ERQ structure (22 marks)

ERQs require an in-depth, well-structured essay demonstrating your ability to evaluate theories, studies, and methods. Use INTRO, TEACUP, and Conclusion as your framework.

Structure for ERQ:

1. Introduction (Define, Contextualize, and Outline):

• Define key terms: Clearly define the central concept(s).

• Context: Explain the relevance of the question to the topic (e.g., biological approach, cognitive approach).

• Outline: Briefly state what the essay will cover (thesis statement). For example, “This essay will evaluate [theory/topic] with reference to [studies].”

2. Main Body (TEACUP for 2-3 key arguments):

• TEACUP stands for Theory, Evidence, Application, Criticism, Unanswered questions, Practical use.

• Theory: Explain the theory or concept.

• Evidence: Present supporting studies with details (aim, method, findings).

• Application: Explain how the theory applies to behavior.

• Criticism: Evaluate the study or theory (methodological issues, ethical concerns, biases, etc.).

• Unanswered questions: Highlight areas the theory/study doesn’t address.

• Practical use: Link to real-world applications (if relevant).

3. Counterarguments (if needed):

• Present a contrasting study or criticism and show how it challenges the main argument.

4. Conclusion:

• Restate the main points.

• Provide a closing statement about the significance or implications of the topic.

Example ERQ Question:

“Evaluate one model of memory with reference to research studies.”

1. Introduction:

• Define memory and introduce the Multi-Store Model (MSM).

• State focus: “This essay will evaluate the MSM using studies by Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) and HM case study.”

2. Main Body:

• Paragraph 1 (Strength): Describe MSM (sensory, short-term, long-term memory) and support it with Glanzer & Cunitz’s study on the primacy and recency effect.

• Evaluate the study: Controlled lab setting ensures reliability but lacks ecological validity.

• Paragraph 2 (Criticism): Introduce evidence against MSM’s oversimplification of memory systems, e.g., HM case study (specific brain regions involved in memory processing).

• Evaluate: Highlights the biological basis of memory, but findings are limited to a single case.

• Paragraph 3 (Comparison): Compare MSM to other models (e.g., Working Memory Model), explaining MSM’s limitations in addressing active memory processing.

3. Conclusion:

• Summarize strengths and weaknesses of MSM.

• Conclude: While MSM provides a foundational understanding, it fails to account for complexity in memory processes, necessitating alternative models.