Signposting

Signposting helps the reader see the structure of your essay. It also helps indicate to Professor Cardwell that you are giving a commentary on the question, not simply reproducing what the textbook says about its topic. This advice should be applied to 18 mark AS essays and 24 and 30 mark A2 essays. 6 mark AS essays do not require anything but a simple regurgitation of textbook information.

For the sake of this handout, I will be mainly using the sample question “Evaluate the multi-store model of memory”, but I will give a range of signposts for use in a variety of question types.

Introduction

Cardwell likes you to get straight to the point. Start off with phrases like The multi-store model was devised by Atkinson and Shiffrin to describe the structure of memory. It divides memory into three separate stores... and go on to describe it. The amount of detail you include will depend on how many description marks are available. If the question asks something like Outline and evaluate two models of memory, start with One model of memory is the multi-store model by A+S... Do not give a general introduction like Memory is a really interesting topic which has fascinated psychologists since 3000 BC. This may be true, but you only get marks for information which directly addresses the question.

Remember that theories aren’t facts, they are tentative explanations for observed phenomena. Say things like Atkinson and Shiffrin claim that memory is divided into three separate stores, or ...have proposed that..., or ...have suggested that.... Your job in the rest of the essay is to evaluate whether the claim is true or not.

Evaluation

Having described the first thing you’re going to evaluate, you should then evaluate it. To show Cardwell that you’re going to evaluate it, you should start with phrases like In order to evaluate this theory..., or We need to evaluate the validity of this claim by looking at the evidence that has been put forward as supporting it. Then describe the evidence — usually concentrating on the findings and conclusions (Millar found that Ps could remember 7 individual letters, but 21 letters when they were grouped into meaningful items, thus suggesting that the capacity of STM was 7 “chunks”) — and say what this suggests about the theory: This suggests that there may indeed be a separate STM store, since its characteristics are different from those of LTM.

If there are other non-experimental points in favour of the theory, say things like Another point in favour of this theory is that it is parsimonious — it provides the simplest explanation which accounts for all the observations.

When you’ve finished saying something in favour of a theory or idea, refer back to it again, to show that you were using the study or general point to evaluate it: The results of this research do indeed suggest that the theory has some validity...; There is a lot to be said for this idea then....

If there is a problem with any particular study, say things like A problem with this study, however, is that it lacks ecological validity: people do not often have to learn lists of acronyms, and other research carried out in Albania has failed to replicate its findings. Notice that I’ve explained why it lacks ecological validity, as well as saying that it does so.

Other criticisms may start with phrases like: Several criticisms have been levelled at this theory...; Eysenck and Keane criticise this theory on the grounds that...; It is clear, however, that this idea lacks intuitive appeal — it is not our everyday experience that this is the case. Notice that I’ve explained why it lacks intuitive appeal, as well as saying that is unintuitive.

Having given the criticisms, you should again refer back to the theory, and sum up how you feel about it, having looked at supporting and non-supporting arguments: Overall then, we can see that the criticisms throw the theory into considerable doubt...; Regardless of the criticisms, there appears to be reasonable support for the theory.

If the question asks for two theories to be outlined and evaluated, you should now say An alternative theory is the working memory model of Baddeley and Hitch..., and describe it and evaluate it as above.

If the question only mentions one theory, you can go on to talk about another theory, and indeed you are encouraged to do so. However, you must use the following phrase to introduce it, or you will get no marks whatsoever for anything you write past this point: However, in order to fully evaluate this theory, we must see whether any competing theories offer a better explanation of.... One such theory is the Working Memory Model by Baddeley and Hitch. This proposes that memory is.... Then describe and evaluate it, referring as frequently as possible back to the theory in the question: Unlike the multi-store model, this claims that STM is divided into a number of substores...; The evidence for this model is more convincing than that for the multi-store model.... If you do not do this, you will fail to gain any marks for what you write.

You can go on to do this for yet more alternative theories, so long as you keep referring back to the original theory, and show that you are only talking about theories not asked for in order to evaluate the one you are asked for — is it better?; is it not?

Conclusion

You should refer back to the question again and make sure you answer it. You can make it clear that you are doing this by using some words from the question and giving an obvious opinion: Having evaluated the evidence for and against the multi-store model, we can see that not only is the evidence for it severely lacking, but that the evidence for alternative models is much more robust. It can therefore be rejected as a valid model of how memory is structured.

General signposts

One theory is...
Another theory is...
An alternative theory is...
A better theory is...
Another important suggestion about this theory is...
It has been proposed that...
It has been suggested that...
It has been claimed that...
According to this theory...
The authors suggest that...
The authors argue that...
They also claim that...
Another allegedly important point is...
The theory also suggests that...
So, what evidence is there to support this view...?
Does the evidence support this suggestion...?
In order to evaluate this theory, we must first examine the evidence which has been put forward to support it...
In addition to these studies, there are some general theoretical points in favour of this theory...
The results of this study suggest that the theory might, in some instances, be valid...
On the face of it, this suggests that Atkinson and Shiffrin were correct in their proposal...
Overall, we might be tempted to believe this theory...
However...
On further examination, though...
Other research contradicts this, however:...
On the other hand, research in Iceland suggests...
Critics have pointed out...
It is clear that this study has limited ecological validity, however:...
Another point I would like to raise is...
All in all, then, the theory seems to have limited explanatory power...
Taking into account these criticisms, we should probably reject this theory...
An alternative view is...
A more recent theory which has tried to take these criticisms into account is...
In order to fully evaluate this view, we need to examine alternatives...
Compared with the multi-store model, this model seems to account well for the experimental observations...
This, then, is clearly an inadequate alternative, and is too weak to allow us to reject the multi-store model...
While initially convincing, further examination of this alternative shows it to have inferior explanatory power compared with the multi-store model...
In conclusion, it is clear from the evidence that...
After considered evaluation, it is clear that...
Despite serious competition from later models, the multi-store model still stands up well as a valid model of memory...

I’m sure you can think of many more. If you come up with a particularly juicy one, either off your own bat or from a book, email it to me, and I’ll include it here.