HYPERLINK "https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/4821/assignments/42518" Assignment overview

The assignments in this unit are designed to help you develop important skills in research methods, critical thinking, and writing a short APA-style journal article (referred to as a lab report in psychology courses).

In the lab report, you will review the relevant literature, present a hypothesis, describe the results, and discuss the implications of the findings. The learning materials and supporting resources will help you to develop the relevant skills and knowledge necessary to complete this assignment.

Remember:You should incorporate any feedback from Assignment 1A into the hypotheses section of your lab report.

This assignment supportsunit learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Topic: The effect of study strategy and mind wandering on students learning

This lab report examines the effects of two different studying techniques on peoples test performance: massed practice versus distributed practice. Massed practice refers to studying or rehearsing information in one period (i.e. cramming), whereas distributed practice (also known as spaced practice) refers to spacing out the time spent studying over several sessions with a break in between (see Figure 1 from Carpenter et al., 2012, p. 370).

Figure 1 Design of a typical study on the spacing effect (2012) supplied by Carpenter, Cepeda, Rohrer, Kang, & Pashler, p. 370

Importantly, the key difference is not the amount of time spent studying, but rather when the person spends the time studying and how much time passes between study periods. For example, you can either study for eight hours straight for an exam (i.e. massed practice), or you can study for one hour each across eight different days (i.e. distributed practice).

In addition to exploring study strategy, in this lab report, you will also examine the relationship between mind wandering during studying and peoples ability to learn and recall information (Risko et al., 2012). Mind wandering is a growing topic of research that builds on existing knowledge about the importance of attention in encoding. Thus, you will also learn about the research into the role of attention and staying on task when trying to learn information.

The topic of study strategy and mind wandering were chosen for your lab report because:

there is a wealth of research for you to draw uponit is relevant to material you will cover in the Week 3 learning material on Memoryit may shape your own studying strategies in this unit and beyond.

To begin this assignment, you should read:

7.1 The nature of memoryLinks to an external site.(concluding atTypes of memory) (pp. 295-297) in your Bernstein et al. eText7.7 Applications of memory researchLinks to an external site.(concluding atDesign for memory) (pp. 333337) in your Bernstein et al. eTextthe provided 'starter' articles (select the next heading to find these).

Starter articlesAuthors: Shana Carpenter, Nicholas Cepeda, Doug Rohrer, Sean Kang, and Harold PashlerTitle: Using Spacing to Enhance Diverse Forms of Learning: Review of Recent Research and Implications for Instruction.Journal: Educational Psychology ReviewDetails: Published in 2012, in volume 24, on pages 369378DOI: 10.1007/s10648-012-9205-z

Authors: Evan Risko, Nicola Anderson, Amara Sarwal, Megan Engelhardt, and Alan KingstoneTitle: Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a LectureJournal: Applied Cognitive PsychologyDetails: Published in 2012, in volume 26, on pages 234242DOI: 10.1002/acp.1814

Please note:These references are NOT in APA format. One of your tasks for this assignment will be to create an APA-formatted reference list for the sources you use.

The following information provides the details of the study you will use for this report. Select each heading to learn more.

Research questionsOur study compared two study strategies (massed practice versus spaced practice) on participants performance on a fill-in-the-blank test. Thus, in this study we manipulated one independent variable with two levelsstudy strategy with massed practice versus spaced practice; and measured the dependent variable test performance. We also examined the relationship between mind wandering and test performance.Please see theMethod sectionfor specific information about how the variables were manipulated and measured.

We had two main research questions:

Which study strategy will lead to the most accurate test performance?

Is there a relationship between mind wandering and test performance? If so, what is the strength and direction of the relationship?

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are specific predictions about the pattern of relationships between variables. In this lab report, we are interested in two things: how study strategy affects participants test performance, and is there a relationship (and, if so, what is the strength and direction of the relationship) between mind wandering and test performance? For your assignment, you will need to develop logical, explicit, and testable hypotheses about what you expect to find in this study. This literature you discuss in your introduction should inform these hypotheses.

MethodPlease note:You do not need to paraphrase this 'Method' information. This willnotbe considered plagiarism. However, you will need to ensure that the text and headings are in APA style.

Participants

Students (N= 126) enrolled in first-year psychology units completed this study in exchange for course credit. Data from 12 participants who did not complete the study were excluded. The majority of participants in the final sample (N= 114) self-identified as female (63.16%), with ages ranging from 1867 years (M= 20.87,SD= 4.32).

Materials

Demographics questions.Participants answered two questions: Please indicate your age (in years): <open-ended> and Please indicate your gender: <open-ended>.

Study material.All participants studied the 'Research in Psychology' chapter of the Bernstein et al. (2018) eText.

Test material.All participants were tested with 20 fill-in-the-blank items (see Appendix A).

Mind-wandering probe.Following Risko et al. (2012), we asked participants, 'Were you mind wandering?', and provided them with 'Yes' and 'No' response options.

Instructions.All participants were advised that they would need to schedule their study session(s) at a designated computer room during a two-week period. Participants in the massed practice condition were advised that they would need to study for four hours in one sitting. Participants in the spaced practice condition were advised that they would need to study for two hours on two consecutive days.

Procedure

Students signed up for this three-part online study through the Research experience program (REP) and were presented with the consent information statement through the Qualtrics platform. After agreeing to participate by selecting 'Continue', participants were directed to Part 1 of the study.

In Part 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two study strategy conditions (massed practice versus spaced practice) and presented with the respective instructions. Participants were then asked to schedule their study sessions. Participants in the massed practice condition had to select one 4-hour block, whereas participants in the spaced practice condition had to select two 2-hour blocks on consecutive days. Participants had 5 minutes to complete Part 1.

In Part 2, participants attended their scheduled study session. Upon arriving at the computer room, participants answered the demographics questions. Participants were advised that they would be presented with the on-screen mind-wandering probe at random intervals during their computer-based study session. All participants received a total of 12 mind-wandering probes, which were presented randomly within 20-minute increments.

For Part 3, participants were advised to log in to Qualtrics two weeks after their final study session to complete the research methods test. Participants had a maximum of 25 minutes to complete the test.

All participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study, manipulations, and the researchers hypotheses. Participants were granted 4.5 credit points for their participation. This study was approved by the Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Please note:This ends the written text that can be included in your lab report without paraphrasing.

In the Results section, it is important to first introduce the data (e.g. how the data was scored and how it is presented) before presenting the results. Participants responses on the 20-item test were marked as either correct or incorrect. Participants responses to the 12 mind-wandering probes were tallied; higher mind-wandering scores indicate more instances of mind wandering (i.e. that they responded 'Yes' to the mind-wandering probes). We calculated the correlation between each participants mind-wandering scores and their test score.

Please note: No additional data or inferential analyses are required for your assignment beyond what is presented below. This is not a statistics assignment so the focus is not on performing statistical analyses. Instead, we are assessing whether you can clearly present and summarise descriptive data, interpret patterns in the data, integrate the results with previous literature, and discuss the implications of your results.

The following info shows the descriptive statistics for participants test scores in the two conditions (massed practice and spaced practice) and their overall test score collapsed across study strategy condition. It also shows the correlation coefficient between mind wandering and test performance.

Study strategy Number of correct answers

-- M SD N

Massed 13.45 1.54 58

Spaced 18.53 1.14 56

Overall 15.99 1.36 114

M = mean; SD = standard deviation; N = number of participants in each condition.

Mind wandering score:M= 7.23,SD= 2.47.Correlation with test performance = .46.

Please note:You should not include these tables exactly as presented here, but instead should use the data to describe and illustrate the results. It is up to you to decide which data needs to be reported in your Results section, but you must present at least one figure (not a table).

You are welcome to illustrate participants test performance according to the mean number of correct responses or you may wish to calculate:

proportions (i.e. divide the mean by 20 [the number of items on the test]), or

percentages (i.e. divide the mean by 20 and multiply that number by 100).

Regardless of your choice, be sure to include a label for the y-axis so your marker can interpret the results.

Note:The questions were presented to the student simultaneously in this order.

Instructions:Please answer these questions as accurately as possible.

__________________ is the process of assessing claims and making judgements on the basis of well-supported evidence. <answer: Critical thinking>

_________________ refers to the degree to which the data (or measure) are stable and consistent. <answer: Reliability>

A hypothesis is a specific, ______________ statement about how two variables relate to one another. <answer: testable>

Dr Wise is conducting a research study in which she is interested in the effects of aerobic activity on weight loss. Aerobic activity is defined as 30 minutes of exercise on the treadmill three times a week. This specific way of defining aerobic activity is referred to as a(n) __________ definition. <answer: operational>

Researchers interested in rare and unique psychological disorders will likely use a(n) _____________ to better understand the symptoms and potential causes. <answer: case study>

A disadvantage associated most with a _____________ measure is that people may not accurately report their thoughts or feelings. <answer: self-report or survey>

Correlation does not equal ___________. <answer: causation>

An experimental group receives the experimental treatment, whereas the _________ group receives no treatment or a placebo. <answer: control>

In an experiment, the variable manipulated by the researcher is called the ____________ variable. <answer: independent>

In this experiment, what is the dependent variable? The effect of daily walking program on elderly peoples lung capacity? <answer: lung capacity>

In an experiment, ___________ is important to ensure there are no systematic differences between groups of participants. <answer: random assignment>

Sometimes experimenters may unintentionally influence participants to respond in a way that supports the experimenters hypothesis. This is called ___________. <answer: experimenter bias>

The term double-blind refers to a study in which neither the experimenter nor the ______________ know which condition the participant is in. <answer: participant>

Our own Research experience program (REP) is an example of a ________________ sample. <answer: convenience>

___________________ research provides an in-depth investigation into an issue, often through conversation or interviews. <answer: Qualitative>

The mean, median, and mode are types of measures of ________________. <answer: central tendency>

The _____________ of a data set is the difference between the highest and lowest scores in that data set. <answer: range>

A _________________ correlation means that one variable increases as the other variable decreases. <answer: negative>

A correlation coefficient of __________ suggests that there is no relationship between two variables. <answer: 0>

Research in psychology must comply with _____________ guidelines. <answer: ethical>

Report requirements and weightings

APA-style journal articles (and, thus, psychology lab reports) typically consist of four main sections: Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Reports also include a brief Abstract at the start of the paper and a list of References at the end.

The word count for your assignment is 2000 words (+/- 10%), not including title page, figures, or the reference list. Refer to your Findlay eText for further details and a description of APA lab report sections.

The lab report must contain the following components, which are weighted as indicated below. The approximate word counts are suggested but not mandatory. Select the headings to learn more.

Assignment title page (not marked)Mark:Not marked, but mandatory for submission.

The title page should include the title (Assignment 1: Lab report), your name, your eLA's name, your word count, and the assignment due date. SeeFigure 5.2. Example of a typical title pageLinks to an external site.(p. 76) in the Findlay eText.

Abstract (5%)Mark:Worth 5% of assignment mark (approx. 150 words).

A succinct summary of all key features and findings of the study (i.e. purpose, design, results, implications).The abstract needs to concisely convey research aims/hypotheses, study design/method, results/findings, and the conclusion.

It is recommended that you draft your lab report first, then go back and write the abstract.

Mark:Worth 35% of assignment mark (approx. 750 words).

Your introduction should include a brief literature review about the key independent variables (i.e. massed practice versus distributed practice). You should develop an argument about how these two studying techniques might influence participants test performance.

A literature review provides a critical summary of key literature on the topic and builds a logical argument leading to your hypotheses.

Beyond the two starter articles provided, you should useat least three additionalpeer-reviewed journal articles as the basis for your introduction. Your literature review should clearly define key terms and build an argument that leads logically to your hypotheses and should address the following points:

What is massed practice? What is distributed practice?

How do these studying techniques affect performance?

What is mind wandering and how does it relate to learning?

The introduction should culminate in logical and explicit hypotheses related to the research question(s). In particular, you must developtwohypotheses related to:

Which study strategy will lead to the most accurate test performance?

Is there a relationship between mind wandering and test performance? If so, what is the strength and direction of the relationship?

Method (not marked)Mark:Not marked, but mandatory for submission.

In general, the Method section should be an accurate and concise description of the details of this specific study.

For this lab report, include the information provided verbatim. This section does contribute to your word count (approx. 440 words).You can include this information as written without concern of plagiarism. As such, the Method will not be marked, but it will contribute to your style mark in terms of correct use of APA style.

Results (20%)Mark:Worth 20% of assignment mark (approx. 200 words).

This section should summarise the parts of our data relevant to your hypotheses. Inparticular:

You must present afigure(NOT a table) comparing the accuracy rates for participants in the massed practice versus spaced practice conditions.

Describe what the figure shows; that is, discuss the pattern of results. Do not provide a theoretical interpretation of your results in this section (save it for the discussion).

You must also describe the relationship between participants mind wandering during study and participants performance on their test. This may be done in text.

Marks will be awarded for accurate, economical, and logical, presentation of data.

Discussion (30%)Mark:Worth 30% of assignment mark (approx. 500 words).

This section should provide a theoretical interpretation of the data and a critique ofour study that integrates your findings within the broader literature.

Your discussion section should follow this general guide:

Begin with aninterpretationof your results with respect to your hypotheses. Comment specifically on whether spaced versus massed practice influenced participants test scores, and whether mind wandering was associated with test performance.

Integrate/explainyour findings with respect to the literature you drew upon in the introduction. Comment specifically on similarities or differences of our findings from previous studies, and how those variations might relate to the results.

Following from your explanation, theimplications of your findingsshould be discussed and the consequences they have for theory or practice.

Critiquethe study including a discussion of the internal and external validity of the study (review your notes/reading on research methodology). Importantly, you should discuss any relevant limitations to the study.

Your reference list should include at least five peer-reviewed journal articlesthe two starter articles and three additional articles.

You must include a reference list at the end of your assignment. Both citations and references must be in APA format.

Citations refer to in-text mentions of an article (e.g. in your Introduction) whereas the References section is found at the end of a lab report and contains all articles cited in the text. Your citations and references should match (i.e., if you cite something in the body of the lab report, it should appear in the reference list, and vice versa).

Your lab report should be written clearly, be free of grammatical and punctuation errors, and be written in APA format.

Abstract.

Introduction: Literature review.

Introduction: Hypothesis.

Method.

Results: Description.

Results: Figure.

Discussion.

References and style.

Note: The Introduction is worth 35% of your lab report mark (25% for literature review and 10% for hypotheses). The Results is worth 20% of your lab report mark (10% for the description of your findings and 10% for the figure).

Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:

Assignment 1B marking guide

Criteria No Pass Pass5059% Credit6069% Distinction7079% High Distinction80100%

Abstract(5%) Abstract missing or it contains significant inaccuracies or omits crucial details. Gives a basic description of the study, but misses several important details Covers most of the key details, but misses minor details. Covers all key points but could be clearer or more concise. Concise and accurate summary of all important details.

Introduction: Literature review(25%) Key concepts and terms not defined or explained.

Little or no argument given, or argument not clearly related to topic. Did not use appropriate literature to build argument. Key terms/concepts defined/explained, but with significant errors or with some important omissions.

Lacks clear/logical structure. Minimal use of literature to build argument. Contains unsubstantiated claims. Key terms/concepts defined/explained, but some minor errors or omissions. Definitions/explanations are not well integrated.

Generally clear argument. Some aspects of structure, logic, use of literature could be improved. Some points need more detail. Included irrelevant information. Key terms/concepts defined/explained correctly. Some room to improve clarity, conciseness, or integration.

Sound argument with a logical structure. Used appropriate literature to support argument. Included minimal irrelevant or tangential information. Key terms/concepts defined/explained correctly and clearly explained and integrated in a logical flow.

Develops clear argument focused tightly on the topic. Superior use of appropriate literature to support points. Used clear and sound logic to build argument. Included only relevant information.

Introduction: Hypothesis(10%) Did not operationalise independent and/or dependent variables.

Presented no hypotheses or unrelated hypotheses (e.g. did not use correct variables). Incorrectly operationalised independent and/or dependent variables.

Hypotheses contained some irrelevant or incorrect elements. Hypotheses not directly related to the literature review/study. Operationalisation of independent and/or dependent variables lacked clarity.

Relevant hypotheses, but lack precision (e.g. direction of difference) or clarity. Links to the literature review/study could be improved. Concise and accurate operationalisation of independent or dependent variables.

Appropriate and well-written hypotheses. Some room to improve clarity or conciseness. Sufficient links to the literature review/study, but lacking a logical argument. Concise and accurate operationalisation of independent and dependent variables.

Clearly-written and appropriate hypotheses. Clearly linked to the literature review/study with a logical argument.

Method Not marked on the presumption that you will include the Method information provided in the assignment guidelines. Failure to follow this instruction (e.g., by substantially revising the material, not including the method, etc.) might result in a deduction of marks (up to 10%).

Results: Description(10%) Results missing or substantially incomplete and/or inaccurate.

No reference to figure. Gives a basic description of the results but does not address relevant (or any) hypotheses.

Poor or inaccurate description of the figure. Gives a basic description of the results in line with relevant hypotheses, but misses several important details or includes irrelevant details.

Basic description of the figure with minor errors. All results were described accurately in line with relevant hypotheses, but could be clearer or presented in a more logical manner.

Accurate description of the figure, but could be clearer. Clear, concise, and accurate description of relevant pattern of results in line with relevant hypotheses.

Clear, concise, and accurate description of the figure.

Results: Figure(10%) Figure absent or substantially incomplete and/or inaccurate. Figure is generally comprehensible, but is missing important elements, contains significant errors, or presents irrelevant data. Data relevant to the hypotheses are presented, but includes minor errors or irrelevant details. Data relevant to the hypotheses are presented accurately and appropriately, but could be clearer. Data relevant to the hypotheses are presented accurately and appropriately.

Discussion(30%) No interpretation of results or substantially incomplete and/or inaccurate.

No integration with literature or substantially incomplete and/or inaccurate attempt.

No implications of findings are present.

No discussion of either limitations or future studies. Reiteration of results with insufficient elaboration or no links to hypotheses.

Weak integration with literature (e.g. states only that results are consistent with previous findings with no elaboration).

Implications of findings are present but not accurate.

Minimal discussion of limitations or future studies. Interpretation of results attempted, but includes minor errors, irrelevant details, or unclear links to hypotheses.

Some integration with literature, but includes minor errors or irrelevant details.

The implications of findings are present, but not clear or entirely accurate.

Some discussion of limitations and future studies, but includes minor errors or irrelevant details. Interpretation of results is accurate with links to hypotheses, but could be clearer.

Integration with literature is accurate, but could be clearer.

The implications of findings are accurate, but could be clearer.

Accurate discussion of limitations and future studies, but could be clearer. Clear, concise, and accurate interpretation of results.

Clear, concise, and accurate integration with literature.

Clear and concise discussion of the implications of findings that relate accurately to theory or practice.

Clear, concise, and accurate discussion of limitations and future studies that demonstrates critical thinking.

References and style(10%) Did not use starter references.

Incomplete citations and incomplete reference list.

No clear structure.

Many grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Used passive voice throughout.

Many APA style errors in citations, references, or report. Did not include the required minimum number of references.

Incomplete citations and incomplete reference list.

Most information presented in logical order.

Some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Mostly used passive voice.

Several APA style errors in citations, references, or report. Included required number of references, but not all were appropriate/relevant.

Incomplete citations or incomplete reference list.

Information presented in logical order.

Minor grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Used passive and active voice interchangeably.

Some APA style errors in citations, references, or report. Included required number of references, and all were appropriate/relevant.

Complete citations and complete reference list.

Information presented in logical order.

Few grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Mostly used active voice.

Few APA style errors in citations, references, or report. Included more than required number of references, and all were appropriate/relevant.

Complete citations and complete reference list.

Information presented in logical order.

No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Used active voice throughout.

No APA style errors in citations, references, or report.