Statistical Information
This booklet contains summary details for each unit: number entered; maximum mark available; mean mark achieved; grade ranges. N.B. These refer to 'raw marks' used in the initial assessment, rather than to the uniform marks reported when results are issued.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit Page
PY1
PY2
PY3
1
5
9
PY4
Overall Recommendations
12
16

Psychology
General Certificate of Education
2010
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
Principal Examiner: Jenny Hill, B.A. (Psychology), P.G.C.E.
Lecturer, Gorseinon College
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
PY1
Entry
3422
Max Mark
60
Mean Mark
27.5
C
D
E
Grade Ranges
A
B
47
41
35
30
25
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
1

PY1: Approaches in Psychology
General
Overall, the examining team were satisfied with the general performance of candidates on this paper. The majority of candidates have used the allocated time effectively and the vast majority of candidates were able to answer all questions. The majority of candidates were able to demonstrate relevant material in every question. Once again question 5 is proving to be a challenge for a lot of candidates. Many candidates are failing to use examples appropriately and effectively to illustrate how a particular method has relevance within the approach and are focusing on therapy rather than methodology.
Some general points to note are as follows:

Question 1 – Most candidates were able to outline two assumptions in part (a), and the majority of answers were extremely detailed and comprehensive and generally received maximum credit. Most candidates showed an awareness of Freud’s theory of Personality in part (b), but failed to apply concepts and ideas to Personality in an explicit way.

Question 2 – most candidates are now providing a link between the main assumption and the relevant therapy, and it is clear that centres have responded positively to feedback given during INSET.

Question 3 – On the whole this question was well answered. However, some candidates were failing to elaborate sufficiently their explanation of why a particular issue exists as a strength or weakness in relation to the behaviourist approach.
Please note, as detailed under the specific comments for Question 3 that two separate strengths (and weaknesses) must be clearly given to gain credit.

Question 4 – most candidates did attempt to compare and contrast the approaches in an evaluative way.

Question 5 – this question proved to be a discriminator on this paper with many candidates either still continuing to give generic answers that failed to demonstrate an understanding of how the method(s) relate to (or are relevant to) the approach, or simply describing assumptions/therapies from the psychodynamic approach with little or no regard to methodology.
Specific Question Comments
Q.1 (a) The vast majority of candidates were able to outline two assumptions of the
Psychodynamic approach. The majority of candidates offered a highly detailed description and attracted full marks. The examining team commented on the quality of the answers provided and the range of assumptions covered, although it was noted that often answers were too lengthy considering the mark allocation. A small minority of candidates did not describe the assumptions in sufficient detail to attract full marks and merely listed basic points such as behaviour stems from the unconscious mind, or that people have an Id, Ego, and Superego, or that childhood experience affects future behaviour. A very small proportion of candidates repeated the same assumption.
2

(b) Answers varied greatly. A minority of candidates wrote detailed and accurate descriptions and explicitly applied it to personality e.g. having a dominant Id results in an erotic personality type; a dominant Ego results in a narcissistic personality type; and a dominant Superego results in an obsessional personality type. They also focused on the personality traits that result from fixation during the psychosexual stages, as well as the impact of defence mechanisms on personality. The majority of candidates failed to do this and often either repeated the main assumptions that they had written in part (a) or discussed psychosexual stages generally with little regard to personality itself.
Weaker candidates provided muddled and/or inaccurate descriptions of psychosexual development. The best candidates covered a range of information and focused explicitly on personality.
Q.2 There was a balance in the number of candidates answering this question with reference to Chemotherapy or Psychosurgery. These answers ranged from detailed and focused, to basic or superficial descriptions of how these therapies work.
In terms of Chemotherapy, accurate descriptions of the procedures or the chemical changes were provided. There was a range of different applications given e.g. anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety drugs. However, some candidates did not focus on how the therapy is used for the treatment of mental illness e.g. a description of pain relief and morphine was provided. This was also highlighted in the
January 2010 Examiners’ Report.
In terms of Psychosurgery, candidates provided a diverse range of information and used historical information effectively. The best candidates used biological/psychological language effectively and were able to describe effectively the history of the procedures, the equipment used, and the relevant brain areas targeted.
Most candidates did make valid links to the approach; those that did not were in the minority. Some answers included simple evaluation of the therapy, which is not creditworthy; whereas using research on the effectiveness of Chemotherapy can be credited.
Q.3 On the whole, candidates were able to evaluate relevant strengths and weaknesses of the behaviourist approach. Some of these answers were superficial, and lacked sufficient elaboration to warrant high marks. This was because the candidates were failing sufficiently to elaborate their explanation of why a particular issue exists as a strength or weakness in relation to the behaviourist approach. The strengths and weaknesses of the approach were sometimes cited as descriptions of the assumptions or research used within the approach. F or example Bandura’s bobo doll study was described in vast detail and the candidates went on to state that the study was unethical, rather than evaluating the behaviourist approach. Also, weaker candidates were using the scientific methodology or therapy for both of the strengths or weaknesses, even though only one strength and/or weakness in relation to the methodology or therapy used by the approach will gain credit. Two separate strengths (or weaknesses) must be clearly given to gain credit.
The best candidates attempted to use key psychological issues/debates to evaluate the approach (e.g. scientific approach/determinist/reductionist), but few attempted to explain fully why this issue/debate was a strength or weakness of the approach.
3

Q.4 There were, once again, some excellent answers to this question. Many candidates effectively compared and contrasted the two approaches by, for example, making reference to the issues of reductionism, determinism, nature-nurture debate and the therapies used by the approaches. It is encouraging to see that candidates obviously understand each approach in terms of these key issues/debates and therefore in answering this question are able to think of logical points of comparison. Weaker candidates are however, still only superficially comparing the approaches (e.g. both approaches are reductionist), and often expression was not coherent (e.g. both approaches are pre-determined). Furthermore, weaker candidates continue to describe various assumptions of the two approaches but make no attempt to compare and contrast.
Q.5 This question once again proved extremely challenging for a large number of candidates. High scoring candidates were able to identify relevant methods used by the psychodynamic approach and used research studies very effectively to link the method to the approach. For instance when explaining the use of case studies/clinical interviews, they referred to the case study of Little Hans/Anna O. Most candidates were able to evaluate the methods reasonably thoroughly, although repetition was often evident. Weaker candidates described relevant research in excessive detail e.g. the case of little Hans, but failed to explain what a case study is and give evaluation of it. Some candidates identified methods which were not relevant to the idiographic nature of the psychodynamic approach e.g. laboratory experiments, although if it was contextualised within the approach e.g. Levinger and
Clark’s research into Repression, it received the appropriate credit. Centres should note that the top band in the mark scheme states that “Method(s) is appropriate and clearly explained with relevance to the approach”.
4

Psychology
General Certificate of Education
2010
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
Principal Examiner: Rhiannon Murray, B.A. (Hons), P.G.C.E.
Subject Leader, Psychology, Bassaleg School
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
PY2
Entry
6746
Max Mark
90
Mean Mark
37.7
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
55
47
40
33
26
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
5

PY2
The examining team was pleased with the standard of the answers written by many of the candidates. It was particularly pleasing to see the improvement that has occurred in candidates ’ answers in Section A and C. Very few candidates are ‘mixing up’ the core studies or offering completely inappropriate answers.
Section A
Q.1 Most candidates were able to offer a reasonable answer to this question and it was pleasing to see a wide range of ‘contextual’ evidence being used well. Nearly all candidates attempted to include both context and an aim. Some candidates included evidence and research produced after the publication of Loftu s and Palmer’s (1974) research. This practice should be dissuaded as it does not receive credit. Some candidates offered a summary of the appropriate procedure, or re-worked the research title noted in the question, rather than describing an appropriate aim; these strategies attract minimal credit.
Q.2 For most candidates this was their best answer. It was very pleasing to see the accuracy and depth of detail which some candidates were able to describe. It is clear that the strategy of ‘ writing a recipe ’ of the research is helping students gain higher marks in this question.
Q.3 The examining team appreciate that writing a concise, accurate and well-detailed answer to this question is very difficult; however we were pleasantly surprised by how many students were able to offer a good answer to this question. One issue of concern for the examining team was, however, the number of candidates describing findings from later research involving Washoe. Candidates may use this sort of information in Section B as
‘alternative evidence’, but they will only receive credit for describing the findings and conclusions from Gardner & Gardner’s original 1969 research in Section A.
Section B
Q.4
Most candidates attempted this question with enthusiasm! For most, the main focus of the answer was a tirade of ethical criticisms, but a few were able to balance this with some consideration of the vali dity of Milgram’s research. It is disappointing that some candidates still persist in believing that evaluation is just writ ing phrases like “ A strength of Milgram’s research is that he…” before describing some aspect of Milgram’s procedure rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion of the highlighted methodological issue. Many candidates ‘imported’ their Section C knowledge and applied it to Milgram’s research with varying degrees of success.
Q.5
Although the answers to this question were perhaps not as enthusiastic as the previous question, most candidates were able to produce at least a basic level of methodological c riticism for Buss’s research. Weaker answers tended just to identify the ‘strength’ of
Buss’s research in using such a large sample; average answers identified this but then added that some of the samples were comparatively small e.g. Iran, so they may not be representative; whereas the better answers noted the limitation that the majority of samples tended to be taken from W estern, industrialised countries. Some ‘enterprising’ candidates tried to convince the examining team that the variations in the sampling techniques used was actually a strength that made the research much more valid. A rather cynical, yet creditable, criticism offered by some candidates was that by Buss asking people what they wanted in a partner, he may actually be being more realistic than just looking at the attributes of married couples
– because apparently when you get married, you do not always get what you want!
6

Q.6 As in previous examinations this question was the low point of the paper for many candidates. A sizeable minority (22%) did not even attempt to answer the question.
Another group of candidates persist in ignoring the demands of the question and offer a purely methodological criticism of the study. Many candidates were, however, able to offer a reasonable description of alternative evidence. However what made the difference in marks was how well the evidence presented was used to evaluate
BennettLevy & Marteau’s research. Candidates with lower marks tended just to state whether the research supports, contradicts and/or develops Bennett-Levy &
Marteau’s research. Candidates with higher marks explained how the alternative evidence supports, contradicts and/or develops BennettLevy & Marteau’s research.
The intention of this question is to evaluate the core study, using evidence as a comparison tool. This is a ‘higher order’ skill; to succeed all a candidate needs to do is briefly describe recognisable alternative evidence and then discuss fully how it supports, contradicts and/or develops the conclusions of the core study. If candidates do this well with two pieces of alternative evidence, they can access the top band of marks.
Section C
Q.7 (a) Most candidates were able to offer an advantage and disadvantage of a natural experiment, although a sizeable minority were confused between a natural and a field experiment. Very few offered no link to the scenario and for many candidates this was their best mark in Section C.
(b) It was really pleasing to see an increase in the number of candidates who were able to offer confident discussion of a reliability issue. One note of caution is that although many candidates were able to offer a clear description of techniques for dealing with reliability issues, especially test re-test, some missed out on credit because they had failed to identify clearly the issue of reliability with which they were dealing.
(c) Issues of validity tended to centre on the fact that some students may be more intelligent, or may have revised more, and that it was this rather than the fact that they had, or had not, eaten breakfast, which affected their exam grade. The ways in which this was dealt with varied greatly, but as long as it is dealt with appropriately and clearly linked to the scenario the candidate receives full credit.
(d) Some candidates were unable to offer an advantage to systematic sampling, such as less researcher bias when selecting participants. Most were however, able to identify an appropriate disadvantage like the sample selected may not be representative of all of the students taking the exam.
(e) Most candidates were able to identify and offer discussion of an appropriate and linked ethical issue. However, only a minority gave enough depth to their discussion to warrant the full 3 marks.
(f) Most candidates were able to identify a conclusion from the modal grades in the question and as a result received varying degrees of credit, depending on the appropriateness of their answer rather than the length of their answer.
7

Q.8 (a) As with Q.7 (a), this was the strongest answer in Section C for many candidates. Most candidates were able to identify a disadvantage of a correlation, (cause and effect issues) but less were able to give an appropriate advantage. Many ended up describing what a correlation was i.e.
An advantage is that correlations show the relationship between two variables rather than identifying an advantage such as assessing the strength of a relationship between two co-variables before conducting an experiment.
(b) As with Q.7 (b), more candidates in this examination were able to identify and deal with reliability issues appropriately, such as whether the scales that measured happiness and stress measured these attributes consistently, or whether the ‘team’ of psychologists were consistent in their assessment of stress and happiness scales.
(c) Appropriate validity issues were noted and many students were able to describe appropriate ways of dealing with the identified issue. It was creditable that some candidates chose to use problems with the self-selected
(volunteer) sampling technique as a validity issue.
(d) Most candidates were able to identify an appropriate advantage and disadvantage of a self selected (volunteer) sampling technique and many linked both to the scenario to get full marks.
(e) As with 7 (e), most candidates were able to identify and offer discussion of an appropriate and linked ethical issue. However, only a minority gave enough depth to their discussion to warrant the full 3 marks.
(f) Most candidates were able to secure a good mark for this question; many correctly concluded that there appears to be a negative correlation between the happiness scores and stress scores of the participants.
8

Principal Examiner:
Psychology
General Certificate of Education
2010
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
Andrew Favager, B.A. (Hons), P.G.C.E, M.Sc., B.P.S.
Head Psychology and Vocational Studies, South Wirral High
School
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
PY3
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
50
43
37
31
25
Entry
1404
Max Mark
80
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
Mean Mark
44.6
9

PY3
General
As described in the Specification, Section C in this examination requires two short essays from a choice of three. These essays are worth 15 AO3 marks each, a total of 30 marks for the AO3 skill area. The paper as a whole tests three skills and the weighting of each skill is:
• AO1 - 25% (20 marks);
• AO2 - 25% (20 marks);
• AO3 - 50% (40 marks).
This means that there are only 10 marks available for AO3 in Sections A and B. Hence many questions in Sections A and B are generic rather than specific to the source. Candidates need to be aware of this so that the reading of questions is more carefully done.
Specific Question Comments
Section A
Q.1 (a) Fairly well answered although a lot of candidates only achieved 1 mark by not giving a full enough answer.
(b) Again most candidates achieved 1 mark because a full answer was not given e.g. ‘defining aggression’.
(c) (i) and (ii) generally well answered.
(d) Well answered overall.
(e) (i) This question was poorly answered with many candidates not knowing an answer or by just repeating the answer given in (d). Consequently this meant that (ii) was also poorly answered.
(f) Most candidates gained marks for the main ethical issue,
‘protection from harm ’, but many failed to grasp that there are other ethical issues such as consent and right to withdraw on the part of zoo owners/authorities.
(g) Well answered.
(h) (i) Well answered although some candidates confused the median for the mean.
(ii) and (iii) were also well answered.
10

Section B
Q.2 (a) Generally well answered although some candidates still confuse reliability with validity and this is learned in the AS.
(b) (i) When answered correctly this was answered well. Some candidates, however, did not seem to read the question properly and referred to a laboratory experiment and omitted the actual design.
(ii) and (iii) Some answers lacked awareness of a repeated measures design.
(c) Very poorly answered and many candidates left the question unanswered.
(d) Well answered overall.
(e) (i), (ii) and (iii) Generally well answered although some candidates attempted to define the term by just repeating the term in the question.
(iv) Many candidates gave another sampling method and then gave advantages of this method instead of explaining how the identified sampling method could be used (a case of not reading the question carefully).
(f) (i) Poorly answered overall.
(ii) Attempts were made to give a suitable response but many answers were poorly explained.
Section C
Q.3 This was generally well answered but some candidates made similar mistakes to candidates who sat the January 2011 paper, in that they discussed ethical issues that had arisen within psychological studies without discussing how these issues could be dealt with.
Q.4 The least popular answered essay question on the paper but those candidates achieved some good marks. The most popular applications of psychology in the real world chosen were the use of psychology in the media, and the use of psychology within warfare. Applications taught in PY4 may, of course, be relevant to this area.
Q.5 Easily the best answered essay on the paper with many candidates achieving 8 or more marks. Many candidates, however, failed to achieve the top band because they did not fully develop the advantages given. This can be done theoretically, of course, but it is easier for candidates to do this by using relevant research/studies.
11

Principal Examiner:
Psychology
General Certificate of Education
2010
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
John Griffin, M.A. (Notts)
Curriculum Leader Psychology and Sociology, Kingsmead
Technology College.
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
PY4
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
58
49
41
35
25
Entry
3742
Max Mark
100
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
Mean Mark
38.9
12

PY4
General
Overall in PY4 there were some excellent scripts with mature arguments, marshalling of evidence and evaluation, and fluent writing under exam pressure. Unfortunately they were a minority. It was pleasing, however, to note that the number of centres issuing identical answers (‘clone scripts’) has in fact lessened. Timed essay practice under examination practice is critical for success in this unit. If any set of behaviours can improve performance, it is the practice of reading for a structured written essay, and the writing of that essay under time-restricted conditions. Skills need skill practice.
Sadly, many candidates showed little or no development from AS. The simple listing of studies plus generic criticism is not an essay, neither is a seemingly random set of ideas and opinions. For an examination that is summative, and the final one before a student’s university career, there must be structure, thought, evaluation, overall grasp and the benefit of wider reading. It was anticipated that in PY4 and especially in the Controversies Section that candidates would be stimulated to read and grasp wider issues. This largely has not happened in this series, but it is hoped that the practice will increase with encouragement from teachers.
As far as the mark scheme for Sections B and C is concerned, the majority of marks are for evaluation, so candidates are advised to quote studies labelled as ‘in support of’, or ‘counterevidence in the case of…’. Generic criticisms do not generally attract the same level of marks as specific and relevant ones. The listing of generic criticisms of Freud, for instance, would not attract a high level of AO2 marks if attached to a forensics essay or a levels of consciousness one.
Specific Question Comments
Q.1 (a) Definitions were in the main very weak, simply rewording the question. For
3 marks clearly more than one sentence is expected. A definition, contextualisation and an apposite example should be the norm. Most candidates confused ethical costs with ethical issues arising in an experiment.
(b) The ethical cost question was the most popular, but the weaker in quality of answer. Most candidates recycled their ‘ethical issues’ answer from PY3 without adjustment, which attracted half marks or less. The better candidates argued about scientific benefits across a range of psychological topics, not just Milgram, Zimbardo and a selected animal study. A very few mentioned the wider world of responsibility, such as the use of conditioning in advertising.
13

Q.2 (a) In the genetic question, very few mentioned the influence of being human, i.e. evolution. Man y simply rephrased the question: ‘Genetic influence is the influence of ge netic inheritance on behaviour’.
(b) The genetic-environment question was almost universally interpreted as the
‘nature/nurture question’, which it is not. Virtually no candidate equated genetic with evolution (e.g. the extent of human behaviour determination springing from being a hyper-social primate, one among a host of other issues). A few candidates linked the foetal environment with subsequent attributes and behaviour or the effects of nutrition or temperature on behaviour. There were, however, a lot of reasonably good answers written with thought and structure.
Q.3
Disorders of memory were in the main linked to Alzheimers with a supporting cast of amnesias. Far too many candidates relied almost totally on Alzheimers alone. It is important to remember that memory disorder is usually a symptom of another underlying condition. Alzheimers is a poorly understood brain disease that dements, removing a host of cognitive capacities. Progressive amnesia is a major symptom.
Some candidates described repression, some added fugue; virtually no candidates thought of other relatively commonplace disorders such as ‘tip of the tongue’ or failure to retrieve names. Many candidates quoted no research evidence or evaluated the state of knowledge of a disorder. The impervious nature of procedural memory received an occasional mention but with no attempt to account for its durability.
Q.4 Understudied relationships as a topic on the legacy specification elicited accounts of homosexual relations and computer-mediated relations, but little else. This series was no exception. Very few candidates noted the dearth of research into siblings, friendship, grandparents and grandchildren, father and child, arranged marriages, workplace and formal, and so on. The most studied relationships are mother and child, followed by heterosexual mating. Quality varied, with some superb efforts, but almost all were limited by a lack of range.
Q.5
Very few centres attempted the issues in intelligence measurement question, although some individuals 'had a go' despite having clearly not been taught it. The best centres were very good indeed, and ranged from issues arising at the dawn of testing through the politics of race and gender, to the question of what exactly is being measured.
Q.6 Adolescent identity was a choice of a small number of centres. The answers focused on Blos, Erikson and Marcia, but almost universally with no cross-cultural perspective or criticism, which is astonishing given the highly ethnocentric bias of the material.
There was extensive use of generic criticism of Freud. Many candidates gained high
AO1 marks but relatively low AO2 due to the lack of effective and specific evaluation.
Q.7 This was a popular question, reflecting the rise in popularity of this topic in general.
There are a considerable number of theories, as well as some underlying descriptive work, and the scope for evaluation is wide. A large number of answers focused on
Freudian explanation, no doubt building on dream therapy work from PY1. Most candidates counterposed this to a cognitive theory. The Freudian ideas received considerable, sometimes exhaustive, evaluation but the lack of substantive evaluation elsewhere restricted AO2 marks.
14

Q.8 The health promotion question was attempted by few centres, perhaps reflecting a decline in interest from the legacy specification. This is not a difficult question but requires structure for high marks, which it did not generally receive. The core of the
AO1 must be behaviour change, and of the AO2 both the evaluation of behaviour change attempts and the ethical, moral and political questions that arise (e.g. personal freedom, the blurring of health promotion and product promotion, ethics of consent, labelling non-adherents as dysfunctional as in the recent anti-obesity campaigns).
Q.9
A very limited number of candidates answered this question. Some, however, had clearly not been prepared by their teachers to attempt this area. A range of factors was needed with associated evidence, and it is that evidence that was generally lacking.
Q.10 Theories of crime attracted huge interest. Many candidates described a range of theories, although the quality of evaluation was generally limited. Some weaker candidates relied almost totally on Lombroso, Sheldon and Freud. Very few candidates discussed the categories of property and people crimes (with different realms of explanation), and virtually none analysed the nature of crime with a view to evaluating many (simplistic) theories. Good candidates brought in wider critical perspectives such as the effect of economic factors on property crime, the growth of under-classes, or the normality of petty crime in children and teenagers.
Q.11
Very few candidates answered this question, and almost none seemed prepared for it (Sports students possibly?). The majority of those who did attempt it described theories of motivation, but did not focus on ‘ways of improving’. This was a very difficult question requiring a structured response for high marks.
Q.12
The question on aetiologies of schizophrenia was generally the most frequently answered and the best-answered question in this series. Even relatively weak candidates had a range of suitable theories; many had evaluative studies or reasoned criticism; and answers were well structured. The main area to focus on for improvement is the discussion on diathesis-stress.
15

Overall recommendations on how to improve for both AS and A2

Students:
1. Time management skills; answer only the question asked so that time not wasted.
2.
3.
Understanding of command terms.
Specific requirements of the skills required by the questions.
4.

Teachers:
Examination practice - critical for PY4 essays.
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSET (now called CPD) - see details online.
Use the Teacher Guidance booklet (online).
Use this Examiner’s Report and previous ones.
Use the Mark Scheme and previous ones from the legacy specification to identify appropriate content for many areas in the new specification.
Resources online at NGfL Cymru.
Learn how to use the item level data - ask your Examinations Officer for the
5.
6.
7. password to the secure website.
If in doubt, ask.
Contact details: Dr Alison George, Subject Officer email: alison.george@wjec.co.uk telephone: 029 2026 5302
Greg Lewis, Subject Support Officer email: greg.lewis@wjec.co.uk telephone: 029 2026 5035
GCE Psychology Examiners Report (Summer 2010) /JSM
27.09.10
16

WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: exams@wjec.co.uk website: www.wjec.co.uk