Observations

Asked what an observation is, many candidates write "watching people" and stop; examiners record this as too simplistic to credit. A creditworthy definition adds what makes it a method: behaviour is recorded systematically on a tally chart of clearly defined behavioural categories. The recording clause is where the mark sits, not the watching.

"Explain a strength" is not "describe" one. Naming a feature earns little; the marks come from saying why it is a strength and what it does to the study. Weak: "you see real behaviour." Full: "it records what people actually do, not what they say, so the data is more valid." The three parts are the feature, why it follows, and the consequence.

When a question gives a specific study, an evaluation point that floats free of it earns no marks: examiners apply a dependency rule — AO3 cannot be credited without AO2. Naming the researcher or repeating the stem is not application. Instead use the study's specific detail — its categories, sample and results — then evaluate from that. Apply first, then evaluate.

Because an observation can happen in a real, everyday place, candidates sometimes label it a field experiment. The test is manipulation: an experiment changes a variable to see its effect, whereas an observation changes nothing and records what people do on their own. If no variable is manipulated it is an observation, however public the situation looks.

When the researcher joins in the group — playing alongside a team, say — candidates often invent a new method. Joining in only changes the type to a participant observation; the method is still observation, fixed by the systematic watching and recording of behaviour. The sub-type changes, but the method does not.

Covert and overt are muddled under pressure. In a covert observation the people do not know they are being watched; in an overt observation they do. It matters because only a covert observation reduces demand characteristics and keeps behaviour natural — an overt one risks people changing how they act. Read which one the scenario describes before evaluating.

Covert observation means watching without telling people, so students assume it is automatically unethical. In a private setting it does raise real problems: no consent and invaded privacy. But in a fully public place, where behaviour is on show, examiners ruled a lack of informed consent is not a creditworthy criticism. So say which way it falls for the study you are given.

Students picture an observation as a researcher just sitting and watching, deciding as they go. A good observation is far more structured: the researcher first defines clear behavioural categories — observable actions such as "shares a toy". Each occurrence is tallied, turning watching into countable quantitative data, and a second observer supports reliability.