December 2025 Psychology subject update

Questions about practical work have been a theme of the past month so I've kept this one in the FAQs from last time! The expectations are basically the same for both qualifications. The specifications set out the requirements for each practical. There are suggestions, but any practical that meets the requirements in the specification is fine as long as it's ethical (candidates will not receive credit in the exam for describing unethical investigations!). 

Students can work individually or in groups on practical activities, and it's perfectly acceptable to run a 'class practical' to ease the support burden on the teacher! They should write a report on the practical, but this doesn't need to be assessed. What matters is that they understand what was done and why, how the results were analysed and what they showed, and can evaluate the investigation - this is what the exam questions will test. 

I've collected together IAL and A Level exam questions in a document you can download from our community group via the link below - the UK A Level ones have mark schemes and examiner reports. Whichever course you teach, both sets of questions are relevant.

• Download the practical investigation exam question bank from our community group

For UK A Level IAL psychology students do need to know how to carry out the tests, and the also need to know the purpose of them and what the result means in terms of the difference, relationship or correlation being significant (probability of the null hypothesis being true is equal to or less than the level of significance set) or not significant (probability of the null hypothesis being true is greater than the level of significance set). 
 
There are three tests in total for IAL: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, Spearman's and chi squared, and UK A Level candidates need to know the Mann-Whitney U test in addition to these. Candidates for both need to carry these out as part of the practical investigations that the specification sets them. 
 
Here's the specification wording from the Research Methods topic: 
 
Learners do not need to know formulae but are expected to be competent in mathematical steps. 
 
9.1.12 Inferential statistics (List B): 
• levels of measurement, appropriate choice of statistical test; the criteria for and use of the Wilcoxon, Spearman’s, chi-squared (for difference) tests; directional and non-directional testing 
• use of critical value tables, one- and two-tailed testing. 
• levels of significance, including knowledge of standard statistical terminology such as p equal to or greater than (p≤.10 p≤.05 p≤.01); rejecting hypotheses, type I and type II errors, the relationship between significance levels and p values 
• observed and critical values. 
 
The formulae and some instructions for carrying out the tests, along with the tables of critical values, are included at the start of all the exam papers so it's good to familiarise students with these so they know what information they will have in the exam to help them with this type of question. 
 
There are some relevant videos which give helpful walk throughs of the three tests needed in this playlist: Research Methods - Levels of Measurement (Nominal, Ordinal, Interval, Ratio) - YouTube - there are also videos on other tests which Edexcel IAL psychology candidates don't need to know - they just have to be familiar with the three mentioned above. 
  

A question requiring evaluation of the HCPC guidelines could be asked. Here's a suggestion of points that would be acceptable:  

Strengths 

• Standardisation and Reliability HCPC guidelines provide clear, standardised expectations for practitioner psychologists. This consistency helps ensure safe and ethical practice across the profession, increasing reliability and public trust. 
• Measurable and Transparent The standards are operationalised (e.g., confidentiality, legal boundaries, fitness to practise), making it clear what is acceptable. This transparency improves fairness and validity in professional regulation.  
• Ongoing Competence Requirements such as re-registration every two years and CPD checks ensure psychologists maintain up-to-date skills and ethical awareness, reducing risk to clients.   

Limitations 

• Generality of Guidelines HCPC standards can be broad and may not account for nuanced client needs. This lack of flexibility could lead to less effective treatment in complex cases. 
• Administrative Burden Frequent re-registration and documentation can be time-consuming, potentially diverting attention from client care. 
• Reactive Rather Than Proactive Enforcement often occurs after a breach, meaning harm might happen before intervention. This limits the preventative power of the guidelines. 
  

Candidates should be familiar with these stages: 

• Data Collection – Interviews, observations, or open-ended questionnaires. 
• Open Coding – Breaking data into parts and labelling concepts. 
• Axial Coding – Linking categories and identifying relationships. 
• Selective Coding – Focusing on a core category that represents the main theme. 
• Theory Development – Building a theory grounded in the data. 

They could also be asked about reasons for adopting this approach (probably linked to the context):  

• It’s ideal for exploring new or complex phenomena where existing theories don’t fit. 
• Provides rich, contextual insights into human behaviour. 
• Encourages flexibility and creativity in research design. 

More exam tips:  

• Be clear that grounded theory is qualitative and inductive. 
• Contrast it with deductive approaches (e.g., hypothesis testing). 
• Use examples: e.g., studying mental health professionals’ experiences or patients’ coping strategies. 
• Link to AO3 evaluation: strengths (rich data, theory generation) and limitations (time-consuming, subjective interpretation). 
  

Question 1：Competing Arguments Structure in Evaluation Points: 
When constructing an evaluation, is it expected that each point contains directly opposing arguments (a strength immediately countered by a corresponding weakness)? For example: 
Strength: A strength of Asch's study is its high reliability due to the standardized procedure... 
Weakness: However, this reliability has been questioned due to the artificial nature of the task... 
Alternatively, is it sufficient to present separate, non-opposing strengths and weaknesses as long as the overall evaluation is balanced? For example: 
Point 1: It has high reliability due to standardized procedure... 
Point 2: however, it has low ecological validity as the task was artificial... 

It isn't necessary for each point to contain a directly opposing argument, and your alternative example is a good way to approach this type of question. In general our examiners are not prescribing a 'formula' for a top-level answer, and there will be many different ways of writing the evaluation / assessment (AO3) part of the essay to a high standard. My advice is to look for counterpoints as a great way to show awareness of competing arguments, but if one doesn't come to mind, move on to a new point! What matters is overall balance, not balance within every point. 
 
Question 2：Balance Between Knowledge (AO1) and Assessment (AO3): 
The mark scheme states that "candidates must demonstrate an equal emphasis between knowledge and understanding vs assessment/conclusion." For an 8-mark question, does this mean the detail and development allocated to describing the study (AO1) and to evaluating it (AO3) should be roughly equivalent in length and depth?  

Yes, exactly that. 8 markers always have an equal split between the AOs. 16 markers are 6+10, and 20 markers are 8+12 so these should have an 'imbalance' towards the evaluation / assessment. If they have a scenario, then there are 4 AO2 marks for linking to this, which 'come out of' the AO3 marks, so these questions are 6+4+6 or 8+4+8. 
 
Question 3: AO1 and AO3 Mark Allocation and 'Quality vs. Quantity': 
-Is the mark allocation based primarily on the quality (depth, detail, linkage) of the points made, rather than a specific quantity (e.g., four points to achieve the top level) ? 
-To achieve the top level for AO3 (evaluation), would it typically require the development of at least two distinct and well-elaborated evaluation points? 
-For AO1, if "thorough" knowledge is required, might this involve presenting more than four points? 

It's about the overall depth, detail and linkage. There is no requirement for a particular number of points (those on the mark scheme are 'indicative content' - examples - only and marks are not awarded point-by-point). How many points are needed for 'thorough' depends on how detailed / developed each point is, so I'm afraid there isn't a numerical answer to this one! Looking at examiner reports from the June series (as these have example responses with examiner commentary) will give a good idea of what 'thorough' looks like. 
 
Question 4: Referencing Evidence in Evaluation: 
If I use another study as evidence within an evaluation point (e.g., "a later replication found lower conformity rates...") but cannot recall the specific researchers' names (e.g., Perrin & Spencer), would this significantly impact the mark for that piece of evidence? 

Full credit can be given for a piece of research evidence without the researchers' names, as long as the examiner can identify the specific study being used. My advice is to learn the names as far as possible as it's a quick way to show the examiner the specific study being used, but this is difficult! If you don't recall the name, try to give a couple of details of the study to make it clear which one you are referring to. 

No, textbooks give suitable examples but teachers and students are free to use different methods, as long as they follow the requirements set out in the specification, which includes being ethical.

For example for the social psychology topic in both UK A Level and IAL specifications the wording for the practical is as follows:

In conducting the practical research exercise, students
must:
● design and conduct a questionnaire to gather both
qualitative and quantitative data to look for a difference
in the data
● consider questionnaire construction, sampling decisions
and ethical issues
● collect and present an analysis of quantitative data using
measures of central tendency, measures of dispersion,
(including range and standard deviation as appropriate),
bar graph and frequency table
● collect and present an analysis of qualitative data using
thematic analysis
● consider strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire
and possible improvements
● write up the procedure, results and discussion section of
a report.

'Key questions' have almost always been assessed using an 8 mark 'discuss' question with AO1 and AO2 marks available, however it is possible for any style of essay question to be set on them, including 8 mark 'assess' or 'evaluate' questions, and longer questions on the other papers e.g. a 16 mark question on an option topic or the 20 mark question on clinical. 
 
An 8 mark 'assess' question was asked on the AS paper 1 in 2023: 
Assess the key question you have studied from cognitive psychology. 8 marks 
Here are the paper and mark scheme - it's question 11. 
https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Psychology/2015/Exam-materials/8ps0-01-que-20230516.pdf 
https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Psychology/2015/Exam-materials/8ps0-01-rms-20230817.pdf 
The examiner report has a 5/8 candidate response which gives some idea of what examiners were looking for: 
https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Psychology/2015/Exam-materials/8ps0-01-pef-20230817.pdf   
 
Essentially, the AO1 will always be for knowledge of the key question and it's relevance to society. AO2 in a discuss question is application of psychological knowledge / theory to it, while the AO3 in an 'assess' question is for assessing how far / how well different psychological concepts / theories can explain / are relevant to the key question.