Practice Assignment 4
Practice Assignment 4: Research Report
Prior to completing your research report, you are strongly encouraged to consult regarding any concerns and difficulties you may have with this practice assignment by posting to course MicroBlog with your issues (Microblog for IRMP103). Even very experienced researchers do not write their articles in isolation—they discuss their ideas with their colleagues and allow others to read preliminary drafts of their work so that they can benefit from the expertise of others. Therefore, it is strongly to your benefit that you discuss your report.
Your task here is to write a report of your now-completed nonexperimental research project, building on your work in Practice Assignments 1 and 3. Your report should include a Title Page, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results (including any tables and/or graphs), Discussion, and References. For a brief overview of what goes into these sections along with some useful advice please refer to the section for “Empirical Paper or Research Proposal” in Harvard College’s “A Brief Guide to Writing the Psychology Paper.” For a more detailed account and an example of the structure and format of an APA style research report, please read through the American Psychological Association’s (APA) “Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed.”
Note that in your results section, you should state how the results relate to your hypotheses (for example, state whether or not your hypothesis was supported). However, this is a course on research methods in psychology, not a course on statistics. Therefore, although a Results section would normally include the inferential statistical analyses that support your summary of the findings, you need only use descriptive statistics (e.g., Means and Standard Deviations) for your results and present them in an informative way. This should include presenting the results in tables and/or graphs. These tables and/or graphs should be included at the end of your report (following the references), as illustrated in the APA guide referenced above.
Students often want to know how long their research report should be and how many references they should include. Unlike many papers for university courses, it is difficult to specify these values. The length will depend on many factors including the complexity of your research project and the number of articles that you cite and relate to your study. The number of references that you cite will also depend on the extent to which your research topic has been studied. Though it is difficult to specify the number of pages and references, past experience has shown that good reports usually include around eight to ten pages of writing along with at least five references.
Marking Guide
Here are some guidelines to show how this practice assignment might be marked by an instructor, if it were being graded. In this course, the assignment is for practice purposes only and will not be graded.
Practice Assignment 4 is marked out of 52 marks, in accordance with the following grading rubric:
| Topic | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Poor (1) |
| Title Page | Title includes variables and some articulation of relations (e.g., “difference between…”; “effects of x on y”). Running head shortened but complete within character limit. All relevant parts of the title page are included. APA style is completely correct. | All relevant parts of the title page are included. Title/RH is appropriate but may not be very concise. | Title/RH does not effectively convey all the variables in the study. Some needed elements may be missing. | Title/RH is not appropriate for a scientific paper. Title page does not follow APA style. |
| Abstract | Abstract includes research question, variables, number and type of participants, major results, and implications/limitations of those results stated clearly and concisely within the word limit. | Abstract includes all essential information but is misleading due to a lack of concise sentence structure, or there may be some information missing (one paper section). | Abstract is missing essential information from two paper sections or is significantly over the word limit. | Abstract has some incorrect information or does not accurately portray the experiment. Three or more important elements are missing. |
| Introduction (Topic & Context) | Paper (i.e., first paragraph or two) begins in a broad manner and clearly explains the problem to be investigated. Appropriate topic in level and in content. | Paper starts somewhat broadly, and provides some theoretical or real world context for the main concept in the study. An explanation of the key concept or question is provided, but it could be clearer. The topic is appropriate for the class. | More clarity in the opening may be needed or the paper may begin with a definition of the topic but provide very little context for the idea (e.g., may begin immediately with review of previous research). The topic, while generally appropriate for the class, may be simplistic. | Paper focuses immediately on the method, or no context for the topic is provided. The topic is not appropriate or is overly simplistic for the class level. |
| Introduction (Literature Review) | Studies are described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader. It is clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion. The review is in the author’s own words, and the focus is on the research, rather than the researchers. Limitations of prior research and contrasting views/positions are presented. | Studies are generally described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader (although some sections could be more specific). It is usually clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion (though some statements may need clarification). The review may include unnecessary quotations or poor paraphrases of the original articles. | Some of the reviewed literature seems to be inappropriate or not well-linked to the topic. Literature may not be reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues or it may be one-sided, omitting contrasting viewpoints. The review may discuss key concepts from the literature without paraphrasing adequately (i.e., over-reliance on quotations). | Too few citations are included for the reader to be confident that that literature has been adequately reviewed. Much of the reviewed literature may be inappropriate or not reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues. Definition or discussion of key concepts may be improperly paraphrased. |
| Introduction (Hypothesis) | Hypotheses are all clearly stated, and directional predictions are made based on the previous literature. They are testable. It is clear what will be measured. | Main hypotheses are stated clearly and directional predictions are made, but it is somewhat unclear what will be measured. It may be unclear how the hypothesis links to the literature. | Variables in the main hypothesis are stated, but no directional prediction about the relation between the variables is specifically stated. It is unclear what will be measured. A hypothesis with no justification may be included. | Direction of hypothesis does not follow from the literature presented. |
| Design | The design of the study is clear and complete and appropriate to test the hypothesis. Variables are appropriate and operationalized properly. | Design is complete and appropriate but not clearly described. Variables are appropriately operationalized but may be simplistic. | Design is not complete or the operationalization of the variables is not clear. Measured variables may be simplistic or lack content validity (i.e., not appropriate). | Design is not appropriate for the hypothesis; variables are not operationalized or not valid. |
| Method (Participants/Source of Data) | Sample is appropriate given hypotheses. Participant information includes number and all necessary characteristics. Exclusions based on behavior (e.g., fussiness, failure to complete) are noted, as are any recruitment criteria. | Sample is appropriate given hypotheses. A relevant characteristic of the participants may be missing from the description. Must include recruitment criteria. | Sample is not complete given hypotheses (e.g., wrong ages) but is well described. Does not include either recruitment criteria or exclusion information. | Sample is not complete given the hypotheses. Participants are poorly described; replication would not be possible. |
| Method (Procedure) | Procedure is appropriate and ethical. It is described, in order, with enough detail that a reader could replicate the study; instructions and protocol are included. | Procedure is appropriate and ethical. The description is primarily complete but some minor details may be missing, or some procedural aspects could be explained more clearly. | Procedure is appropriate and ethical. The description is not in order or difficult to follow, or a few major details are absent. | Procedure is not appropriate or not ethical. The description is unclear, or many major details are absent. |
| Results (Descriptive Statistics) | Statistics are appropriate (e.g., means and SD; frequency) and computed accurately. Tables and figures are correct, organized by relevant variables, and called out in text. | Statistics are appropriate and computed accurately. The figures or tables may have minor errors or confusing aspects. | Statistics are appropriate but may be missing some relevant information (e.g., means but no SD). Figures or tables are redundant with text or omitted when necessary. | Statistics are inappropriate (e.g., means computed on categorical data) or computed inaccurately. Figures or tables are omitted when necessary. |
| Discussion (Interpretation) | Discussion includes a restatement of the findings. Patterns in the data and relations among the variables are explained and conclusions do not go beyond the data. The explanation/ interpretation is well connected to the hypotheses and to the broader psychological problem as represented in the introduction. Any discrepancies between the expected results and the actual data are explained. The take-home message is clearly summarized at the end. | Discussion includes a restatement of the findings, but the analysis of their meaning may be weak or not well connected to the hypothesis. There may be lack of consideration for the broader psychological problem. Only some results are explained (esp. only positive), or the links to previous literature simply restate the introduction. | The restatement of the results is not clear or is misleading. Only some results are explained (esp. only positive), and the links to previous literature simply restate the introduction. The author may inappropriately generalize beyond the data. | Discussion incorrectly states the results or is a rehash of the introduction without clearly presenting the current study. The take-home message of the study is not clear. |
| Discussion (Evaluation) | Author has considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. Potential confounds or methodological limits are discussed as appropriate, and future research is suggested. | Potential confounds or methodological limits are discussed as appropriate, and future research is suggested. Author has not considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. | Potential confounds or methodological limits are listed but not clearly discussed, and future research is not suggested. Author has not considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. | Potential confounds and methodological limits may be listed but may be inaccurate, incomplete, or very unclear. |
| Scientific Writing Style | There is a clear organization to the paper, and transitions are smooth and effective. Tone is appropriately formal. Topic sentences are appropriate for paragraphs, and key ideas are explained/described as needed. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct, including proper tenses and voice. Sentences are concise and word choice is precise, with nonbiased language. Proper paraphrases are usually used, but quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary. | Organization is effective although improvements could be made. Transitions are generally there, but are occasionally not smooth, and paragraphs may stray from the central idea. Tone is appropriately formal. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct. Sentences are generally concise and word choice is usually precise. Paraphrases are usually used, and quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary. | Organization is less adequate, making the paper difficult to follow. Transitions are sometimes there, and those that are there could be improved. Tone is occasionally colloquial. Punctuation and grammar are usually correct, but there are consistent mistakes. Sentences are not always concise and word choice is sometimes vague. The author includes many quotes or improper “paraphrases” that may constitute unintentional plagiarism. | Organization is confusing. Transitions are missing or are very weak. Tone is consistently too informal. Punctuation and grammar mistakes throughout the paper. Sentences are not concise and word choice is vague. The author strings together quotations without enough original input. |
| APA Style | Information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Title page, in-text citations, paper format, and Reference page are in APA style with no mistakes. All headers, tables and figures, margins, captions, etc., are in APA style. | For the most part, information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Style is generally correct and must include correct spacing, fonts, and margins. Page breaks must be in appropriate places, and sections must be in order. May have minor mistakes in punctuation of references, in-text citations, statistical copy, or headers. | For the most part, information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Consistent APA style errors in referencing, spacing, or statistical copy. | Four or more consistent style errors, or many inconsistent style errors. Information is consistently included in the wrong sections (e.g., materials described in procedure; discussion included in results). |
The marking guide for Practice Assignment 4 has been adapted from:
