AQA Qualifications

A-level Sociology
SCLY2/Education with Research Methods; Health with Research Methods Report on the Examination
(Specification 2190) June 2013

Version: 1

Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright © 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

SCLY2 General Most students appeared to have sufficient time to answer all questions to the best of their ability and very few committed rubric errors such as answering questions from both sections of the paper. There were some outstandingly good answers from well-prepared students; more generally, students seem to have found the set questions accessible. However, it is worth reiterating two points made in previous examination series in relation to AO2 skills. Firstly, students continue to fall short when it comes to evaluating knowledge of sociological material. Secondly, some schools and colleges appear not to be focusing sufficiently on the importance of the skill of Application in answering the Methods in Context questions 05 and 14. The legibility of handwriting continues to be a problem for a significant minority of students and for the examiners who have to try to decipher their answers. Clearly, answers that cannot be read cannot be credited, and teachers and centres are therefore strongly advised to identify such students and take appropriate steps in advance of the examination. There is information on the Exams Administration tab of the AQA website www.aqa.org.uk. Teachers are further advised to take action in good time to address this problem before students sit their examinations.

3 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

Section A
The great majority of students chose this section. Question 01 Few students had difficulty gaining both marks here, generally by supplying two synonyms for the terms in the question, such as ‘lack of’ and ‘goods’, or alternatively just via the word ‘poverty’. However, some needed the addition of an example of ‘material’ (such as housing, income or educational equipment) to gain the second mark. Occasionally, one or other of the two terms was repeated rather than defined or paraphrased; these answers were awarded one mark. Question 02 Most students were able to suggest one or more appropriate policies, such as Sure Start, Operation Headstart, the Education Maintenance Allowance, Education Action Zones, free school meals, the introduction of the tripartite system (which offered a grammar school education to some working-class pupils) and the comprehensive system. A frequent error was to give a generic policy followed by a specific example of the same policy, for example compensatory education followed by Sure Start. These answers could only be rewarded once. A few answers offered a nongovernmental policy, such as streaming, that could not be rewarded, or a non-educational government policy, such as ‘welfare benefits for the poor’, that could be rewarded. Common incorrect responses included marketisation policies. Generally, answers were considerably longer than was needed to gain full marks and in some cases even longer than those to Question 03, which carried twice as many marks. Question 03 The great majority of students were able to identify at least one reason why pupils form subcultures. Among the weaker answers, this was often confined to a vague notion of peer pressure or shared interests. However, most students were able to produce a more sociological response, typically based on labelling, which was then usually developed via an account of the self-fulfilling prophecy. However, some of these quickly drifted into an answer about differential educational achievement rather than staying focused on subcultures. In some other cases, the account concluded with a brief, unexplicated assertion that labelling would (apparently inevitably) result in a subculture forming. What distinguished better answers was the ability to address the group dimension of the phenomenon, though this sometimes resulted in a descriptive rather than an explanatory account of a range of subcultures (often drawing on knowledge of Lacey, Mac an Ghaill or Sewell). The best answers tended to focus on streaming as a cause of subculture formation and drew upon concepts such as alternative status hierarchy, differentiation and polarisation. While most answers focused on factors internal to schools, some made effective use of Willis to argue that pupil subcultures had external causes in the wider class structure of capitalist society.

4 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

Question 04 Most students were aware of some possible explanations for gender differences in achievement and/or subject choice, though the range and quality of their accounts of each of these varied considerably. At the lower end of the range, many students neglected to deal with one or other of the two main aspects of the question. Where they opted to focus on differential achievement, the answer was often confined to one or two reasons, such as the introduction of coursework or changes in girls’ priorities, whereas the best answers provided a full range of explanations and were often organised in terms of internal versus external factors. When it came to explaining gender differences in subject choice, weaker responses often had little idea of the actual patterns and fell back on assertions such as that boys prefer practical subjects, harder subjects, academic subjects or vocational subjects, with sometimes strange ideas about which subjects might belong in these categories. In these answers, explanations of the patterns often failed to rise above the notion that boys and girls prefer ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ subjects respectively. Other weak responses attempted to assert, against the evidence in the Item, that gender differences in subject choice were a thing of the past. Better answers, by contrast, showed a clear understanding of the main patterns and discussed a range of explanations, such as gendered subject images, gendered career opportunities and peer pressure. Many answers, including some with a good grasp of relevant explanations, failed to apply this knowledge explicitly to the question, for example describing changes in the family or labour market without then linking these clearly to changes in achievement. Even in the best answers, explicit evaluation was in short supply, though many were able to provide conceptually detailed, analytic accounts of the explanations that they put forward. Question 05 Responses were relatively evenly split between postal questionnaires and group interviews. The most successful responses were those that were able to identify a specific strength or limitation of their selected method and then link this to a specific aspect of the study of social class differences in university entrance. For example, some explained how postal questionnaires could provide quantitative data about parental income or class background which could then be correlated with other quantitative data about qualifications, university choice or university entrance in order to test hypotheses such as that working-class students were less likely to apply to university or go to more prestigious universities or those further from home. Similarly, group interviews could explore issues such as debt aversion among working-class students as a motive for not applying to university. More commonly, students were able to connect the method, if not to the specific issue in the question, then at least to more general but related issues, such as problems of access and consent in researching students. For example, some pointed out that schools might be unwilling to provide postal addresses of their students to researchers who wished to send out questionnaires. However, there continue to be large numbers of students who treat the methods in context question as simply another ‘methods’ question, listing the various practical, ethical and/or theoretical strengths and limitations of the selected method, with little or no attempt to apply this knowledge to the problem of investigating the specific issue in the question, or even of how one might study educational issues in general. Often, whole centres offered responses of this kind, suggesting that some teachers have not yet appreciated the nature of the task posed by Methods in Context questions, where the AO2 skill of Application is at a premium.

5 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

Question 06
Many students had no idea of the meaning of this term, suggesting answers such as ‘it means research having an aim or goal’ (ie an objective) or ‘opposing something’ (ie objecting), but others gained full marks for answers referring to being detached, keeping personal values out of one’s research, lacking bias or similar. A few defined subjectivity instead of objectivity and failed to score. Question 07 Answers such as sample attrition, costliness, risk of the Hawthorne effect and processing the large amounts of data produced scored here. However, answers such as ‘takes a long time’ did not score, on the grounds that this is simply a characteristic of the method rather than a disadvantage. However, the idea that ‘the results could be out of date’ did score. Question 08 Most students did well here, citing issues such as cheapness, ease of training interviewers, reliability, ease of comparison or analysis, high response/low refusal rate and less risk of interviewer bias. However, a few failed to read the question carefully and gave disadvantages instead. Question 09 A small minority of students made a fundamental error at the outset by mistaking covert for overt observational methods, resulting in an answer at odds with the set question. Most, however, defined the methods more or less appropriately and were generally able to identify a number of problems of one or both of them. In general, answers were much stronger on the problems of participant observation than on those of non-participant observation. Practical problems such as getting in, staying in and getting out, finding a suitable role and maintaining one’s cover, personal danger and recording data appeared, along with a range of ethical problems such as deception, informed consent, the right to withdraw from research, invasion of privacy and participation in illegal activities. Theoretical issues were generally less well covered, though some students identified problems of reliability and representativeness, while a few noted problems of validity that could arise from ‘going native’ or having to rely on memory when recording observations made earlier. By contrast, many students appeared to know very little about covert non-participant observation (CNPO) and how it differs from covert participant observation. Some attempted to circumvent this difficulty by asserting that both suffered the same problems. While there is limited truth in this claim, for example in relation to some ethical issues, very few students were aware that CNPO may use structured methods to produce quantitative data and that many of its problems, such as lack of empathy, insight or validity, may stem from these features. A common error in many answers was to identify the Hawthorne effect as a problem, despite the fact that this relies on the subjects being aware that they are being studied – that is, upon the use of overt methods. Many answers were able to support some of their points by reference to relevant examples. These were drawn largely from the field of crime and deviance, with a consequent emphasis on threats to the safety (or, in more colourful accounts, the life) of the researcher or the necessity of participating in illegal or immoral activities. There was little evidence of familiarity with the more mundane

6 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

problems that might be encountered when using covert observation in fields such as health or education. Finally, a minority of students felt the need to offer a ‘balanced’ account in which half of their answer was taken up with listing the various advantages of covert observation. This material gained no credit unless it was linked directly to specific problems and used explicitly to evaluate these.

Section B
Relatively few students chose this section. Question 10 Most students seemed well prepared here and were able to explain impairment in terms of loss of normal functioning. A few were unable to define or explain the term but scored one mark for an appropriate example, such as blindness. Question 11 Most students were able to suggest one or more appropriate reasons. Some of the reasons given drew upon the ‘seem to’ aspect of the question by referring to ideas such as that women’s childcare role creates greater opportunities for reporting ill-health. Other answers focused on more structural aspects, such as women’s dual burden causing them to suffer greater stress, or on factors such as greater longevity (and hence greater morbidity in a more prolonged old age) or on illnesses associated with women’s reproductive biology. Question 12 In general, students were able to identify a variety of factors that might cause social class differences in health chances, such as class differences in tobacco and alcohol consumption, exercise, working and housing conditions, income, and the ability or willingness to purchase healthy foods and so on. However, the distinction between material and cultural factors was not always made explicit, though the best answers made the distinction and then went on to consider the relationship between the two (for example via the idea that material conditions make workingclass life stressful and that this gives rise to smoking, unhealthy eating, etc). Many students who succeeded in identifying relevant factors then failed to make explicit the health impacts of these factors, for example in terms of the links between smoking and lung cancer, diet and obesity or diabetes, etc. Question 13 This was often rather poorly answered. Many of the weakest responses opted to recycle the Item, adding a few bare points of their own about one or other of Marxist, feminist or functionalist perspectives on health or the medical profession, often with errors. Alternatively, some resorted to an unreferenced and commonsensical account of the medical profession as beneficiaries of the private health care system (along the lines that doctors could profit from treating the rich). Often such answers had a hazy or inaccurate notion of who or what the medical profession is (for example, as being all those who work in hospitals). Better answers were able to flesh out more accurate and detailed accounts of one or more perspectives on the medical profession, though often these were at a slight tangent to the

7 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

demands of the question; for example, accounts of the feminist perspective that focused on the role of doctors in oppressing women, without identifying who the beneficiaries of this might be. Some good accounts went beyond the three perspectives identified or implied by the Item to include material on Weberian approaches, Illich, Foucault or social constructionist views. However, even answers with a good knowledge of relevant material were often lacking in evaluation of the different views offered. Question 14 Of the two methods from which students could choose, most opted to consider the use of unstructured interviews rather than official statistics as a means of investigating ethnic differences in the use of health care services. The best answers were able to link a specific strength or limitation of the method to a specific feature of the study of ethnic differences in the use of health care services. Where students were unable to make such specific connections, many were nevertheless able to link aspects of their chosen method to general methodological issues in the study of health care services, patients or ethnicity. For example, some argued that the cultural or religious beliefs of some minority ethnic groups might make it impossible for a woman to be interviewed on her own by a man, resulting either in refusal to be interviewed or agreement only in the presence of a male relative, with consequences for the validity of the answers then given. However, large numbers of students treated this as simply a general ‘methods’ question, listing the various practical, ethical and/or theoretical strengths and limitations of the selected method with little or no attempt to apply this knowledge to the problem of investigating the specific issue in the question, or even of how one might study health issues in general. Often, whole centres offered responses of this kind, suggesting that some teachers have not yet appreciated the nature of the task posed by Methods in Context questions, where the AO2 skill of Application is at a premium. Question 15 Many students had no idea of the meaning of this term, suggesting answers such as ‘it means research having an aim or goal’ (ie an objective) or ‘opposing something’ (ie objecting), but others gained full marks for answers referring to being detached, keeping personal values out of one’s research, lacking bias or similar. A few defined subjectivity instead of objectivity and failed to score. Question 16 Answers such as sample attrition, costliness, risk of the Hawthorne effect and processing the large amounts of data produced scored here. However, answers such as ‘takes a long time’ did not score, on the grounds that this is simply a characteristic of the method rather than a disadvantage. However, the idea that ‘the results could be out of date’ did score. Question 17 Most students did well here, citing issues such as cheapness, ease of training interviewers, reliability, ease of comparison or analysis, high response/low refusal rate and less risk of interviewer bias. However, a few failed to read the question carefully and gave disadvantages instead.

8 of 9

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-level Sociology – SCLY2 – June 2013

Question 18 A small minority of students made a fundamental error at the outset by mistaking covert for overt observational methods, resulting in an answer at odds with the set question. Most, however, defined the methods more or less appropriately and were generally able to identify a number of problems of one or both of them. In general, answers were much stronger on the problems of participant observation than on those of non-participant observation. Practical problems such as getting in, staying in and getting out, finding a suitable role and maintaining one’s cover, personal danger and recording data appeared, along with a range of ethical problems such as deception, informed consent, the right to withdraw from research, invasion of privacy and participation in illegal activities. Theoretical issues were generally less well covered, though some students identified problems of reliability and representativeness, while a few noted problems of validity that could arise from ‘going native’ or having to rely on memory when recording observations made earlier. By contrast, many students appeared to know very little about covert non-participant observation (CNPO) and how it differs from covert participant observation. Some attempted to circumvent this difficulty by asserting that both suffered the same problems. While there is limited truth in this claim, for example in relation to some ethical issues, very few students were aware that CNPO may use structured methods to produce quantitative data and that many of its problems, such as lack of empathy, insight or validity, may stem from these features. A common error in many answers was to identify the Hawthorne effect as a problem, despite the fact that this relies on the subjects being aware that they are being studied – that is, upon the use of overt methods. Many answers were able to support some of their points by reference to relevant examples. These were drawn largely from the field of crime and deviance, with a consequent emphasis on threats to the safety (or, in more colourful accounts, the life) of the researcher or the necessity of participating in illegal or immoral activities. There was little evidence of familiarity with the more mundane problems that might be encountered when using covert observation in fields such as health or education. Finally, a minority of students felt the need to offer a ‘balanced’ account in which half of their answer was taken up with listing the various advantages of covert observation. This material gained no credit unless it was linked directly to specific problems and used explicitly to evaluate these.

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website.

Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator: http://www.aqa.org.uk/exams-administration/about-results/uniformmark-scale/convert-marks-to-ums

9 of 9