Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval
Michelle_Michy
MarkingRubricandMarkingCriteria.pdf
First Year Psychology Report Marking Rubric and Marking Criteria
Please refer to the tutorial materials and writing modules for more instructions on writing your report.
Rubric item 60 Satisfactory Add marks for Subtract marks for Weight Abstract Abstract is 100‐150 words and consists
of four or five concise sentences which describe in turn: Background to the study, What was done, What was found, What it means. Content of the abstract accurately describes the content of the report and all its subsections including its conclusion in an appropriate style. Details concerning the study are correct.
Abstract is easy to understand (terminology defined or excluded). Abstract is efficient but also contains sufficient (correct) detail about the study. Abstract gives a good sense of the contribution the study makes to the field.
Abstract is impossible or difficult to understand (uses condition labels or terminology which is only discussed in the report). Abstract contains too much detail (e.g. means or p‐values) or too little detail (vague statements about findings). Abstract is too long or too short or is missing a key component (background or method or findings or impact).
10%
Introduction Literature Use
Introduction adequately introduces and describes previous research in sufficient detail to make its relevance to the current research obvious and to place the current research in the appropriate context.
The details (methods and results) of previous research are presented, contrasted, and integrated into the argument. Different papers, their methods and findings are integrated together.
Few (if any) details of prior research are mentioned – only findings (i.e. only information from abstracts and conclusions is used) which means integration is at a crude level. Different papers are described sequentially only.
10%
Introduction case for new study
Introduction describes and justifies the current study in the context of a need arising from the previous literature or a need for more information.
Previous literature is chosen and described in a manner which makes the current study sound critically important and distinct from prior research.
Less clear why the current study needed to be done or how it will answer the questions posed, or how it even differs from prior research. Low level of detail in description or justification of study.
10%
Introduction hypotheses
The introduction finishes with clear predictions for the outcome of the study – and justifications for the predictions based on previous findings or theories.
Rather than just mention prior conclusions; specific prior results and their context (i.e. different methods) are used to argue for precise outcomes. Multiple prior results (from different studies) might be used to argue for a pattern of results.
Justification of hypotheses are poor because they are at the wrong level of detail. Citations are used in place of logic and method/results details, as if to say ‘this was found before so will be found again’ – emphasising the lack of originality of the study.
10%
Results APA sentences
Results section accurately describes key findings in full sentences which stand independently. A reader is able to accurately determine the basic un‐ interpreted meaning, direction and statistical significance (p‐values used appropriately) of all key findings without referring back to the method section or the graph/table.
Results writing is concise – no more sentences than are needed. Results are presented in a manner which makes them easier to relate to hypotheses. Use of p‐ values and APA language is perfect.
Results section much longer than it needs to be (e.g. sentences describing results which do not cite p‐values). Incorrect use of p‐values. Sentences impossible to understand without method (e.g. use of Condition labels). Direction of effects absent or unclear.
10%
Results graph or table
Results section graphs or tabulates key findings in a way which makes them easier to understand. Table or graph is APA format, clearly titled; axes or columns are clearly titled; a Figure or Table caption describes the content accurately; the appropriate kind of table or graph is used. The Table or Graph is referred to in the text and corresponds to the way results are described.
Choice and formatting of table or graph emphasises key results and is a good match for the hypotheses and later discussion. No errors at all in formatting.
Table or graph is wrong (e.g. a graph or table of p‐values). Table or graph does not make results easier to grasp (does not clearly show findings relevant to hypotheses), is not referred to in the text, axes aren’t labelled, is not APA formatted.
10%
Discussion results literature integration
Results are discussed in relation to the previous literature (as reviewed in the introduction) in sufficient detail to make it clear what the contribution of the study has been to the field.
Using the discrepancies in methods between the current and prior studies, a strong case is made for the importance of the current study and its findings.
Citations are used in place of logic and method/results details, as if to say ‘this was found before so has been found again’ – emphasising the lack of originality of the study.
10%
Discussion limitations, consequences for future research
The findings and conclusions of the study are placed in the context of the field. The reach and impact of the findings are qualified with appropriate humility without diminishing emphasis on their importance.
Distinctions in methods between the current and previous studies are used to justify precise qualifications about the impact of results. Where design shortcoming are discussed, solutions are offered in the form of new design features.
Less detailed integration of findings/methods with existing literature means that limitations discussed are generic (e.g. sample or sample size), and solutions are just as generic (e.g. get a different/bigger sample). Criticisms are so strong or crude as to undermine the purpose of the study entirely. Criticisms don’t make sense or are not ‘followed through’ for their actual impact on results (e.g. ‘the room was noisy…’)
10%
APA Formatting
See table below for details. The correct report STRUCTURE is used, with all sections present and in the correct order. The correct FONT is used throughout and sections are ALIGNED correctly. Correct HEADINGS are used. Formal APA style LANGUAGE is used throughout. SPACING is correct and INDENTS are correct (for both the main and references sections). There is no 60 anchor for this rubric item – a full score of is attainable with all components correct.
20%
APA formatting
Component Instructions Marks /20
STRUCTURE Abstract [4 or 5 sentences; concise description of all sections of report; 100‐150 words] Introduction paragraph 1 [Summary of argument/approach; key definitions; overview of field] Introduction paragraph 2 [Review of key literature] Introduction paragraph 3 [Description and justification of study, promotion of its novelty/importance] Introduction paragraph 4 [Derivation and justification of hypotheses] Results [Precise description of all key results] Results graph or table [APA formatted table or graph] Discussion paragraph 1 [Review of all key results] Discussion paragraphs 2‐3 [Integration of results with prior literature] Discussion paragraph 3‐4 [Qualification of results and their impact] References section [All cited works appear here in alphabetical order] NB: Content of these sections is assessed with other scores. This score is just for ‘are these sections present and in the correct order?’ If the clear purpose of each paragraph and order is present, there is no penalty from slightly different paragraph structure. (e.g. no hypotheses = no marks; hypotheses blended with study description = no penalty)
4
FONT and ALIGNMENT
Times New Roman 12 point font throughout All sections left aligned or justified. No sections are centre aligned.
4
HEADINGS Abstract is titled ‘Abstract’, Introduction has no title, Results labelled ‘Results’, Discussion labelled ‘Discussion’ , References labelled ‘References’.
4
SPACING and INDENTS
Double spaced throughout. NO additional space between paragraphs (turn this off in WORD) No indent for abstract. For introduction, results and discussion, first line of each paragraph indented. References section has a reverse indent.
4
LANGUAGE Formal APA language, no use of first person or colloquial language. Does not include English errors or grammatical errors (to the extent language is uninterpretable, other rubric items will be affected)
4
Marks /4 are all or none for each section. E.g. indents are correct everywhere except the references section = 0/4
Word count rules
Research report is to be 1150 words.
Counted in the word limit: Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion, All figure captions, All figure text, All quotes (do not use), All in text citations, All endnotes and footnotes (do not use), All Headings, anything else you want the marker to consider for marks except the references section.
Not counted in the word limit: References section.
If in doubt: Select all text from the beginning of your abstract to the end of your discussion. That is your word count.
Margin for error: 5% (1092 ‐ 1208 words)
Penalty for exceeding: Marker will not read or consider for marks any text after 1208 words is reached.
Penalty for below minimum word count: Not considered a serious attempt.
You should not use quotes of any kind (It’s like saying to the marker: “I did not understand this” or “I couldn’t be bothered putting this into my own words”). If you use so many quotes that your actual written contribution is greatly reduced, then your report will not be considered a serious attempt regardless of word count.
