Psych Formative Assessment (HALF-TERMLY)
Submit your work for formal assessment by inserting the files into a copy
of this Word document. The contents, in order, should be:
1. This Page 1 coversheet, completed.
2. Page 2 of the coversheet, completed.
3. First draft of the work, with peer feedback comments on. (This may
be two copies for two different sets of feedback.)
4. Page 3 of the coversheet, completed.
5. Draft 2 of the work, if relevant.
6. Page 4 of the coversheet, completed.
7. Draft 3 of the work (call it this whether you did draft 2 or not.) This
is the draft your teacher will comment on and return.
8. Final draft (draft 4.)
9. Page 5 of the coversheet, completed with grades.
Candidate name:
Frederikke Christiansen
Exam level:
Unit and / or topic:
A2
Unit 3 - Perception
Last term’s graded piece:
D
Target grade:
Title of piece of work:
Marks and time available:
B/C
Describe and evaluate Bruce and Young’s
theory of face recognition
Marks: 25
Final grade (self / teacher):
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Minutes: 30
Psych Formative – Page 2
Place this sheet BEFORE the PEER-COMMENTEDFIRST DRAFT.
Peer markers should give comment and advice on the work using
the “Review” function in Word. They should not give a grade.
They should give an even balance of praise and criticism.
The two peer markers for my work were: (names + surnames)
Rachel Thornton
Connor Jewell
Include BOTH peer markers’ commented essays or the teacher
won’t help.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Describe and evaluate Bruce and Young’s theory of
face recognition
Bruce and Young first introduced this model of in 1986 and since then the theory has been
the most influential model of face recognition. Bruce and Young argued that face
recognition is mainly a holistic process and claims that it involves several independent subprocesses working in unison. Bruce and Young have identified 8 of these components
starting with structural encoding which constructs various representations and descriptions
of faces. The next component of the theory was expression analysis, allowing people to
draw conclusions about an individual’s facial expression. Facial speech analysis looks at
facial movements to help understand speech, directed visual processing specific facial
information is processed selectively, face recognition units stores structural descriptions of
familiar faces. Personal identity nodes store information about known individuals, for
example their job or their interests. The name generation component claims that names
are stored separately from other information; lastly the cognitive system holds additional
information which might be able to help the recognition process.
Another feature of Bruce and Young’s theory is what is known as the ‘view-centered
description, this is used to detect simple physical aspects of the face, for example age,
gender, ect. It is claimed that most analysis made at this stage is on a feature-by-feature
basic, which is used to create a structural model of the face which is then used to compare
the other faces in memory. This explains why the same person seen from a variety of
different angles is still able to be recognized. Perett and Oram (1993) conducted a study
with monkey’s which proved that different templates of the same faces are stored in the
brain. This model also suggests that familiar and unfamiliar faces are processed in slightly
different ways.
There are evidence of case studies of people with prosopagnosia, which highlights the
different aspects of Bruce and Young’s theory, for example VA, reported by DeRenzi et al
(1991), could identify his own handwriting and distinguish between coins from different
currencies but was profoundly prosopagnosic, this simply shows that inanimate objects are
processed independently, separately from face recognition, as they don’t need to use the
expression analysis or facial speech analysis components to recognise the objects. Another
case study which proves this is RM, who was able to distinguish between his large
collection of model cars better than control ppts. Mr. W, was a farmer who got diagnosed
with prosopagnosia and lost his ability to recognise familiar faces, however, was still able to
distinguish between the cows in his heard. This shows that face recognition is distinct from
other types of object processing. McGurk and McDonald (1976) shows ppts a video of
someone enunciating single-syllable sounds while the audio track played a different sound.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
They found that ppts would report hearing a fusion of the two sounds. This suggests that
the mechanisms for facial speech analysis and face recognition are also independent.
Psychologists state that this model has been very influential and can explain and predict
many research findings; however critics of the holistic theory argue that features are too
important to ignore. Feature analysis theorists argue that face recognition is a bottom-up
process, meaning you recognise the features before looking at holistic features (e.g.
spacing and facial shape). Davies and Ellis (1981) carried out a study where they briefly
showed ppts images of unfamiliar faces and asked them to recall what the face looked like;
it was found that the ppts recalled facial features such as eyes, hair, nose and mouth
before describing the unfamiliar faces’ facial shape. Although, Yin (1969) carried out a
contradicting study where ppts were shown inversed objects as well as inversed faces, they
found that the ppts were able to recognise the objects, however found it difficult to
recognise the faces. Yin claims that inversing images of a face impairs holistic processing
but not feature analysis processing, therefore he claims that faces must be processed
holistically.
Aspects of Bruce and Young’s theory, for example the cognitive system, critics argue that
the role of this system is unclear and undeveloped. Critics have also argued against the
evidence of the case studies mentioned, as each brain damage is unique and cannot be
generalised to the entire population. This model also mainly focuses on the recognition of
familiar faces and is unable to explain how, for example, eyewitness identification of
unfamiliar faces can be improved; it also doesn’t take into account the process involved in
learning to recognise new faces and storing these in the fusiform gyrus.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Describe and evaluate Bruce and Young’s theory of
face recognition
Bruce and Young first introduced this model of in 1986 and since then the theory has been
the most influential model of face recognition. Bruce and Young argued that face
recognition is mainly a holistic process and claims that it involves several independent subprocesses working in unison. Bruce and Young have identified 8 of these components
starting with structural encoding which constructs various representations and descriptions
of faces. The next component of the theory was expression analysis, allowing people to
draw conclusions about an individual’s facial expression. Facial speech analysis looks at
facial movements to help understand speech, directed visual processing specific facial
information is processed selectively, face recognition units stores structural descriptions of
familiar faces. Personal identity nodes store information about known individuals, for
example their job or their interests. The name generation component claims that names
are stored separately from other information; lastly the cognitive system holds additional
information which might be able to help the recognition process.
Another feature of Bruce and Young’s theory is what is known as the ‘view-centered
description, this is used to detect simple physical aspects of the face, for example age,
gender, ect. It is claimed that most analysis made at this stage is on a feature-by-feature
basic, which is used to create a structural model of the face which is then used to compare
the other faces in memory. This explains why the same person seen from a variety of
different angles is still able to be recognized. Perett and Oram (1993) conducted a study
with monkey’s which proved that different templates of the same faces are stored in the
brain. This model also suggests that familiar and unfamiliar faces are processed in slightly
different ways.
There are evidence of case studies of people with prosopagnosia, which highlights the
different aspects of Bruce and Young’s theory, for example VA, reported by DeRenzi et al
(1991), could identify his own handwriting and distinguish between coins from different
currencies but was profoundly prosopagnosic, this simply shows that inanimate objects are
processed independently, separately from face recognition, as they don’t need to use the
expression analysis or facial speech analysis components to recognise the objects. Another
case study which proves this is RM, who was able to distinguish between his large
collection of model cars better than control ppts. Mr. W, was a farmer who got diagnosed
with prosopagnosia and lost his ability to recognise familiar faces, however, was still able to
distinguish between the cows in his heard. This shows that face recognition is distinct from
other types of object processing. McGurk and McDonald (1976) shows ppts a video of
someone enunciating single-syllable sounds while the audio track played a different sound.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
They found that ppts would report hearing a fusion of the two sounds. This suggests that
the mechanisms for facial speech analysis and face recognition are also independent.
Psychologists state that this model has been very influential and can explain and predict
many research findings; however critics of the holistic theory argue that features are too
important to ignore. Feature analysis theorists argue that face recognition is a bottom-up
process, meaning you recognise the features before looking at holistic features (e.g.
spacing and facial shape). Davies and Ellis (1981) carried out a study where they briefly
showed ppts images of unfamiliar faces and asked them to recall what the face looked like;
it was found that the ppts recalled facial features such as eyes, hair, nose and mouth
before describing the unfamiliar faces’ facial shape. Although, Yin (1969) carried out a
contradicting study where ppts were shown inversed objects as well as inversed faces, they
found that the ppts were able to recognise the objects, however found it difficult to
recognise the faces. Yin claims that inversing images of a face impairs holistic processing
but not feature analysis processing, therefore he claims that faces must be processed
holistically.
Aspects of Bruce and Young’s theory, for example the cognitive system, critics argue that
the role of this system is unclear and undeveloped. Critics have also argued against the
evidence of the case studies mentioned, as each brain damage is unique and cannot be
generalised to the entire population. This model also mainly focuses on the recognition of
familiar faces and is unable to explain how, for example, eyewitness identification of
unfamiliar faces can be improved; it also doesn’t take into account the process involved in
learning to recognise new faces and storing these in the fusiform gyrus.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page 3
From the advice of your peer markers, write 5-10 lines
summarizing what you think you most need to work on and
change (this box expands as you write):
If peer feedback revealed major issues you need to fix BEFORE
asking for the teacher’s help, then redraft (draft 2).
Otherwise, you can now pass this on to the teacher.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page4
Place this sheet AFTER the new draft you did following peer
feedback. (If no redraft, this is straight after the Stage 2 sheet.)
Remember that the amount of teacher feedback you can get is
very limited and you should use it carefully and sparingly.
Place a cross (“X”) in ONE box:
“I HAVE redrafted after peer feedback”
“I HAVE NOT redrafted after peer feedback”
X
Now send all of the above on to your teacher. Make sure
EVERYTHING is included IN ORDER before you send it. Your
teacher will add their comments.
After it’s returned you will need to do a FINAL DRAFT bearing the
teacher’s advice in mind.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page5
Draft 3, with guidance comments from the teacher, should be
BEFORE this sheet. Now rewrite it. You may want to use this box
to plan the changes you need to make (about 2-3 lines will do):
AFTER this sheet, place thatFinal Draft with improvements made
following the teacher’s advice.
When you have done that, return to the front sheet:
 use the mark scheme to give yourself a final grade
 your teacher will add their view
 if these are different, find some lesson time to ask about it
FINALLY – print it, staple it, and keep it in the folder in the
classroom (this will enable you to refer back to it with your
teacher in order to keep track of your progress.)
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
From plan to feedback to grade (appendix)
Planning might require just a
half-page, or a list of key
terms that must be used.
Summative marking
Formative feedback
Planning / drafting
START HERE
Key terms list
Plan it
First draft
Peer
feedback
Depending on your
confidence level, you might
do the essay under timed
conditions (or not), open
book or closed, with plan and
key terms list visible (or not.)
Try to move up these
confidence levels – but not
too fast.
Rewrite
Teacher
feedback
Final
rewrite
Self- or
peer-grade
Teacher
confirms
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Peer feedback must come
first and is more
important than teacher
feedback. In the short
route, this is followed by
teacher feedback; or you
can redraft from peer
feedback before getting
teacher help. You won’t
get teacher help without
evidence of meaningful
peer feedback first.
Don’t hand the work to
the teacher to mark
summatively. You must be
able to use the mark
scheme to grade it yourself
– or you don’t understand
what the examiner wants.
The teacher can help you
“home in” on marking
accuracy but the onus is
on you to learn this skill.