{"id":15799,"date":"2026-02-17T13:16:28","date_gmt":"2026-02-17T04:16:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.themantic-education.com\/ibpsych\/?p=15799"},"modified":"2026-02-17T13:16:30","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T04:16:30","slug":"the-saq-pitfall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.themantic-education.com\/ibpsych\/2026\/02\/17\/the-saq-pitfall\/","title":{"rendered":"The SAQ Pitfall…<\/br>...and how to avoid it.<\/font>"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve been writing a few SAQ revision resources lately and I’ve discovered a potential pitfall. In this post, I’ll explain the pitfall and one simple idea that might help.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Pitfall<\/h2>\n

Every SAQ needs an explanation of the topic\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>a supporting example. I think some students might get caught in a trap – they’ll explain their example<\/em> in the topic itself and miss out on marks. In other words, they’ll get too specific too early in the answer and leave themselves with nothing left to say. Let’s take the following question as an example:<\/p>\n

Explain the use of one animal model in the study of one human behaviour.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think this pitfall is a reality when SAQs specify\u00a0one\u00a0<\/strong>of something. Let’s look at how a student might answer that question.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I wrote this SAQ with the first thoughts that came to my mind. I didn’t plan or prepare, I just wrote. This is just what happens in an exam. But the problem is I’ve shot my wad too early – I’ve gone straight into the example of MAOA knockouts and that leaves me with very little to say. The result is a brief answer that would score a 1, maybe a 2\/4. I think a lot of students will make this mistake, especially with cause-effect type SAQs.<\/p>\n

Read more:<\/strong><\/p>\n