Criminology Unit Four Past Questions and Gaps: Exam 2022

On May 10, 2022May 10, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn CriminologyLeave a comment

Since the advanced information for Criminology was finally announced, it has been a whirlwind trying to interpret the altered specification, preparing coverall revision powerpoints (check out here: Unit Two and Unit Four) and analysing past exam papers for insights and obvious gaps. Here you will find the past questions (2017-2020) that link to the topics asked on the advanced information for Unit Four, plus any gaps (areas on the specification that have never been asked) and potential questions. So here is what I have found:

Assessment Criteria: 1.1

Past Questions:

Outline the process used by the government for making laws such as The Theft Act 1968. 3 marks (2017)
Identify four features of the parliamentary (governmental) law making process. 4 marks (2020)

Gaps and Possible Questions:

Describe the governmental processes used for law making.

Assessment Criteria: 1.2

Past Questions:

Describe the relationship of the prison service with other agencies in the criminal justice system. 7 marks (2017)
Outline the role of the prison service in England and Wales. 3 marks (2018)
Describe relationships between the police, CPS and the courts as a case proceeds through the criminal justice system. (Not CPS in 2022 exam) 6 marks (2018)
Analyse the relationship between the Probation Service and other agencies in the criminal justice system. 8 marks (2019)
Describe the relationships between the courts and agencies of formal punishment within the criminal justice system. 9 marks (2020)

Gaps and Possible Questions:

Describe the relationship pf the police with other agencies in the criminal justice system.
Describe relationships between the police, courts and formal punishment as a case proceeds through the criminal justice system.
Describe the relationships between the police and agencies of formal punishment within the criminal justice system.
Outline the role of the police service in England and Wales.
Outline the role of the courts in England and Wales.
Outline the role of the probation service in England and Wales.

Assessment Criteria: 1.3

Continue reading →

Criminology Revision Materials (NEW)

On May 10, 2022May 10, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

These packs contain the coverall powerpoints created for the 2022 Criminology exam (as seen on YouTube). You will also receive as copy of the coverall worksheet which accompanies the coverall powerpoint. Finally you will receive a worksheet which can be printed for students that covers all past questions relating to the advanced information and possible questions/ gaps (as featured in a previous blog).

Unit Two:

Unit Two Criminology 2022 Exam Revision

Unit Four:

Unit Four Criminology 2022 Exam Revision

Criminology ‘coveralls’ for 2022 Exam

On May 3, 2022May 10, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn CriminologyLeave a comment

The first place I started when the advanced information was released (finally) was to try and decipher what sections of the specification have remained and which have been removed.

I have created this coverall powerpoint (that I will use as the structure of my revision lessons) to emphasize the key areas to focus on.

Unit Two:

Unit Four:

If you would like a copy of the coverall powerpoint, coverall worksheet and printable table of past questions and possible gaps please click here: Unit Two and Unit Four.

Criminology Unit Two Past Questions and Gaps: Exam 2022

On May 3, 2022May 10, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Since the advanced information for Criminology was finally announced, it has been a whirlwind trying to interpret the altered specification, preparing coverall revision powerpoints (check out here: Unit Two and Unit Four) and analysing past exam papers for insights and obvious gaps. I am currently focusing on Unit Two (with preparation for Unit Four simmering in the background) and since deciphering the changes made by the exam board, the next move seemed to be colour coordinating past exam questions to see what has been asked, where the gaps are (areas on the specification never been asked) and potential questions. So here is what I have found:

Assessment Criteria: 1.2

Past Questions:

With reference to examples, analyse how laws change due to time, place and culture. 9 marks (2017)
Discuss, using examples, how laws have changed over time. 7 marks (2019)

Gaps and Possible Questions:

Discuss, using examples, how laws change over place.
Discuss, using examples, how laws change from culture to culture.
How laws are applied differently according to circumstance in which actions occur.

Assessment Criteria: 2.1

Past Questions:

With reference to the text above, describe the main features of one physiological theory of criminality. 5 marks (2017)
Describe one physiological theory of criminality. 5 marks (2018)
Describe one biological theory of criminality. 5 marks (2019)

Gaps and Possible Questions:

Describe one physiological theory of criminality.

Assessment Criteria: 2.2

Past Questions:

Describe one individualistic theory of criminality. 5 marks (2017)
With reference to Jimmy’s case, describe one individualistic theory of criminality. 5 marks (2018)
Describe one individualistic theory of criminality. 5 marks (2019)
Briefly describe one individualistic theory of criminality. 4 marks (2020)

Past Questions:

Describe the main features of one Learning Theory of criminality.

Assessment Criteria: 3.1

Past Questions:

Analyse how the theory described above (individualistic) can be applied to Paul’s situation. 5 marks (2017)

Gaps and Possible Questions:

Note: Questions will depend on scenario given but you can apply Physiological and Learning Theories to it. Marks can be awarded for other relevant links even if not on the Advanced Info for 2022.

Assessment Criteria: 3.2

Continue reading →

“But I have never sat an exam before!” Strategies to Help Students Excel.

On March 29, 2022March 29, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam PreparationLeave a comment

I cannot express how pleased I am that exams are going ahead this year. I am able to plan, organise and structure my teaching once more around a clear end goal without flip flopping between TAG’s, assessments and the general unknown. I know this same sentiment however is not felt by students. We know what is coming, the hardship of revision that is needed and the intense pressure and stress that the exams culture puts students under. The problem is our students do not. They have not had to revise for exams or sit formalised, intensive exam periods that feel like you are sitting in a pressurised gas can ready to explode at any minute. So what can we do to help ensure our students are resilient revisers, independent workers and exam succeeders?

Identifying the problem:

A good place to start when organising revision is to ask students to write down what they think ‘resilience’ means and how a student would show this when preparing for exams. I would also ask them what independent study looks like. Quite often students might struggle to remain resilient or complete productive independent study but this is because they don’t know what these qualities actually look like in practice. From here you can discuss their views, iron out issues and set a clear structure of expectation.

You then need to work out if a student is struggling or underperforming due to lack of revision (night before exam cramming will not work) or a lack of fruitful revision (revising for hours but nothing is working). This will then help work out a strategy appropriate to the needs of the student.

Organising their minds:

A disorganised folder = disorganised mind and thus disorganised revision. Students need to be able to see a clear path through the topics in order to organise where to start.

So where to start: using the specification for each topic or a list of past exam questions get students to RAG rate what they know (green), sort of know (amber) and totally don’t know (red). This way they can see where their priority areas are (see Past Exam Questions: Gaps and Patterns (for 2022 exam))

Once they have identified which areas need the most work, give students a blank weekly timetable (one for every week leading up the exam) and get them to fill out when they have free evenings, weekends and study periods (this is often tricky around student’s employment schedules and can often be an ongoing activity). Have them add in important dates like the exams, class mocks, HW deadlines or tests. From here they start to fill out what topic areas they will revise on what day. This provides much needed structure to their revision.

Revision strategies:

Continue reading →

Exam 2022: Examiner Report Summaries (2017-2020)

On March 7, 2022March 7, 2022 By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation, Philosophy and Ethics: R.SLeave a comment

We can learn a lot from previous exam feedback such as patterns, gaps and common mistakes. I could not recommend studying the examiner’s reports enough, as they are practically the mind of the examiner directly instructing students what to do and what to avoid. If you then go into your exams and make one of those mistakes (which have been highlighted previously) well that’s just silly and unprepared. So this blog summary, taken from previous blog posts, has all the relevant information for the 2022 exam in one place.

General comments (2017-2020):

Good points:

Evaluation throughout
Focus directly on question not general topic
Outlined line of argument at the beginning (often in introduction) and followed this throughout answer (AO2 driven). Those that added evaluation near end of each paragraph often did not score into higher brackets.
Relevant material used
Showed knowledge from other topics (synoptic links) suggesting an understanding of the holistic nature of the A level.

Bad points:

Lack of focus on exact wording of the Q
Long introductions, summaries better left until the end
Most of essay spent on A01 with A02 added at the end – resulting in insufficient depth
Write everything I know on that topic (pre prepared formulaic answers)
Evaluate through juxtaposition of different views. In other words, putting one name against another name and thinking this is evaluation. You need to say which view is stronger/ more convincing etc.
Lack of planning leading to long rambling answers- paragraphs are your friend!
Few students showed signs of having undertaken research.

Specific Comments

Philosophy:

Philosophy	Good points	Bad points
Critically discuss Aristotle’s understanding of reality. (2018 First Year only)	Very good accounts of Aristotle’s empiricism, explanation of four causes and prime mover (who draws things to him in a disinterested manner). Used Plato in an evaluative way in relation to Aristotle scored higher bands.	Confusion between efficient and formal causes (note: this has been an issue throughout the legacy papers as well). Wrote all they knew about Plato and only compared with Aristotle in the final paragraph.
To what extent does Hume successfully argue that observation does not prove the existence of God? (2018)	Variety of Hume’s criticisms, relating them to succinct summaries of the Teleo and Cosmo arguments. (Satisfactory answers wrote copious amounts of descriptions for Aquinas and Paley, leaving little room for Hume). Darwin and Tennent’s anthropic principle when used in relation to Hume. Analysed Hume’s criticisms, weighing up how successful they are.	Juxtaposing alternatives such as Big Bang without justify any reasoning as to why applying them. Accepting points without question such as Hume’s Epicurean thesis.
Assess Boethius’ view that divine eternity does not limit human free will. (2019)	Explain in detail Boethius’ reasoning including simple and conditional necessity. Effective use of Aquinas’ lofty peak and comparisons to Swinburne’s everlasting ideas.	Least popular and least well done- insufficient knowledge of key theory. Some compared to Anselm’s four dimmensionalist approach but didn’t understand how his views of eternity meant that all moments were in God equally and so God is with us in the moment of choice. Linked divine eternity to the afterlife or concentrated too heavily on FW. PoE was discussed but only credited when tied to Q. Debate surrounding God’s other attributes: omnipotence, punish/ reward and omniscience.
Critically compare the logical and evidential aspects of the problem of evil as challenges to belief. (2019)	Focus on the critically compare. Explored how Augustine’s privatio boni defeated the logical problem by removing ‘evil’ from the Inconsistent Triad (very clever!). Explored how Hick’s vale of soul making accounted for the scale of evidential evil. Compared the ‘a priori’ nature of logical with ‘a posteriori’ nature of evidential. Discussion of God’s attributes and FW (synoptic links to Nature of God).	Unprepared for this question. Inconsistent Triad not linked to Q. Some students thought the theodicies where the evidential problem of evil.
Analyse Aristotle’s four causes (2019).	More interesting responses used own examples to show four causes. Discussion around Aristotle’s empirical approach/ reliance on senses/ a posteriori knowledge vs Plato’s rational a priori approach. This was then evaluated by linking to whether Aristotle was successful in explaining the main parts of his argument: potentiality, PM, change and movement etc. Fallacy of Composition used effectively against Aristotle, whether humans do have an innate purpose (Sartre) and evolution as a challenge to purpose.	Confusing the four causes or not knowing and understanding the formal cause. Confusing the views of Aristotle and Aquinas’ three ways.
“The world was created by chance, not by God’s design.” Discuss (2019)	Aquinas, Paley and Tennant used well, as well as Hume’s Epicurean Hypothesis as an alternative to chance. Dawkins’ blind watch maker was used to demonstrate chance and no foresight with Tennant’s aesthetic as a counter argument. Big bang, red shift and evolution used well to support chance. Kant was used well by some, as well as Douglas Adam’s conscious puddle and Mill on POE.	Confusion over teleological and cosmological with some even drawing upon Ontological argument too. Over simplistic use of Paley’s watch Overuse of Ockham’s razor which did not add to their argument.