level Exams Are Not the Same Thing

You can know your content but still produce answers that don’t achieve those top marks. At A Level, especially a science like Psychology, the exam isn’t just testing whether you have learned the content; you are learning a completely new skill - how to question what you are being told, aka 'evaluate', or, for those dreaded 16 markers in AQA A Level Psychology, 'discuss'. You need to apply the content you have revised so well to situations, analyse, evaluate, be able to bring in other relevant ideas, and tie it tightly to the question.

This is why revising hard by memorising textbook pages, re-reading your notes, and having perfect recall with flashcards can give you the uncomfortable impression you’re doing well - right up until you are answering exam questions.

What Do You Need to Do Instead?

First of all, look at test or mock results differently. Instead of letting them drain your confidence (and I appreciate this sounds like the kind of glib positivity that makes you want to groan), once you’ve got over the disappointment, frustration, and anger, look for the opportunity to figure out 'where did I actually lose marks?' instead of 'what didn’t I know?'

1. You Knew the Answer - But You Didn’t Answer the Question

This is probably the most self-kicking, easiest way to lose marks. There is a 16-marker question in AQA A Level 2022 Paper 1:

“Outline Lorenz’s and Harlow’s animal studies of attachment. Discuss what these studies might tell us about human attachment.”

The most common mistakes I see are evaluations of the studies - for example, using ethics as a limitation or the internal validity of a controlled experiment as a strength. The question is NOT asking you to evaluate the animal studies; you have just lost time and not gained marks for those paragraphs. It is asking you to apply the studies to human attachment, so every paragraph after the AO1s outlining the two studies needs to refer directly to human attachment.

An answer that is very knowledgeable about Lorenz and Harlow can still be a poor answer if the AO3s, for which there are 10 marks, are irrelevant.

Before you start writing, take a moment to figure out exactly what the command word is asking you to do and how you are being asked to apply the content you know.

2. You Described When You Needed to Apply

The AO2 questions that give a stem (scenario) catch a lot of students out.

The generic way most schools teach these types of questions is to do:

AO1s, then

AO2s and, finally

AO3s

It’s OK - it’s not wrong - but to get the top marks it’s not enough to explain the theory and then just mention the person in the scenario after that; you need to be more explicit and weave the AO2 into the rest of your answer throughout.

If a question gives you a scenario where someone called Rory is behaving one way, then changes his behaviour when an authority figure turns up, your answer needs to keep connecting the psychological explanation to Rory’s behaviour.

This is one of those skills where the penny drops and it makes complete sense when someone shows you the difference between a generic answer and an applied answer, and the value in having a private psychology tutor.

Until then, it can seem as if you are doing the application perfectly, but still not getting top marks.

3. Your Evaluation Sounds Better Than It Scores

One of the most common problems that limits the marks you get in an evaluation is that it doesn’t really go anywhere or doesn’t go far enough.

For example:

‘One limitation is that the study lacks ecological validity’.

That may be true. But you need to carry on and answer 'so what?'

Why didn’t the laboratory conditions reflect real life? How might that have changed the participants' behaviour? Does that mean the findings may not represent behaviour outside the study? How?

Yes, you need to use the scientific terminology - validity, reliability, generalisability, etc. - but the extra marks are in the explanation of what that means. I tell my students to pretend you are explaining it to someone who knows nothing about science or psychology. You can practise this by testing it on someone in your family: read it to them and ask them to give you feedback on what they need further explained. People generally won’t understand what validity, reliability, or generalisability means in psychological terms. The examiners do understand what you’re writing about, but you have to write as if it’s for someone who doesn’t.

The same applies to supporting evidence. Simply writing that “research supports the theory”, followed by a researcher's name and a finding, is not a strong evaluation. Explain what the researchers actually did, what they found, and, most importantly, why that finding supports the explanation you are discussing.

4. You’re Evaluating, Not Discussing

If a question expected you to explain the theory (AO1s) and then do strengths and limitations (AO3s), it would ask 'outline and evaluate'. Most 16-markers are 'discuss' questions, so what is the difference?

You do need to do the evaluation part, but to specifically address the 'discuss' element you need to expand your answer beyond the direct application and evaluation. To do this, you can ask yourself these questions:

·       ‘What does it not tell you?’

·       ‘What else could explain …?’

·       ‘How does it apply or how does this help in real life?’

You don’t need to do all of them - pick the low-hanging fruit - but any one of those can address 'discuss'. For example, suppose you are asked to 'discuss the cognitive approach for depression'; you explain what that is, talk about Beck and Ellis, and then evaluate the studies - all good - but you still need to 'discuss'.

·       ‘What does the cognitive approach not tell you about depression?’ - it doesn’t tell you about the circumstances that have led to someone thinking in a negative way - socioeconomic reasons.

·       ‘What else could explain depression?’ - the biological approach.

·       ‘How does this help in real life?’ - it has led to the development of cognitive behavioural therapy.

They are all closely linked to the question but, at the same time, they widen your answer into a discussion.

5. Research Methods May Be Quietly Dragging Your Grade Down

Research methods show up in all three papers. In Paper 2 there is a double 48-point section for research methods, and in both Papers 1 and 3 one of the sections will be hijacked by research methods, where you are expected to apply research methods to the topic. Look at research methods as an area where you can pick up easy marks when you understand it.

Common questions that get asked:

Writing a hypothesis - usually a 3-marker. This is because there are three elements that MUST be in a hypothesis: the IV, the DV, and they must be operationalised. That last one - operationalising the variables - is often missed; it is simply how they are being measured.

Statistical tests - the mist comes down for just about everyone - but not only do statistical tests turn up in at least one paper, sometimes all three, when you 'get' them, they are an easy 5 or 7 points you can pick up. There is an easy way to remember which test to use and how to get the full marks on these questions. A private tutor will be able to give you tips on how to demystify these questions.

Research methods marks add up.

Finally, if your overall result is disappointing, don't just look at which psychology topics went badly. Look at the type of marks you are repeatedly losing.

Do a Post-Mortem, Not Another Panic Revision Session

If you have just had a poor mock or test result, resist the temptation to immediately start revising everything again.

Look at every mark you lost and try to put it into a category:

·       I didn't know the content.

·       I knew it but didn't answer the exact question.

·       My application wasn't explicit enough.

·       My evaluation wasn't developed.

·       I misunderstood the research methods.

·       I ran out of time.

·       I knew what I wanted to say but couldn't structure the answer.

You may find that your problem is much narrower than your grade makes it look, which is good news.

If you don’t know the course content, of course you need to learn it - there are no magic shortcuts - but if you do know the content and your marks are still disappointing, endlessly revising the same material is unlikely to fix the problem.

You need to work out what is happening between knowing the answer and getting it onto the exam paper in a way that gets top marks.

That is one of those areas where private tuition can make a real difference. Somebody else can often spot a pattern in your answers that you can’t see yourself - particularly if you keep receiving comments such as 'develop', 'apply', 'too descriptive', or simply 'doesn’t answer the question'. I remember, in the first year of my degree in psychology, I constantly received feedback from my tutors: 'be more concise'. I thought I was. It was so frustrating - I simply didn’t get what I was doing wrong - until one of the tutors took the time to show me the difference between concise writing and what I was doing; it transformed my work.

Once you know where the marks are disappearing, you can actually do something about it. If you would like some help doing that, please arrange a free introduction with me to discuss private tuition.