Presentation on theme: "Internal Assessment The Parts. Title Page Title: Give a clear indication of what is being investigated. A title such as, “Memory Experiment” is not."— Presentation transcript:
Title Page Title: Give a clear indication of what is being investigated. A title such as, “Memory Experiment” is not sufficient. The best method is to analyze your hypothesis and include reference to the variables you are investigating. Student Name and Number (Diploma only) Course Title: IB Psychology SL Date, Month, Year of Submission
Abstract An abstract is a summation of the whole investigation. Therefore it must be concise, clear, and explicit, but relatively brief. A rule of thumb is between 100 and 200 words. Summary of Aims Summary of Methods Summary of Results Conclusion
Introduction This is designed to do three things. The first is to discuss the aim or purpose of your study. Secondly, follow with a summary of the theory being investigated, and/or the study being replicated. In cases of a replicated study, you should identify and explain the study that is being replicated. Remember to include the name(s) of researchers and the dates that the research was undertaken. Aim of the study: Identification and explanation of study being replicated
Introduction Candidates should use this section to justify the prediction that they are making in their research hypothesis. This section goes from broad concepts to more specific studies that are directly related to the current study. Be sure to define all important terms in this section that are relevant to your study. This section should end with a clearly defined aim.
Introduction Follow this order: A general introduction to the psychological subject area under investigation. Include an indication of the perspective discussed. A summary of the key theories and research studies. This must include proper reference, for example, Zajonc (1965) SL must cite one reference. Simply summarize the aim, procedure and findings of the study that you are replicating. A rationale and justification for the study The aim: A statement about what is being investigated and what is expected. It is less precise than an operation hypothesis, for example: The aim of this study is to investigate how the use of category headings affects the number of words students at Tracy High School can recall.
Introduction Hints: Aims were often poorly written, with many candidates simply writing: “I will replicate Loftus’s study.” Usually good introductions had aims that were stated by clearly indicating the independent and dependent variables. Very often, candidates briefly outlined the original research study and did not offer any explanation of it that would allow them to justify their own studies without clearly identifying the research being replicated. Other candidates unnecessarily presented research and null hypotheses at the end of their introduction.
Method Design: type and justification of experimental method (independent sample, repeated measures), explain and justify why this method and design were chosen, controls, ethical considerations, identification of independent and dependent variables Participants: characteristics of target population (age range, total number used & numbers of each sex any group similarities, method used in selections, how allocated to groups (random) Materials: written list of materials used (what is used not how) not basic materials, reference to copies in appendices, standardized instructions & debriefing & consent form Procedures: itemized in sufficient detail to allow full replication, chronological order, consent form, standardized instructions, did you run your study in groups or individually, debriefing
Method Hints Design: Must be an ethical study and include a clear sample of the consent form. Many students did not address relevant ethical considerations in the main body of the report Some candidates found difficulty in correctly identifying the experimental design AND/OR failed to justify their choice Independent and dependent variables were not clearly stated and operationalized. The independent variable rarely included both the variable itself and the two/levels conditions of it The dependent variable was not expressed in quantified terms
Method Hints Participants: Many candidates failed to explain how their sample was selected and few included justification for this choice. Know the difference between a target population and a sample. Lack of knowledge of sampling techniques was apparent: there were claims that random sampling was used when this clearly was not the case.
Method Hints Procedures: Well-written procedures included clearly written standardized instructions and debriefing notes. However, some candidates provided a simple list of steps or incomplete information. For instance, some candidates omitted to present in their appendices the lists of words they had used in their replication of the Stroop effect study.
Results The purpose of this section is to make clear to the reader what your raw data has revealed in support of or opposition of your Aim. The results section has two subsections: A written description and interpretation of results, including the use of descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode & standard deviation). Graphs /tables indicating what the results indicate. All tables and graphs must have an appropriate heading or title (may be computer generated). Graphs must have both axes labeled. Do not produce graphs showing each individual’s score. Graphs or tables should be summaries of grouped data to illustrate an overall trend. Must supply written support in your text. Graphs/tables should enhance the reader’s understanding. Tables may include mean scores or frequencies of behavior.
Results Description of Results: Do not include raw data (this goes in the appendix Use text to communicate your data along with numerical reference ex: The mean number of words recalled by the experimental group (x1) was 2.5 (x1=2.5) and n refers to the number of participants (n=25)
Results Hints: A common problem is irrelevant use of descriptive statistics; many candidates are not using descriptive statistics to relate the results back to the aim. Candidates sometimes include in this section tables or graphs showing each participant’s score. In some cases, they presented results reporting variables other than the independent variable (ex. gender, age) Measures of central tendency were more often appropriately calculated and discussed than were measures of dispersion. A significant proportion of candidates did not give measures of dispersion. Many candidates failed to present their graphs clearly, forgetting basics such as titles or clearly labeling of axes. Many candidates who included graphs failed to describe them in words at all.
Results Hints: Overall, a general weakness of most results sections was a lack of clarity and accuracy in the presentation of the results. The results were not always reported in a way that reflected the aim of the study. Many reports only briefly stated the results without any narrative description. Moreover, the figures and tables were not always clearly presented due to inexact or incomplete labeling.
Discussion Discussion of results Linking results to study being replicated Identification of strengths and limitations of the methodology. You might identify any factors that influenced your final outcome, especially those that were out of your control. After identifying problems, you should suggest ways to remedy them for future research. Many times, even though your research supported the hypothesis, the methodology may have included flaws that lead to this result. Suggestions for modification and further research that may clarify the issue. During the course of the experiment, candidates may come across unusual results or related topics that may be interesting to them experimentally. Candidates should make special note of any such thoughts that arose during the study. Finally, a brief conclusion should be presented which summarizes the results of the experiment.
Discussion Hints: A general weakness was a lack of depth in the discussion of the results. Candidates seem to have a problem in justifying why their own particular results occurred in the way they did. In many cases candidates did not relate their findings to the original experiment presented in the introduction. Few candidates clearly compared their results to that of the original study. Some made statements such as “results were similar to those found in the original study,” or that “the hypothesis was found to be true.” While weaknesses were generally well covered, fewer candidates successfully identified the strengths of their study. Suggestions for future research were offered but these were often of a superficial nature.
References Works cited within the report You must give details of all references used in your report. The preferred method is the APA Style. Any works cited in the report or quotation used must be referenced here. References must be alphabetical by author in the following format: Author’s surname, first initial, (year of publication). Title of Publication. Place of Publication: Name of Publisher. Author’s surname, first initial, (year of publication). Title of Publication. Place of Publication: Name of Publisher. DO NOT NUMBER!
References Hints: The most serious problem related to this criterion is proper use of references. References cited from the internet and secondary sources were usually incorrectly formatted. Some candidates used cited material in the body of their reports but failed to include in in their references section; others included in that section works not cited in the body of their reports. Many candidates did not use a standard format for referencing.
Appendices This includes all information that was inappropriate for the body of the report, but that helps the reader interpret your work. Supplementary information (raw data in tables) One copy of instrument(s) used Blank copies of standardized instructions and debriefing notes Informed Consent Form Appendices are numbered consecutively, using lower case Roman numerals