Memory Span

Memory Span.

We’re interested in whether you genuinely understand the material that we’ve been discussing in

the course and how well you can apply it. The lab report is worth 40% of your final grade.

Become familiar with the marking guide on the last page. The majority of marks go to the

Introduction and Discussion, and not just reporting the results correctly (although this will get

you marks too!). The points below are also important for gaining good marks, even though some

may not be specifically outlined on the marking rubric.

Introduction

• Review relevant literature. The aim here is to build up a rationale for your study culminating

with the specific aims and hypotheses.

• Ensure you are using past research to build up an argument, rather than simply describing the

research. That is, do not just simply state what the researchers did and what their main findings

were. Also think about how this past research relates to your current

aims/hypotheses/predictions. Make sure that your arguments all flow logically from one another.

Use linking sentences at the start of each paragraph to direct your reader: Accordingly,

Consequently, Conversely, Additionally, However, Nevertheless.

• Needs to display evidence of understanding of theoretical issues/questions underlying chosen

topic. It’s difficult to do that by simply listing past research findings.

• Be sure to include a clear statement of the overall aim of the study.

Hypothesis

• It’s a good idea to set context for hypothesis, e.g., “To examine whether...

participants were required to... and X was measured as an indication of Y.”

• You should also link a clear rationale to hypothesis, e.g., “based on the theory that…, it is

hypothesised that ...” or “based on previously found effects of …, it is hypothesised that ...”

• Make your hypothesis very clear. That is, say, “it was hypothesised that ...” in order to ensure

that the reader is clear that these are your explicit hypotheses. You should state hypothesis in

terms of the explicit variables measured. Need to be clear on what Independent Variables (IVs)

and Dependent Variables (DVs) are.

• This section should also clearly state what the results are predicted to be.

Method

• Include separate subsections: e.g., Design, Participants, Materials and Procedure.

If you are unsure what to include in these sections, you should consult a writing for psychology

guide, such as those written by Burton or O’Shea. Use APA style.

• Write up methods as if this was a controlled experiment, not a tutorial class. We know that you

did this in a classroom, but we want to see whether you can write this report as a researcher, not

as a student. Thus, do not include details such as which tutorial class, the classroom number,

CogLab, etc.

• Should be detailed (i.e., replicable), but still concise (not repetitive or wordy). So try not to give

information that is not pertinent to the design of the study. Based on what you’ve written, could

your mum recreate the experiment at home?

• It is important to give details of the stimuli (materials section) and make it clear how the stimuli

were presented (e.g., position on screen), and why they were presented in that way.

Results

• Do not fully interpret results here (i.e., what the results say with regards to theory/

methodology, etc.), but still a basic interpretation of where significant differences were/were not,

and the direction of these differences: to do this, inferential statistics must be interpreted in

relation to descriptive statistics:

• i.e., the descriptive statistics (the means) show which group was higher/ lower, but descriptives

alone do not show whether these differences in groups are significant.

• The inferential stats show significance (i.e., significant differences but not the direction of these

relationships, which is why you need to report and interpret both).

• Use a figure to display these comparisons. Don’t worry about error bars for the purposes of this

lab report. Must be reasonably close to APA format.

Discussion

• Directly address the hypothesis! Was confirmed or not? What results indicated this? Were the

results as predicted?

• Compare and interpret results in light of previous theory/literature. Are they consistent with

previous results? If not, why might this be (alternative explanations for results)? Should also

consider alternative explanations to your results based on existing literature even if your

hypothesis was met.

• Methodological limitations of this study. Explain carefully exactly HOW limitations may have

affected the results. Pointing out a possible limitation without explanation of how specifically it

might have affected your results is not useful (and will not receive any marks).

• Simply stating that because the sample consisted only of uni students, the results of the study

are not generalisable to the greater population is NOT a sufficient limitation. Only talk about the

“uni student” limitation if you can explain logically and specifically how using this sample may

have affected the results in some way, e.g., why uni students would respond differently for words

compared to digits. But there will likely be much more relevant limitations on which you could

be focusing.

• Implications of this study in terms of theory and how these results might be used.

Future research suggestions (may tie into limitations). Include a short—but solid!conclusion.

General points

• The 1800 word count is a hard limit (not counting the reference list) with marking stopping

once the word limit is reached. The abstract is included in the word limit.

Abstract 2% Concise description of important features of paper. Why, who, how, and what, conclusions and implications.

Introduction
 10% Title. Discussion of previous relevant research and theory, and references outside the textbook; Evidence of

understanding of theoretical issues and questions; Well-structured.

Provide evidence of critical evaluation and critical understanding of the relevant literature. References are used to

support your arguments where appropriate. Presentation of evidence forms a logical rationale.

Describe the research question that leads from the discussion of previous research. Describe what will be done in the

experiment (leaving the details for the methods).

Hypothesis
 2% Hypothesis is appropriate. A hypothesis is logical continuation of arguments made in the Introduction.

Clear predictions of outcome of study stated in terms of variables measured and manipulated are also made.

Methods
 6% Describe the design of the experiment.

Describe participants in appropriate detail.

Clear, concise description of salient details of experiment including materials and procedure. Demonstrates

understanding of how and why experiment was conducted in the way it was.

Results
 2% Relevant analyses reported correctly. Accurate interpretation of analyses.

Discussion
 10% Statement noting consistency of results with hypotheses i.e., supported or not and how?

What do the results mean? Interpret them in relation to previous research and theory.

Compare and contrast results and interpretations with previous research, considering alternative explanations. Note

relevant limitations – specify why and how any noted limitations are of concern and what effect they are likely to

have had on outcome of study.

Consider Implications of results and possible future directions in research.

You have demonstrated a solid understanding of the material covered in the readings, the lectures, and your own

readings. You have provided a clear account of how the particular content that we covered applies directly to the

topic that you have chosen (including appropriate summaries of the findings, figures, and tables). Referencing 2% APA style citations within text; APA style reference list.

Writing 2% Fluency and style; Spelling, grammar, and paragraphing. Your assignment has a logical sequence and transitions that

make for a coherent narrative. Each argument that you provide is valid and logically follows from an already

established issue. The narrative is rich in arguments, which are coherently and logical developed. Your analysis and

discussion are a clear and naturally develop from the arguments that you put forward in the introduction and

background. The evidence that you discuss is presented in a succinct form allowing the narrative to flow.

Overall Quality 4%

Coherence of Arguments; Displays understanding of theoretical issues and questions underlying chosen topic; Engages

with topic; Goes beyond provided material.

You have demonstrated a clear and economical writing style. Technical language is used appropriately, with

acronyms explained at first use. There are only very minor grammatical and spelling errors. The layout and

presentation of figures and tables is excellent and clearly indicated. You have not exceeded the word limit of 1,800

words (excluding references).

Your assignment shows evidence of a noticeable amount of independent thought, extending beyond the information

provided in the lectures and readings, which reflects a novel synthesis of existing information. You have created a

narrative that logically explores your topic, but which could not be developed by relying solely upon material that we

have covered in the lecture and readings. Your assignment demonstrates a solid understanding of issues in the area of

your topic which are up to date and relevant.

Marks Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction

Title and

Abstract 2% Generally lacking

key elements.

Generally lacking key

elements but a

reasonable summary.

Good title; clear

summary of the report

but with elements

missing.

Good title; clear summary

of the report with key

elements present.

Informative title; Clear and

concise, yet comprehensive

summary of report.

Introduction 10% Not completed

adequately.

Unclear indication of

research area; Not

coherent; Demonstrates

poor understanding of

the area.

Some background

discussed but unclear

link to analysis;

Statement of the

problem area is unclear;

reasonably clear

statement of research

question(s), and their

rationale.

Good background; Good

statement of the problem

area under investigation;

Clear and statement of

research question(s), and

their rationale.

Strong background; Clear and

focused statement of the

problem area under

investigation; Clear and

integrated statement of research

question(s), and their rationale.

Hypothesis 2% Hypothesis not

adequate.

Hypothesis is described

adequately, but not

clearly described.

Predictions are unclear.

Hypothesis is described

well. Predictions are

made but are not clear

and precise.

Hypothesis is described

clearly. Predictions are

made and are clear.

Hypothesis is described clearly,

succinctly, and with obviously

independent thought.

Predictions precise and clearly

described.

Method 6% Method not

described

adequately.

Method is described

adequately. Steps taken

are not very clearly

described.

Method is described

reasonably well. Most

steps taken are clearly

described.

Good method that is

described clearly. Most

steps taken are clearly

described.

Excellent method that is

described clearly and succinctly.

All steps taken are clearly

described.

Results 2% Results not

presented

adequately.

A capacity to present

results is lacking, but

most of the important

results are described.

Results as presented are

not clearly linked to

introduction or

hythesis. Results

presented reasonably

well and in the

appropriate format.

Clear narrative that fits

with that of the report.

Results presented well

and in the appropriate

format.

Clear, concise, precise

description of the results that

fits with that of the report.

Results presented exceptionally

well and in the appropriate

format.

Discussion 10% Not completed

adequately.

Discussion lacks depth

and breadth, but main

findings are made clear

and discussed broadly.

Clear statement of the

support or non-support

of research question and

hypothesis; Findings are

well discussed and put

in a broader context.

Clear statement of the

support or non-support of

research question and

hypothesis; Findings are

very well discussed and

put in a broader context.

Clear statement of the support

or non-support of research

question and hypothesis;

Findings are exceptionally well

discussed and put in a broader

context.

Referencing 2% Error-ridden

referencing.

Satisfactory referencing

but with consistent

errors.

Some minor or

inconsistent referencing

errors. Good APA referencing. Nearly perfect APA referencing.

Writing 2%

Inadequate

fluency and style;

Spelling,

grammar, and

paragraphing is

not poor.

Adequate fluency and

style; Spelling,

grammar, and

paragraphing is not

great. Your report is

lacking a logical

sequence and the

narrative is unclear.

Good fluency and style;

Spelling, grammar, and

paragraphing are ok.

Your report is lacking

logical sequence and

transitions, and so the

narrative is not clear.

Great fluency and style;

Spelling, grammar, and

paragraphing are good.

Your report has a logical

sequence and transitions

that make for a coherent

narrative.

Excellent fluency and style;

Spelling, grammar, and

paragraphing are great. Your

report has a logical sequence

and transitions that make for a

coherent narrative.

Overall

Quality 4% No clear

structure; Often

unclear.

Some structure but

improvement clearly

needed; Occasionally

unclear.

Adequate structure;

Fairly clearly written/

rarely unclear.

Good structure; Clear,

straightforward, and easy

to read.

Shows some independent

thought, extending

beyond the information

provided.

Clear easy-to-follow structure

with clear introduction and

conclusion; Very clear,

straightforward, and easy to

read; Very high quality; Shows

evidence of a noticeable amount

of independent thought,

extending beyond the

information provided.

The narrative is rich in

arguments, which are

coherently and logical

developed. Interpretation and

discussion are clear, and

naturally develop from

arguments put forward in the

introduction.