The Ultimate Guide to 12-Mark Design Questions

The Ultimate Guide to 12-Mark Design Questions: How to Score 12/12 Every Time

Here’s the truth about 12-mark design questions:

They’re the highest-value questions in Paper 2, yet most students lose 4-6 marks simply because they don’t know the formula.

This isn’t about being brilliant at research methods. It’s about knowing exactly what examiners want to see, and giving it to them in the right format.

The Question That Changed Everything

“Why do some students write pages and pages about their study design but only get 6/12, while others write less and score 11-12?”

The answer isn’t about writing more. It’s about writing strategically.

Step 0: Answer The Question (The Part Everyone Forgets)

The Most Important Rule

Before you write a single word, break down the bullet points they’re asking for.

Design questions give you 4-5 specific requirements. Missing even ONE can cost you 3 marks.

How to Break Down the Question

Example Question:

“A psychologist wanted to investigate whether listening to classical music while studying improves exam performance. Design a study to investigate this.

In your answer you should provide details of:

the experimental design you would use and why
how you would operationalise the independent variable and dependent variable
how you would select and allocate participants
two ethical issues and how you would deal with them”

Step 1: Number Each Bullet Point

✓ Bullet 1: Experimental design + justification

✓ Bullet 2: IV operationalisation + DV operationalisation

✓ Bullet 3: Sampling method + allocation method

✓ Bullet 4: Ethical issue #1 + solution + Ethical issue #2 + solution

Step 2: Use These as Your Subheadings

Write your answer using these exact bullet points as subheadings. This ensures you:

Address every requirement – impossible to miss a bullet point
Stay organised – examiner can easily see you’ve covered everything
Maximise marks – each bullet point is worth approximately 3 marks

SO: Students who structure answers around the bullet points score 3-4 marks higher on average than those who write a general essay without clear structure.

7 Common Mistakes (And How to Avoid Them)

The Mistakes That Cost Most Students 4-6 Marks

Before we learn the rules, let’s identify what NOT to do:

Generic, non-applied answers: “I would use random sampling”
How to avoid: Always include specific numbers, names, and practical details about HOW you’d implement it.
Missing justifications: Stating methods without explaining WHY they’re appropriate
How to avoid: After every methodological choice, add “because…” and explain why it’s suitable for THIS study.
Failing to operationalise: “I would measure stress” without specifying how
How to avoid: For every variable, specify the exact measurement (e.g., “heart rate in BPM using a monitor”).
Ignoring the scenario: Not contextualising to the specific research question
How to avoid: Weave the scenario throughout – if it’s about students and sleep, mention students, schools, exam periods, etc.
Vague ethical solutions: “I would get consent” without explaining the process
How to avoid: Explain exactly WHEN consent forms are given, WHAT they contain, and HOW they’re obtained.
No awareness of limitations: Presenting a “perfect” design with no compromises
How to avoid: Briefly acknowledge one limitation then explain how you’d control for it (shows sophisticated thinking).
Overcomplicated designs: Making it so complex you can’t explain it clearly
How to avoid: Keep it simple and practical. A clear, straightforward design scores higher than a confused complicated one.

SO: These 7 mistakes account for approximately 80% of lost marks on design questions. Fix these, and you’ll immediately jump from Level 2-3 to Level 4.

Understanding What You’re Up Against

The Harsh Reality

Design questions appear in Paper 2 and test your ability to apply research methods knowledge (AO2) and evaluate your design choices (AO3).

Most students treat them like AO1 knowledge dump questions. That’s why they lose marks.

Design questions typically ask you to design:

An observation study (investigating specific behaviours)
An experiment (testing cause-and-effect hypotheses)
A self-report study (using questionnaires or interviews)
A correlation study (examining relationships between variables)

The Mark Scheme Levels (What Examiners Really Look For)

Level 4: EXCELLENT 10-12 marks

Demonstrates sound knowledge of research methods
Application to scenario is thorough and effective
Scientific procedures are accurate and well-detailed
Appropriate specialist terminology throughout
Answer is well-structured and coherent

SO: Understanding Level 4 requirements shows you that full marks need BOTH detailed knowledge AND practical application – generic textbook definitions won’t cut it.

Level 3: GOOD 7-9 marks

Mostly accurate knowledge
Application mostly effective with some detail
Specialist terminology used in places

Level 2: LIMITED 4-6 marks

Basic knowledge with some inaccuracies
Application often lacks development
Limited specialist terminology

Level 1: VERY LIMITED 1-3 marks

Very limited knowledge
Generic statements without context
Minimal specialist terminology

The 6 Golden Rules for 12/12

Master these six rules and you’ll transform your design answers from Level 2-3 to Level 4:

Rule #1

BE SPECIFIC, NOT GENERIC

❌ Generic (3-4 marks)

“I would use random sampling to get participants.”

Problem: No detail about HOW you’d actually do this.

✓ Specific (full marks)

“I would use random sampling by obtaining a list of all 200 students in Year 12, assigning each a number 1-200, then using a random number generator to select 30 participants.”

Why this works: Shows you understand the actual process.

SO: Specificity demonstrates you understand how to actually conduct research, not just memorise definitions – this is what distinguishes Level 4 from Level 2-3.

Rule #2

ALWAYS JUSTIFY YOUR CHOICES

❌ No Justification

“I would use a laboratory experiment.”

✓ Justified Choice

“I would use a laboratory experiment because it allows high control over extraneous variables such as noise and lighting, increasing the validity of cause-and-effect conclusions about how sleep deprivation affects memory recall.”

SO: Justifications show you understand WHY certain methods are appropriate for specific research aims, demonstrating AO3 evaluation worth significant marks.

Rule #3

OPERATIONALISE EVERYTHING

❌ Vague Variables

“I would measure stress levels.”

Problem: How? This can’t be tested.

✓ Operationalised Variables

“I would operationalise stress by measuring participants’ heart rate in beats per minute (BPM) using a heart rate monitor, recorded immediately before and after the 10-minute stressful task.”

Why this works: Clear, measurable, replicable.

SO: Operationalisation makes your variables measurable and your study replicable – vague variables cannot be tested scientifically and will lose marks.

Rule #4

CONTEXTUALISE TO THE SCENARIO

Every design question gives you a specific scenario. You must weave this throughout your answer.

❌ Generic Answer

“Participants would complete a questionnaire about their experiences.”

✓ Contextualised Answer

“Participants would complete a 15-item questionnaire with questions such as ‘How many hours per night do you sleep on average?’ and ‘On a scale of 1-10, how stressed do you feel during exam periods?’ to investigate the relationship between sleep and academic stress.”

SO: Contextualising shows you’re designing THIS specific study, not regurgitating memorised content – it demonstrates true AO2 application.

Rule #5

USE SPECIALIST TERMINOLOGY CORRECTLY

Throughout your answer, include accurate research methods terminology to demonstrate secure subject knowledge.

Examples include: operationalisation, standardised procedures, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, systematic sampling, informed consent, right to withdraw, confidentiality, independent groups design, repeated measures design, counterbalancing, and randomisation.

SO: Specialist terminology signals secure subject knowledge and understanding of professional research practices, directly contributing to Level 4.

Rule #6

STRUCTURE YOUR ANSWER CLEARLY

Use clear subheadings or paragraph breaks for each bullet point:

Type of study
[Your detailed explanation with justification]

Operationalisation of variables
[Your detailed explanation]

Sampling method
[Your detailed explanation with justification]

Data recording
[Your detailed explanation]

Reliability/validity
[Your detailed explanation]

Ethical issues
[Your detailed explanation with solutions]

SO: Clear structure ensures you address all requirements systematically and makes your answer easy for examiners to mark favourably.

Method-Specific Strategies

Observation Studies

You must specify:

Type: Controlled/naturalistic, covert/overt, participant/non-participant
Behavioural categories: Observable, measurable, clear, mutually exclusive
Sampling method: Time sampling (fixed intervals) or event sampling (every occurrence)
Reliability: Inter-observer reliability procedure with correlation coefficient (+0.80 threshold)

Example: “I would conduct a controlled, overt, non-participant observation in a nursery setting. Behavioural categories would include: (1) Physical aggression – hitting, kicking, pushing; (2) Verbal aggression – shouting, name-calling; (3) Prosocial behaviour – sharing, helping, comforting. I would use time sampling, recording whether each behaviour is occurring every 60 seconds during the 30-minute session. To establish inter-observer reliability, two trained observers would independently record behaviours using the same checklist. Their recordings would be compared and a correlation coefficient calculated, with +0.80 or above indicating high reliability.”

Experimental Studies

You must specify:

Design: Independent groups, repeated measures, or matched pairs (with justification)
IV operationalisation: Exactly what you’ll manipulate and how
DV operationalisation: Exactly what you’ll measure and how
Controls: How you’ll control extraneous variables

Example: “I would use a repeated measures design where each participant completes the memory task both with and without background music, with order counterbalanced. This controls for individual differences in memory ability. The IV (presence of music) would be operationalised as: (1) Music condition – Mozart at 60 decibels through headphones, (2) Silence condition – headphones with no audio. The DV (concentration) would be operationalised as the number of correctly solved maths problems (out of 20) in 10 minutes.”

Ethical Considerations: The Marks Everyone Forgets

Common Mistake

Students write: “I would get informed consent.”

Problem: States WHAT but not HOW.

How to Answer Ethical Issues (Full Marks)

Informed Consent:

“Participants would receive a detailed consent form 24 hours before the study, explaining: (1) the study’s purpose, (2) what they’ll do, (3) duration, (4) any risks, (5) their right to withdraw. For participants under 16, parental consent would be obtained via forms sent home.”

Right to Withdraw:

“Participants would be informed verbally and in writing that they can withdraw at any point without reason or negative consequences. They’d receive a unique code to request data withdrawal up to one week after participation. A ‘stop’ button would be visible throughout computer tasks.”

Confidentiality:

“All data would be stored confidentially. Participants would be assigned unique codes (P001, P002) with names stored separately in a password-protected file. Published findings would use group data only. Data stored securely for 5 years per GDPR, then destroyed.”

Protection from Harm:

“Participants wouldn’t be exposed to greater risk than everyday life. Task difficulty would be piloted to ensure only mild frustration. A researcher would monitor for discomfort. Contact details for school counselling would be provided. Any participant showing significant distress would be stopped immediately.”

The Full 12/12 Example

Question:

A psychologist wanted to investigate whether listening to classical music while studying improves students’ exam performance. Design a study to investigate this.

In your answer provide details of:

the experimental design you would use and why
how you would operationalise the IV and DV
how you would select and allocate participants
two ethical issues and how you would deal with them

Model Answer (Level 4: 12/12):

Experimental Design

I would use a laboratory experiment with an independent groups design. Two separate groups would be used: Group A (experimental) would study material while listening to Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 at 60 decibels, while Group B (control) would study identical material in silence.

I chose independent groups rather than repeated measures because using the same participants in both conditions would create severe order effects – participants would remember material from their first session, artificially improving performance in the second condition. Although independent groups has the disadvantage of participant variables, I would control this through random allocation and a large sample (n=60 total, 30 per group).

Operationalisation of Variables

The IV (presence of classical music) would be operationalised as: (1) Music condition – study for 20 minutes while Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 plays at 60 decibels through headphones, (2) No music condition – study for 20 minutes wearing headphones with no audio (controlling for physical presence of headphones).

The DV (exam performance) would be operationalised as the score out of 30 on a multiple-choice test containing 30 questions about the studied material (Biology cell division content), administered immediately after the 20-minute study period. Multiple-choice format provides objective scoring with no marker bias.

Selection and Allocation

I would use stratified sampling by dividing 60 A-Level Biology students from three local sixth forms into strata based on predicted grade (A*/A, B/C, D/E), ensuring both groups contain similar proportions of abilities. From each category, students would be randomly selected proportionally.

Once recruited, the 60 participants would be randomly allocated using a random number generator. Each participant would be assigned a number 1-60, then numbers 1-30 would be allocated to the music condition, and 31-60 to no-music. This ensures participant variables are randomly distributed.

Ethical Issues

Issue 1 – Informed Consent: Students would receive a participant information sheet 48 hours before, explaining the study investigates learning factors, they will study Biology for 20 minutes then complete a test, participation takes 40 minutes, and their right to withdraw. For under-18s, parental consent forms would be sent home. Written consent would be obtained immediately before starting.

Issue 2 – Psychological Harm: To minimise test-related stress, participants would be informed that scores don’t affect their actual Biology grades and won’t be shared with teachers. A researcher would monitor for distress. After the test, participants would be debriefed supportively. Any participant becoming significantly anxious would be stopped immediately and offered counselling access. All would receive a £5 gift voucher for their time.

Why this scores 12/12: Specific details throughout • Justified all choices • Fully operationalised variables • Showed understanding of controls • Addressed all bullet points • Used specialist terminology • Practical and realistic • Clear structure

Practice Scenarios: Test Your Understanding

Click each card to reveal the expert analysis!

Scenario 1: Improving a Weak Design

Student writes:

“I would design an observation to study aggressive behaviour in children. I would use event sampling and make sure it’s reliable. I would get consent from parents.”

Your task: Identify what’s missing and how to improve it.

Click to see the expert improvement

What’s missing:

No specific type of observation (controlled/naturalistic, covert/overt, participant/non-participant)
No operationalised behavioural categories
No detail on HOW event sampling would be implemented
No explanation of HOW reliability would be established
No detail on HOW consent would be obtained
No justifications for any choices

Level 4 improvement:

“I would conduct a controlled, overt, non-participant observation in a primary school playground to study aggressive behaviour, allowing systematic recording while maintaining ethical standards. Behavioural categories would include: (1) Physical aggression – hitting, kicking, pushing another child; (2) Verbal aggression – shouting, threatening, name-calling; (3) Relational aggression – excluding peers, spreading rumours. Each category is operationally defined to prevent subjective interpretation.

I would use event sampling to record every instance of aggressive behaviour during the 30-minute playtime, as aggressive acts may be infrequent but theoretically important for understanding peer interactions. This prevents missing critical incidents that time sampling might overlook.

To establish inter-observer reliability, two trained observers would independently record behaviours using the same checklist during the same sessions. Their recordings would be compared and a correlation coefficient calculated, with +0.80 or above indicating high reliability, confirming the categories are sufficiently objective.

For informed consent, I would send detailed information sheets to parents one week before the study, explaining: (1) the study investigates social behaviours during playtime, (2) their child will be observed during normal playground activities, (3) observations will last 30 minutes over one week, (4) their right to withdraw their child at any time. Written consent forms would be returned before any observation begins.”

Mark improvement: Original answer = 3/12 (Level 1-2). Improved answer = 11-12/12 (Level 4)

Scenario 2: Operationalising Variables

Question: Design an experiment to investigate whether caffeine affects reaction time.

Student attempts to operationalise:

IV: “Giving participants caffeine”
DV: “Measuring their reactions”

Your task: Rewrite these with full operationalisation.

Click to compare with expert operationalisation

Scenario 3: Justifying Design Choices

Question: Why might you choose a repeated measures design over an independent groups design for a memory experiment?

Your task: Provide a full justification with strengths AND limitations.

Click to see the expert justification

Expert justification:

“I would use a repeated measures design where the same participants complete both the memory task with background music and the memory task in silence, with order counterbalanced to control for practice effects.”

Strengths of this choice:

Controls for participant variables: Individual differences in natural memory ability (some people have excellent memories, others struggle) won’t confound results because each participant acts as their own baseline. This increases internal validity.
More powerful statistically: Requires fewer participants to detect an effect (30 participants give 30 data points per condition, whereas independent groups needs 60 participants for the same statistical power), making it more practical and cost-effective.
Ethical benefits: Fewer participants needed means fewer people exposed to any potential risks from the procedure.

Limitations acknowledged:

Order effects: Participants might perform better in the second condition due to practice, or worse due to fatigue/boredom. However, I would control this through counterbalancing – half the participants do music condition first, half do silence condition first.
Demand characteristics: Participants might guess the study’s hypothesis after completing the first condition and adjust their behaviour in the second condition. To minimise this, I would use a cover story about “environmental factors and cognition” without specifically mentioning music.

Why this scores full marks: You’ve (1) stated your choice, (2) justified WHY it’s appropriate for THIS study, (3) shown awareness of strengths, (4) acknowledged limitations, (5) explained how you’d control for those limitations. This demonstrates mature, critical understanding of research design.

Final Checklist: Before You Submit Your Answer

Have I addressed EVERY bullet point in the question?

Have I provided SPECIFIC details (numbers, times, names) throughout?

Have I JUSTIFIED all methodological choices?

Have I OPERATIONALISED all variables in measurable terms?

Have I CONTEXTUALISED my answer to the specific scenario?

Have I used SPECIALIST TERMINOLOGY correctly?

Have I structured my answer CLEARLY with subheadings?

Have I explained HOW I would implement procedures, not just WHAT?

Have I shown awareness of LIMITATIONS where appropriate?

Is my design PRACTICAL and actually possible to conduct?

If you can answer YES to all these questions, you’re on track for Level 4 (10-12 marks).

The Bottom Line

12-mark design questions aren’t about being a research methods genius.

They’re about knowing the formula and applying it systematically.

Master the 6 Golden Rules, use the method-specific strategies, and follow the checklist.

12/12 is completely achievable for every student who applies this system.