📚 AS Cambridge Psychology: Essay Writing Framework & Sample Essays | AS剑桥心理学：论文写作框架与范文
Mastering the essay component of AS Cambridge Psychology is a decisive factor in achieving a high grade. The 12-mark essay questions demand not only accurate knowledge but also the ability to structure arguments, deploy evidence, and engage in critical evaluation. This article provides a clear, step-by-step framework for constructing excellent essays, illustrated with annotated sample responses that mirror the standard expected by examiners. By internalising this structure, you will write with confidence and precision.
掌握AS剑桥心理学论文部分是取得高分的关键因素。12分的论文题不仅要求准确的知识，还要求具备组织论点、运用证据和进行批判性评估的能力。本文提供一个清晰的、循序渐进的论文写作框架，并通过带注释的范文展示考官期望的标准。通过内化这一结构，你将能够自信而精准地进行写作。
1. Understanding the Essay Question | 理解论文题目
Every high-scoring essay begins with a precise deconstruction of the question. In AS Psychology, command words shape the entire response. ‘Describe’ requires a factual outline of a theory, study, or concept. ‘Explain’ goes further by asking for reasons, mechanisms, or causal links. ‘Evaluate’ demands that you make a judgement, weighing strengths and weaknesses. The most common command, ‘discuss’, is a broad invitation to describe, explain, and evaluate, often bringing in competing viewpoints or issues of debate. Underline the command word and the topic focus before you begin planning.
每一篇高分论文都始于对题目的精确拆解。在AS心理学中，指令词塑造了整个回答。’Describe’（描述）要求对理论、研究或概念进行事实性概述。’Explain’（解释）则更进一步，要求给出原因、机制或因果联系。’Evaluate’（评价）要求你作出判断，权衡优缺点。最常见的指令词’discuss’（讨论）是一个广泛的要求，需要描述、解释和评价，通常会引入对立的观点或争议问题。在开始构思前，请在指令词和主题焦点下画线。
Check the mark allocation: a 12-mark essay typically assesses AO1 (knowledge and understanding, 6 marks) and AO2 (application and evaluation, 6 marks). Your essay must balance content recall with analysis. For example, a question like ‘Discuss the role of schemas in memory, using research evidence’ requires you to define schemas, describe relevant studies (AO1), and then evaluate their contribution—perhaps by discussing methodological issues or cultural bias (AO2).
检查分数分配：12分的论文通常评估AO1（知识与理解，6分）和AO2（应用与评价，6分）。你的论文必须平衡内容回忆与分析。例如，’Discuss the role of schemas in memory, using research evidence’（讨论图式在记忆中的作用，须引用研究证据）这道题要求你定义图式，描述相关研究（AO1），然后评价其贡献——也许可以讨论方法论问题或文化偏见（AO2）。
2. Planning Your Essay | 规划你的论文
Spend five to seven minutes planning. Start by brainstorming key concepts, studies, and evaluative points on a mind map. Arrange these into a logical sequence: an introduction, three or four main body paragraphs each centred on one distinct point, and a conclusion. For a ‘discuss’ question, a typical plan might be: (1) define schemas and outline Bartlett’s theory; (2) describe Brewer & Treyens’ study as evidence; (3) evaluate schema theory using a competing study or issues such as distortion; (4) bring in practical implications. Select the strongest chain of arguments rather than listing everything you know.
花五到七分钟进行规划。首先在思维导图上列出关键概念、研究和评价点。将这些内容按逻辑顺序排列：一个引言，三或四个各围绕一个独立要点展开的主体段落，以及一个结论。对于’discuss’类问题，一个典型的规划可能是：(1) 定义图式并概述巴特利特的理论；(2) 描述 Brewer & Treyens 的研究作为证据；(3) 用对立研究或诸如扭曲等问题来评价图式理论；(4) 引入实际应用。你要选择最强有力的论证链条，而不是罗列你所知道的一切。
A well-structured plan prevents you from drifting off-topic and ensures each paragraph fulfils a clear role. Examiners reward focused, coherent essays that build a cumulative argument. Avoid the common trap of writing an essay that is purely descriptive in the first half and only evaluative in the second half; integration is key.
一个结构良好的规划可以防止你偏题，并确保每个段落都发挥明确的作用。考官青睐重点突出、连贯且能构建累积性论证的论文。要避免常见的陷阱：前半部分纯粹描述，后半部分才进行评价；将二者融合起来才是关键。
3. Crafting an Effective Introduction | 撰写有效引言
An introduction should be concise—three to four sentences are sufficient. Start by defining the core psychological term in your own words. Then outline the scope of your essay, indicating the main points you will explore. Finally, state your thesis or the line of argument you intend to take. Do not include detailed study findings here; save evidence for the body.
引言应当简洁——三到四句话足够了。首先用自己的话定义核心心理学术语。然后概述论文的范围，指出你将探讨的主要观点。最后，陈述你的论点或你打算采取的论证路线。不要在此处列入详细的研究发现；把证据留到主体段落。
Example introduction for a question on schemas: ‘A schema is a cognitive framework that helps organise and interpret information. Schema theory, proposed by Bartlett, suggests that memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive. This essay will discuss how schemas influence memory, drawing on empirical studies. It will argue that while schemas can lead to distortions, they serve an essential adaptive function in making sense of the world.’
针对图式问题的引言示例：’A schema is a cognitive framework that helps organise and interpret information.（图式是一种有助于组织和解释信息的认知框架。）Schema theory, proposed by Bartlett, suggests that memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive.（巴特利特提出的图式理论认为，记忆是重构性的而非复现性的。）This essay will discuss how schemas influence memory, drawing on empirical studies.（本文将借助实证研究讨论图式如何影响记忆。）It will argue that while schemas can lead to distortions, they serve an essential adaptive function in making sense of the world.（本文将论证，尽管图式可能导致扭曲，但它们在理解世界方面具有重要的适应功能。）’
4. Body Paragraphs: The PEEL Structure | 主体段落：PEEL结构
Each body paragraph should follow the PEEL model: Point, Evidence, Explanation, and Link. Begin with a clear point that directly responds to the question. Then present specific evidence—typically one or two named studies—with sufficient detail (aim, method, results, conclusion). Next, explain how this evidence supports your point, unpacking the psychological mechanism. End by linking back to the question or forward to the next paragraph. This structure guarantees cohesion and relevance.
每个主体段落都应遵循PEEL模型：Point（观点）、Evidence（证据）、Explanation（解释）和Link（联系）。首先提出一个直接回应问题的清晰观点。然后提供具体的证据——通常是一到两个指定的研究——并给出足够的细节（目的、方法、结果、结论）。接着解释这些证据如何支持你的观点，揭示心理机制。最后联系回问题或承接到下一段。这一结构保证了连贯性和相关性。
Here is a sample PEEL paragraph: (Point) Schema theory argues that pre-existing mental frameworks can lead to errors in recall. (Evidence) Brewer & Treyens (1981) asked participants to wait in an office for 35 seconds and later recall what they saw. Most participants correctly recalled schema-consistent objects like a desk and chair, but many falsely recalled objects like books and a filing cabinet that were not present, while missing the unexpected skull and a piece of bark. (Explanation) This shows that memory is not a passive recording; instead, our schemas fill in gaps with what we expect to see, which distorts recall in a predictable way. (Link) Therefore, schema-driven reconstruction challenges the reliability of eye-witness memory, a point explored further through research on leading questions.
以下是一个PEEL段落范例：(Point) Schema theory argues that pre-existing mental frameworks can lead to errors in recall.（图式理论认为，预先存在的心理框架可能导致回忆中的错误。）(Evidence) Brewer & Treyens (1981) asked participants to wait in an office for 35 seconds and later recall what they saw. Most participants correctly recalled schema-consistent objects like a desk and chair, but many falsely recalled objects like books and a filing cabinet that were not present, while missing the unexpected skull and a piece of bark.（Brewer & Treyens (1981) 要求参与者在办公室等候35秒，然后回忆所看到的物品。多数参与者正确回忆了与图式一致的物品，如桌子和椅子，但许多人错误地回忆了实际上并不存在的书籍和文件柜，却遗漏了意料外的头骨和一块树皮。）(Explanation) This shows that memory is not a passive recording; instead, our schemas fill in gaps with what we expect to see, which distorts recall in a predictable way.（这表明记忆并非被动的记录；相反，我们的图式会以我们预期看到的内容填补空缺，从而以可预测的方式扭曲回忆。）(Link) Therefore, schema-driven reconstruction challenges the reliability of eye-witness memory, a point explored further through research on leading questions.（因此，由图式驱动的重构对目击者记忆的可靠性提出了挑战，这一点将在关于诱导性问题的研究中进一步探讨。）
5. Using Psychological Studies as Evidence | 运用心理学研究作为证据
Evidence is the backbone of your essay. When citing a study, you must include the core components: researchers’ names and year (at minimum), aim, brief method, key findings, and a conclusion that connects to your argument. Do not simply drop in a name; elaborate sufficiently. For instance, writing ‘Loftus & Palmer (1974) showed leading questions affect memory’ is too sparse. Expand with: ‘Loftus & Palmer (1974) asked participants to estimate the speed of cars in a filmed accident. Those who heard “smashed” gave higher speed estimates than those who heard “hit”. This suggests that post-event information can alter memory.’
证据是你论文的骨架。在引用研究时，你必须包含核心组成部分：研究者姓名和年份（最低要求）、目的、简要方法、关键发现，以及与你的论证相联系的结论。不要仅仅抛出一个名字；要充分展开。例如，写’Loftus & Palmer (1974) showed leading questions affect memory’（Loftus & Palmer 1974年表明诱导性问题影响记忆）就过于简略。应扩展为：’Loftus & Palmer (1974) asked participants to estimate the speed of cars in a filmed accident. Those who heard “smashed” gave higher speed estimates than those who heard “hit”. This suggests that post-event information can alter memory.’（Loftus & Palmer (1974) 请参与者估计影片中事故的车辆速度。听到“smashed”（撞碎）一词的参与者给出的速度估值高于听到“hit”（碰撞）的参与者。这表明事后信息可能会改变记忆。）
Select studies that are directly relevant and preferably classic or from the core syllabus. If the question says ‘using research evidence’, you must include more than one study. Compare and contrast studies where possible, as this demonstrates deeper understanding. Avoid lengthy descriptions of procedure; focus on what is necessary to support your evaluation.
选择直接相关的研究，最好是经典研究或来自核心大纲。如果题目要求’using research evidence’（使用研究证据），你必须引用不止一项研究。尽可能对研究进行比较和对照，因为这显示出更深刻的理解。避免对实验程序进行冗长的描述；专注于支持你评价所必需的内容。
6. Developing Critical Evaluation | 开展批判性评估
Evaluation is where many candidates lose marks. It is not enough to tack on a list of strengths and limitations at the end. Evaluation must be woven throughout the essay, often immediately after presenting a study or theory. A robust evaluative toolkit includes considering: methodological issues (validity, reliability, controls, sample bias); ethical concerns; cultural and gender bias; alternative explanations or opposing studies; practical applications; and reductionism versus holism.
评价是许多考生失分的地方。仅仅在末尾附加一份优缺点清单是不够的。评价必须贯穿全文，通常紧接在呈现一项研究或理论之后。一个有力的评价工具包包括考虑：方法论问题（效度、信度、控制、样本偏差）；伦理关切；文化和性别偏见；替代性解释或对立研究；实际应用；以及还原论与整体论。
For example, after describing Brewer & Treyens’ study, you might write: ‘However, the study lacked ecological validity because waiting in an office is a relatively artificial task that may not reflect how schemas operate in rich, emotional real-life scenarios. Furthermore, the participants were mostly university students, limiting generalisability across age and culture. Nevertheless, the findings have been replicated in similar naturalistic settings, lending support to schema theory.’ This demonstrates a balanced, evidence-informed evaluation.
例如，在描述了Brewer & Treyens的研究后，你可以写道：’However, the study lacked ecological validity because waiting in an office is a relatively artificial task that may not reflect how schemas operate in rich, emotional real-life scenarios. Furthermore, the participants were mostly university students, limiting generalisability across age and culture. Nevertheless, the findings have been replicated in similar naturalistic settings, lending support to schema theory.’（然而，该研究缺乏生态效度，因为在办公室等待是一项相对人为的任务，可能无法反映图式在丰富的、情绪化的真实生活情境中如何运作。此外，参与者大多是大学生，限制了跨年龄和文化的可推广性。尽管如此，这些发现在类似的自然情境中得到了重复，为图式理论提供了支持。）这展示了一种平衡的、基于证据的评价。
7. Discussing Issues and Debates | 讨论争议与辩论
Many AS questions invite you to engage with broader psychological debates, such as nature versus nurture, free will versus determinism, reductionism versus holism, and idiographic versus nomothetic approaches. Demonstrating an ability to place your topic within these debates can elevate your essay. For schema theory, you could argue that schemas are an interactionist product of nurture (experience) shaping innate cognitive processes, thus sidestepping a strict nature-nurture divide.
许多AS题目要求你参与更广泛的心理学辩论，例如先天与后天、自由意志与决定论、还原论与整体论，以及个案研究与通则研究。展现出将你的主题置于这些辩论中的能力可以提升你的论文水平。对于图式理论，你可以论证图式是后天（经验）塑造先天认知过程的交互作用的产物，从而超越了严格的先天-后天对立。
Use these issues to deepen your evaluation. For instance, note that a strictly cognitive approach to schemas can be seen as reductionist as it ignores emotional and motivational factors in memory. Linking your discussion to such debates shows synthesis, a high-level skill that examiners look for in the upper mark bands. Be careful, however, not to insert debates where they do not fit; relevance is always paramount.
利用这些议题来深化你的评价。例如，可以指出，纯粹认知的图式方法可被视为还原论，因为它忽略了记忆中的情感和动机因素。将你的讨论与这类辩论联系起表明了综合能力，这是考官在高分段寻求的高阶技能。但要小心，不要在不合适的地方插入辩论；相关性始终是最重要的。
8. Writing a Strong Conclusion | 撰写有力结论
Do not neglect the conclusion. Many candidates end abruptly or repeat the introduction. A strong conclusion summarises the key arguments succinctly, weighs the evidence, and delivers a final, balanced judgement. It should not introduce new studies or ideas. Aim for clarity and authority: ‘In conclusion, schema theory offers a compelling explanation of memory’s reconstructive nature, supported by robust experimental evidence. However, it is not a complete model; it must be complemented by insights from social and emotional factors. Overall, the theory has high practical value, particularly in understanding eyewitness testimony inaccuracies.’
不要忽视结论。许多考生在结尾时仓促收笔或重复引言。一个强有力的结论应简洁地总结关键论点，权衡证据，并给出最终的、平衡的判断。结论不应引入新的研究或观点。力求清晰和权威：’In conclusion, schema theory offers a compelling explanation of memory’s reconstructive nature, supported by robust experimental evidence. However, it is not a complete model; it must be complemented by insights from social and emotional factors. Overall, the theory has high practical value, particularly in understanding eyewitness testimony inaccuracies.’（总之，图式理论为记忆的重构性质提供了令人信服的解释，并得到了可靠实验证据的支持。然而，它不是一个完整的模型；它必须辅以来自社会和情感因素的见解。总体而言，该理论具有很高的实用价值，特别是在理解目击证词不准确方面。）
Your final sentence should leave the examiner with a sense of resolution. Make it clear that you have addressed the question fully. Even if you are running short on time, a brief, well-structured conclusion is better than none; it signals that your essay is complete and deliberately argued.
你的最后一句话应该让考官感到一种收束感。明确表明你已经充分回答了问题。即使时间紧迫，一个简短、结构良好的结论也胜于无；它标志着你的论文是完整的并且经过了审慎的论证。
9. Common Pitfalls to Avoid | 常见错误避免
Be aware of the most frequent errors that undermine AS essays. First, excessive description with minimal evaluation: if your essay is purely a summary of theories, you will be capped at the lower mark bands. Second, vague study references: naming a study without providing specific details weakens your evidence. Third, poor structure: rambling paragraphs that mix multiple points confuse the examiner. Fourth, ignoring the command word: a ‘discuss’ question that only describes will fail to meet the assessment objectives. Fifth, lack of a thesis: an essay without a clear argument reads like a list.
要意识到那些削弱AS论文的最常见错误。第一，描述过多而评价极少：如果你的论文纯粹是理论摘要，将被限制在低分段。第二，研究引用模糊不清：只提到研究名称而不提供具体细节会削弱你的证据。第三，结构混乱：分散的段落混合多个观点会让考官感到困惑。第四，忽视指令词：对于’discuss’类题目，如果只是描述，就无法达到评估目标。第五，缺乏中心论点：一篇没有清晰论证的论文读起来就像一份清单。
Another common pitfall is the use of informal language or personal anecdotes; academic psychology writing demands a formal, objective tone. Additionally, avoid presenting long, unbroken chunks of text—use paragraphing to signal shifts in argument. Finally, do not underestimate the power of the linking sentence: each paragraph should flow naturally into the next, creating a narrative that the examiner can easily follow.
另一个常见陷阱是使用非正式语言或个人轶事；心理学学术写作要求正式、客观的语气。此外，避免呈现冗长、不间断的文本块——使用分段来表明论证的转换。最后，不要低估衔接句的力量：每个段落都应自然地过渡到下一个，创造出考官能够轻松理解的叙事。
10. Sample Essay with Annotation | 范文与注释
Below is an annotated response to the 12-mark question: ‘Discuss the role of schemas in memory, using research evidence.’ The annotation explains how the response fulfils AO1 and AO2 and follows the framework outlined above. Each section is presented with the English original followed by its Chinese translation, alongside evaluative comments.
下面是对一道12分题目的带注释的回答：’Discuss the role of schemas in memory, using research evidence.’（讨论图式在记忆中的作用，须引用研究证据。）注释解释了该回答如何满足AO1和AO2的要求，并遵循上述框架。每个部分都先提供英文原文，再提供中文翻译，并附有评价性评论。
Introduction
A schema is a mental structure that organises past experiences and influences how we encode, store, and retrieve information (AO1). Schema theory, rooted in Bartlett’s (1932) reconstructive memory model, argues that memory is an active process that is shaped by pre-existing knowledge. This essay will discuss how schemas both aid and distort memory, drawing on key studies such as Bartlett’s ‘War of the Ghosts’, Brewer & Treyens (1981), and Loftus & Palmer (1974) (AO1 + clear roadmap). It will conclude that while schemas lead to systematic errors, they are essential for efficient cognitive functioning (thesis statement, evaluative intent).
图式是一种心理结构，它组织过去的经验并影响我们编码、存储和提取信息的方式（AO1）。源于巴特利特（1932）重构记忆模型的图式理论认为，记忆是一个主动的过程，受先前知识的影响（AO1）。本文将借助关键研究如巴特利特的“幽灵之战”、Brewer & Treyens（1981）和Loftus & Palmer（1974），讨论图式如何既辅助又扭曲记忆（AO1 + 清晰路线图）。结论将指出，尽管图式会导致系统性错误，但它们对于高效的认知功能至关重要（中心论点，蕴含评价意图）。
Comment: The introduction defines the keyword, outlines the studies to be used, and presents a clear thesis that hints at evaluation. This immediately establishes a high level of organisation.
注释：引言定义了关键词，概述了将要使用的研究，并提出了一个暗示评价的明确论点。这立即展现出了高水平的组织性。
Body Paragraph 1: Bartlett’s (1932) study and reconstructive memory
(Point) Bartlett’s classic study provides foundational evidence for schema-driven memory distortions. (Evidence) He used the Native American folk tale ‘The War of the Ghosts’ and asked English participants to read and then recall it repeatedly over time. (Explain) Bartlett found that as time passed, the recalled stories became shorter, more coherent, and more conventional for Western listeners. Unfamiliar elements, such as ghosts and seals, were omitted or transformed into familiar ideas like boats. This occurred because participants assimilated the story into their own cultural schemas, reconstructing the narrative to fit pre-existing mental frameworks. (Link) Thus, the study clearly demonstrates that memory is not a literal recording but an active reconstruction guided by schemas. (AO1 and strong explanation.)
（Point）巴特利特的经典研究为图式驱动的记忆扭曲提供了基础性证据。（Evidence）他使用美洲印第安民间故事“幽灵之战”，要求英国参与者阅读并在一段时间内反复回忆。（Explain）巴特利特发现，随着时间的推移，回忆的故事变得更短、更连贯，且更符合西方听众的常规。诸如幽灵和海豹等陌生元素被省略或转化为像船只这样熟悉的观念。之所以发生这种情况，是因为参与者将故事同化到了他们自己的文化图式中，重构了叙事以符合已有的心理框架。（Link）因此，该研究清楚地表明，记忆不是逐字记录，而是由图式引导的主动重构。（AO1及有力解释。）
Comment: The paragraph adheres perfectly to PEEL. It includes specific details of the study and explains the psychological process. The link sentence prepares for evaluation in the next paragraph.
注释：该段落完美遵循了PEEL。包含了研究的具体细节并解释了心理过程。衔接句为下一段的评价做好了准备。
Body Paragraph 2: Brewer & Treyens (1981) and schema-consistent errors
(Point) Further support for schema theory comes from controlled laboratory research showing that schemas create predictable errors. (Evidence) Brewer & Treyens (1981) had participants wait in an office-like room containing both schema-consistent objects (desk, typewriter) and schema-inconsistent objects (skull, a piece of bark). Upon recall, participants more often falsely remembered schema-consistent items that were not there and omitted inconsistent items. (Explain) This happens because schemas act as top-down processing filters; when memory is uncertain, we fill in gaps with what our schema tells us ‘should’ be there. (Link) This finding extends Bartlett’s work into a controlled setting, strengthening the reliability of schema theory. (AO1.)
（Point）对图式理论的进一步支持来自受控的实验室研究，这些研究表明图式会产生可预测的错误。（Evidence）Brewer & Treyens（1981）让参与者在类似办公室的房间中等待，房间内既有与图式一致的物品（桌子、打字机），也有与图式不一致的物品（头骨、一块树皮）。在回忆时，参与者更频繁地错误回忆出实际不存在的但与图式一致的物品，并遗漏了不一致的物品。（Explain）这是因为图式充当了自上而下的加工过滤器；当记忆不确定时，我们会用图式告诉我们“应该”在那里的东西来填补空缺。（Link）这一发现将巴特利特的工作扩展到了受控环境中，增强了图式理论的信度。（AO1。）
Comment: Two studies are now linked, building a cumulative case. The candidate is also implicitly setting up evaluation by noting the controlled setting.
注释：两项研究现在联系在一起，构建了一个累积性案例。考生也通过指出受控环境，含蓄地为评估做好了铺垫。
Body Paragraph 3: Evaluation of schema theory
(Point – evaluation) Despite its strengths, schema theory has notable limitations. (Evidence/Evaluation) One criticism is its lack of precision. The theory does not clearly specify how schemas are formed, stored, or exactly how they exert their influence, making it somewhat vague and difficult to falsify. Moreover, most supporting studies, including Bartlett’s and Brewer & Treyens’, use relatively artificial tasks and student samples, which limits ecological and population validity (AO2). Additionally, an alternative explanation such as the misinformation effect (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) suggests that memory distortion may be due more to post-event verbal information than to schemas alone, indicating that schemas interact with other cognitive processes. (Counterbalance) However, the theory has high practical utility. It has informed understanding of eyewitness testimony, leading to the development of the cognitive interview technique, which aims to minimise schema-based errors by encouraging context reinstatement and varied retrieval paths. (AO2, effective synthesis.)
（Point – 评价）尽管图式理论具有诸多优势，但它也有显著的局限性。（Evidence/Evaluation）一项批评是其缺乏精确性。该理论没有清晰说明图式是如何形成、存储的，也未确切阐明它们如何施加影响，这使得它有些模糊且难以被证伪。此外，大多数支持性研究，包括巴特利特和Brewer & Treyens的研究，使用了相对人为的任务和学生样本，这限制了生态效度和群体效度（AO2）。另外，替代性解释如误导信息效应（Loftus & Palmer, 1974）表明，记忆扭曲可能更多是由事后言语信息而非图式单独造成的，这意味着图式与其他认知过程相互作用。（Counterbalance）然而，该理论具有很高的实际应用价值。它为理解目击证言提供了信息，促成了认知访谈技术的发展，该技术旨在通过鼓励语境复述和多样化提取路径，最大限度地减少基于图式的错误。（AO2，有效的综合。）
Comment: This paragraph is evaluatively dense. It explicitly tackles AO2 by discussing methodological issues, competing evidence, and practical applications. The evaluation is not bolted on but integrated with studies already introduced.
注释：这段
Published by TutorHao | AS Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导