Overall the answer is characterised by assertion but the candidate does show that there is a debate with limited reference to feminists and Marxists. Some use is made of education and the ways in which patriarchy may be expressed. In order to gain a higher mark the candidate needed support their assertion by reference to either sociological theory or the evidence from empirical studies. The answer is at the lower end of the grade.
This is then contrasted by time, place and culture again supported by Wagg. The candidate further develops the historical perspective and, using the work of Aries, outlines how childhood has changed due to such factors as education, legal changes and contraception at least within the western world.
The march of progress theory is considered and this is contrasted to Marxist theory and the two are juxtaposed showing evaluation of the evidence. This evaluation is further displayed in the work of Postman and the disappearance of childhood. At this point the candidate is a bit vague as to the theorists that are being referred to and one way to improve an answer is by accurate reference to theorist and theory. However, the candidate does show that the topic is well understood and that they have interpreted and evaluated the material in relation to education, information technology and rights.
Overall this was a well constructed answer which had a clear understanding of the topic, supported by a range of contemporary sociological theorists and the candidate had a clear understanding of childhood as a social construction. To have achieved a higher mark the development of childhood in non-western cultures and the ways in which for many children childhood is not a period of freedom from the pressures of adult life could have been developed. However, the candidate achieved all three triggers needed for Level 4.
This answer is in the middle of the grade. An outline of childhood or the lack of childhood in the past was then given supported by the ways in which this could change and develop as postulated by Aries. It was noted that childhood is not the same everywhere and this was related to gender, ethnicity and class.
These were valid points but could have been improved by the inclusion of specific examples, such as what the boys were allowed to do that the girls could not, or theoretical evidence.
This could have been improved by placing childhood in context and showing how this could be different for different cultures or sub-cultures. This could have been omitted giving more time to explore issues such as child abuse which were barely touched upon. The candidate then concluded by describing some of the socialisation that takes place in childhood as well as an outline of how children should be treated.
The candidate clearly demonstrated some knowledge and understanding of the topic. The answer could have been improved by including some concepts as well as a more detail of theory or empirical evidence.
Knowledge was shown throughout and some analysis of the ways different groups may be treated and so is towards the top of the grade. They then went on to describe some of the ways in which socialisation takes place in childhood in line with Level 1 of the mark scheme. In order to improve the candidate needed to clearly outline the work of Aries and relate it to the question.
Again it needed to be made clear what stage was being referred to. The implication was that a childhood free from the pressures of adult life but to access a higher level it needed to be explicit which children were being described in which society at what time.
Pilcher was quoted as a supporter of childhood but, this was unfocused and to achieve a higher level the candidate needed to make it clear in what way she regards childhood. The same can be said about child abuse. This is a valid point but could have been developed more effectively if it had been related to a society or backed by evidence, such as the United Nations. The candidate understood that childhood is not fixed either by time or place.
There was some development of the points but these were limited and generally unsupported. This answer was just below what is required for a grade E answer. It clearly states an accurate definition of the term and then goes on to develop the point in a valid way i.
The key to achieving full marks in this type of question is to adopt such an approach i. Two marks were awarded for this part of the question. There is no need here for detailed descriptions, rather the focus should be on concise identification supported by accurate use of sociological concepts. In this response, the concept of methodological pluralism is introduced and then clearly defined.
The use of a study is not an embellishment, rather it is used to develop the point and show understanding. Note, however, that empirical evidence of this sort is not a requirement in this type of question. Four marks were awarded for this part of the question. Responses that devote more time to one idea than the other are unlikely to make it into the second level of the mark scheme.
The first paragraph provides a very good overview of what is meant by a social problem and sound examples are used to support and develop this. The response could be a little more explicit on this point — especially in the second paragraph — but it still merits seven marks. This response satisfies these criteria easily. Firstly, the response indicates that diverse perspectives hold different views about the nature of society and the desirability of sociology being responsible for improving it; these views are then outlined in some detail, but always in relation to the question, e.
Likewise, feminist and interactionist views are subjected to similar treatment. For this reason the response is awarded nine marks for this part of the question. There is something on offer here which just about merits a mark, although the answer relies rather heavily on the source material as a prompt. The answers need not be lengthy, as in this case, but they must identify a discrete point and then develop its meaning such that there is complete clarity.
Here the candidate just fails to fully meet these criteria even though they identify two sound points [combining the merits of methods, and overcoming strengths and weaknesses of each] but the developments are not quite clear enough for full marks.
The response received three marks. By doing so the differences should arise. However, in this answer the meaning of one [social problem] is outlined clearly and supported by examples, whilst the meaning of a sociological problem is left quite obscure. In such a case, it is not possible to enter the second level of the mark scheme, which is where this response is located. It received four marks. The question is directly addressed and an accurate source [Becker] is cited as one of those sociologists that are in favour of the proposition outlined in the question.
Indeed, the first two paragraphs are comprised of material that supports the view, and a link is made to a theoretical perspective. The candidate then goes on to further make the case in respect of three more perspectives each time providing evidence and support for the idea that sociological research and enquiry should endeavour to improve society. The answer is well-written and sourced, and it retains full focus on the question. The knowledge and understanding on display is good.
However, the answer finishes at this point and in so doing fails to offer a challenge to the contention in the question i. In other words, the answer is a one-sided which, however good it might be, could not reach the upper parts of the mark scheme. Hence, this response was awarded seven marks for this part of the question. This question requires a degree of precision and marks will only be awarded for explicit and accurate accounts that show unambiguous understanding. On this occasion no marks could be awarded for this part of the question.
In both of the presented reasons, the candidate frames their response by making use of the concepts of validity and reliability. The candidate receives one mark for each identification [reason] but the developments are not sufficiently clear or distinct from one another to obtain the remaining two marks. The answer is not very well written and the candidate receives some benefit of the doubt. Two marks were awarded. Instead, they show a misunderstanding of this term and provide an account of a methodological problem which is not relevant to this question.
Hence, their response falls into level one of the mark scheme in that the sole focus of the question is only on one of the concepts in the question. However, the answer rises above common sense observation and has a sociological tone which means it is awarded three out of the eight marks available.
The first two paragraphs are, effectively, summary accounts of the view of inequality held by two major sociological perspectives - Marxism and feminism. As such, the candidates highlight the prescription each makes for eradicating poverty and patriarchy. The third paragraph outlines the interactionist position and this is more successful, especially the reference to Becker and the idea that research cannot be objective.
Whilst the point made here needs to be made more explicitly, at least the response is moving closer to an exploration of how values impact on sociological thinking. Three developed points are made in this response but they do not directly address the question and there is also no real evaluative content.
As a result, five marks were awarded. In addition, the candidate uses a relevant study [Muggleton] that links postmodern thinking to the issue of social identity, although the outline of what is meant by social identity could have been developed more fully. The introduction of gender to the discussion in the third paragraph to make an evaluative point is less successful, and there is a brief loss of focus here. The candidate then introduces an orthodox Marxist contribution on the nature of inequality as a way of challenging the proposition that identity is no longer shaped by structural forces.
This, of course, is valid though the wording could have been more carefully shaped toward the issue of identity formation. The candidate proceeds to develop the argument more fully by reference to the postmodern view on consumption and the role played by the media in supporting this process. Marxism is again used as an evaluative tool. The conclusions drawn are valid but not fully developed. Positively, the candidate is fully focused on the question throughout and they do not fall into the trap of merely contrasting broad theoretical positions [a common fault] and instead retain a focus on both elements of the question.
But the range of evaluation is limited — there is no reference to the functionalist or interpretivist positions — and the analysis is not sufficiently sharp or sustained enough to elevate the response into the top band. However, this is a good essay that was awarded a low grade A.
They then go on to make a distinction between modernist and postmodernist thinking which is pertinent and is rewarded, although the links made to the question are quite basic.
The comparison made with Marxism, however, is somewhat confusing. The candidate continues to outline the postmodern approach to identity by way of a comparison with feminist views on identity. As promised in the introduction, the candidate proceeds to outline the view of other perspectives on the issue of identity.
One or two postmodern authorities are introduced [Lyotard, Baudrillard] but their insights are only linked to the question in rather limited way. The concluding paragraph does nothing to add to the sum. This response retains relevance throughout, but both the range and depth are lacking and, in particular, the linkage between postmodernism and identity formation is rather loose.
Mention is made of a key postmodernist concept — fragmentation — but the supporting argument does not develop the idea very clearly or suggest how it might be linked to the question. Alternative perspectives are then introduced very quickly and their insights juxtaposed with the briefly outlined postmodernist position. The candidate then focuses their attention on the part of the question that demands an examination of the factors that influence social identity, but postmodernism itself is not subjected to any further analysis.
The conclusion returns to the question but offers only a weak and unsubstantiated summation. The candidate has gained some credit for identifying a few basic features of the postmodern view but these are limited in range and are only poorly linked to the question.
The response is too short for a mark question. The method is set in a broad context followed by a brief outline of what this specific method consists of. The candidate then goes on to elaborate upon the issues raised in their introduction. They employ a comparative approach, drawing out the strengths and limitations of semi-structured interviews by contrasting them with other interview types whilst retaining focus on the set task.
This approach skilfully allows the candidate to make evaluative points as they proceed, rather than simply juxtaposing methodological features and related points. In fact, the tone throughout is analytical and evaluative. If we look at the mark scheme criteria for entry into Level 4 — in particular the three necessary conditions — we see that this response comfortably satisfies its requirements and, whilst it may not do all the things that are possible, it does more than enough to achieve full marks under the constraints of exam conditions.
We will update this post with BA notes as soon as they are available. Meanwhile you can use these books. Do you have study material related to BA? You can post syllabus, important questions, notes, books, etc in pdf format. Make sure that whatever you provide will be properly formatted.
Related: B. Notify me of new posts by email. BA English Books. View Complete Syllabus. BA Hindi Books. BA History Books. BA Political Science Books. BA Economics Books.
BA Psychology Books. Date rape drugs, prevention, post-rape and recovery, fighting back, rape Some of the most important elements that compose this global age in which we live, and which give it its distinctive identity, appear to have stalled suddenly in the middle of the social dynamics of this specific present.
Thus, while some social phenomena such as dominance and inequality become A reference containing concepts central to sociology, history, different sociological perspectives, theoretical perspectives, and theories. This textbook discusses how political establishments and criminal organizations in Mexico are connected by trafficking of illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamins and other psychoactive substances.
Showing results: of Published: Aug Downloads: Pages: Published: Jan Downloads: 68 Pages: Published: May Downloads: 46 Pages: Published: Feb Downloads: 82 Pages: Published: Feb Downloads: 44 Pages:
0コメント