Use the marking grid below.
4 marks for the similarity, e.g., observational, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection, use of rewards/operant conditioning, standardisation, lacking generalisability. 4 marks for the difference, e.g., qualitative data collection, sample, level of controls.
e.g., similarity
e.g. 4 marks
Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. This means that specific behaviours could be operationalised to improve validity (explanation). For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose and in Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an object in the room.
e.g. 3 marks
Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose/Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an object in the room.
e.g. 2 marks
Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down.
e.g. 1 mark
Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques.
8
Award L1-L4 for similarity.
Award L1-L4 for difference.
For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the similarity or difference.
The other studies from the learning approach are:
Bandura
Saavedra and Silverman
Different species = L1.
Different aims = L1.
Different ethical guidelines = L1
Both opportunity sampling (for Bandura and S&S comparison) = L2
For description of the sample (e.g., n=…. ) from the two studies with no explicit note about size differences or effect on generalisability = L2
9(b)