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:
Claudia Rostek
Exam level:
A2 / AS / GCSE
Unit and / or topic:
Unit 3 perception
Last term’s graded piece:
Target grade:
Title of piece of work:
Marks and time available:
A
Bruce and Young
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)
Freddie
Connor
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 devised a theory of face recognition that has been the most influential model. They argue
that face recognition is a holistic process where a view-centered description is derived that may involve
several independent sub-processes working in unison.
In their model they identified eight separate components of the face recognition process. Structural encoding
is use construct various representations and descriptions of faces. Expression analysis is drawing
conclusions about an individual’s emotional start from analysing their features. Facial speech analysis is
used for looking at facial movements, particularly lip to help understand speech. Specific facial information
is processed selectively in the direct visual processing sub-process. Face recognition units are the stored
structural description of familiar faces. Person identity nodes use stored information about known
individuals. Names are stored separately from other information in the Name generation sub-unit. And
finally the cognitive system holds additional information that may help with recognition. All of these subprocesses are used in facial perception.
Case studies on people with prosopagnosia have shown a large support towards the Bruce and Young theory,
showing a failure in one sub-process doesn’t affect other sub-processes. Sergent and Signoret study a RM
who was able to accurately distinguish between his large collection of model cars better than control
participants, proving inanimate objects are processed independently. WJ described by McNeil and
Warrington took up farming and was able to learn to distinguish between his sheep even though
profoundly prosopagnotic. These findings suggest face recognition is at least anatomically distinct from
other types of processing. On the other hand the ability for WJ to learn to recognize his sheep could
suggest a more basic form of recognition, which could have a more feature-by-feature basis, disregarding
Bruce and Young’s idea of holistic processing.
Bruce and Young’s model explains expression analysis to be parallel with, but independently of, face
recognition. Kurucz, Feldmare and Werner found some prosopagnosia patients to be able to identify
familiar faces but unable to recognize their facial expression. Supporting this Bruyer found the reverse
pattern in other patients. This supports Bruce and Young as they are seen as separate sub-processes. The
idea of familiar faces is another hazy area of the Bruce and Young theory, it explains where the information
is stored but doesn’t explain the learning process involved in learning to recognise new faces and storing
these images in memory. The only information given on identification on familiar faces is that the subprocesses expression analysis, facial speech analysis and directed visual processing are used.
The McGurk illusion supports Bruce and Young because some prosopagnosic patients were susceptible to the
illusion. Cambell, Landis and Regard studied patient D who was profoundly prosopagnosic and couldn’t
recognise familiar faces, facial expression or judge the sex of an individual from their face. However patient
D was susceptible to the McGurk illusion, this suggests that speech analysis is a separate process. Futhering
this patient T wasn’t susceptible to the illusion but was able to identify facial expression accurately.
Another study done by Young et al reinforces Bruce and Young’s theory. Their study supports the idea that
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
naming is a spate process as they asked 22 people to keep diaries of their everyday errors made in facial
recognition. 1,008 errors were made and almost 20% of these were when someone knew information
about the person but couldn’t think of their name. Furthering this no recording was made where people
were able to name a face but know nothing about them.
The Bruce and Young theory, however has some flaws as some components have been less well explained. The
role of the cognitive system isn’t specific and its role is still very unclear. The theory focuses strongly on
recognition of familiar faces and has limited value in helping to understand the process of learning new
faces and storing these images in memory. The model also doesn’t help to explain the process of improving
eyewitness identification of unfamiliar faces can be improved.
Overall the Bruce and Young theory is neutral on the question of whether face recognition is a special process
that is different from other types of object recognition.
Marked by Freddie
© 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 devised a theory of face recognition that has been the most influential model. They argue
that face recognition is a holistic process where a view-centered decryption is derived that may involve
several independent sub-processes working in unison.
In their model they identified eight separate components of the face recognition process. Structural encoding
is use construct various representations and descriptions of faces. Expression analysis is drawing
conclusions about an individual’s emotional start from analysing their features. Facial speech analysis is
used for looking at facial movements, particularly lip to help understand speech. Specific facial information
is processed selectively in the direct visual processing sub-process. Face recognition units are the stored
structural description of familiar faces. Person identity nodes use stored information about known
individuals. Names are stored separately from other information in the Name generation sun-unit. And
finally the cognitive system holds additional information that may help with recognition. All of these subprocesses are used in facial perception.
Case studies on people with prosopagnosia have shown a large support towards the Bruce and Young theory,
showing a failure in one sub-process doesn’t affect other sub-processes. Sergent and Signoret study a RM
who was able to accurately distinguish between his large collection of model cars better than control
participants, proving inanimate objects are processed independently. WJ described by McNeil and
Warrington took up farming and was able to learn to distinguish between his sheep even though
profoundly prosopagnotic. These findings suggest face recognition is at least anatomically distinct from
other types of processing. On the other hand the ability for WJ to learn to recognize his sheep could
suggest a more basic form of recognition, which could have a more feature-by-feature basis, disregarding
Bruce and Young’s idea of holistic processing.
Bruce and Young’s model explains expression analysis to be parallel with, but independently of, face
recognition. Kurucz, Feldmare and Werner found some prosopagnosia patients to be able to identify
familiar faces but unable to recognize their facial expression. Supporting this Bruyer found the reverse
pattern in other patients. This supports Bruce and Young as they are seen as separate sub-processes. The
idea of familiar faces is another hazy area of the Bruce and Young theory, it explains where the information
is store but doesn’t explain the learning process involved in learning to recognise new faces and storing
these imagine in memory. The only information given on identification on familiar faces is that the subprocesses expression analysis, facial speech analysis and directed visual processing are used.
The McGurk illusion supports Bruce and Young because some prosopagnosic patients were susceptible to the
illusion. Cambell, Landis and Regard studied patient D who was profoundly prosopagnosic and couldn’t
recognise familiar faces, facial expression or judge the sex of an individual from their face. However patient
D was susceptible to the McGurk illusion, this suggests that speech analysis is a separate process. Futhering
this patient T wasn’t susceptible to the illusion but was able to identify facial expression accurately.
Another study doe by Young et al reinforces Bruce and Young’s theory. Their study supports the idea that
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
naming is a spate process as they asked 22 people to keep diaries of their everyday errors made in facial
recognition. 1,008 errors were made and almost 20% of these were when someone knew information
about the person but couldn’t think of their name. Furthering this no recording were made where people
we able to name a face but know nothing about them.
The Bruce and Young theory, however has some flaws as some components have been less well explained. The
role of the cognitive system isn’t specific and its role is still very unclear. The theory focuses strongly on
recognition of familiar faces and has limited value in helping to understand the process of learning new
faces and storing these images in memory. The model also doesn’t help to explain the process of improving
eyewitness identification of unfamiliar faces can be improved.
Overall the Bruce and Young theory is neutral on the question of whether face recognition is a special process
that is different from other types of object recognition.
Marked by Connor
© 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 I did the essay again I would need to expand more on my cons of the theory in more
detail. Expanding my learning by looking on the internet for more information to back up
my negative points. I would also be more cautious of my spelling.
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.