Research on experiment which been carried out on the college to analyse memory of different group of students. The experiment result is available as an attachment.

Abstract
1. Short summary of report
2. This should include one or two lines from each section of the report
3. This section should be written last
4. The abstract should be clear, concise, and should give a reader a clear overview of the subject matter
Introduction
1. Tells the reader why the current research has been undertaken
a. Exploratory?
b. Hypothesis testing?
c. Re-examination of other work?
2. It should contain
a. Initial brief discussion of area under investigation such as ‘memory’
b. Should provide a review of existing, literature that is pertinent to the concept / theory in question, including key results found to date and different methods used.
c. A rationale for the present study should be provided
d. Section ends with formal hypothesis / hypotheses
3. The layout should move from broad (e.g., memory research in general) to specific content (e.g., interference) – Visualise a funnel
4. All statement in the introduction section should be supported with references
a. All information should relate to your research question
b. Avoid just writing down everything you know about the topic
Method
Must contain all details so that anyone reading can replicate exactly what you did
Sub sections
1. Design – what was the design used? Experimental / quasi-experimental / correlational. Between groups or within groups. The independent variables and dependent variables
2. Participants – age, sex, how many, how participants were recruited
3. Materials – such as paper / pens / specialist equipment / questionnaires
4. Procedure – exact details of the running of the study
Results
1. Summary of results
a. Mean and Standard deviations
b. Graphs or tables if they aid interpretation
2. Rule of thumb is to graph only significant results
3. Do not draw conclusions here
4. Report results in concise fashion
Discussion
1. Start with summary of results
2. Then relate it to your research in the introduction
3. Was / were your hypothesis / hypotheses supported?
4. What do your results mean – implications for the field of cognitive psychology and implications for societal / practical level
5. Strengths and limitations of the study should make up a part of discussion
6. Future suggestions – directions for future research

Assessment Task
This CA requires students to submit a research report based on an in-class experiment.  In the experiment students participated in a memory test which involved retroactive interference. The lecturer collected data from each participant and conducted statistical analysis of the data. Therefore, the results section will be written by the lecturer and the task of the students is to create a report including an abstract, a review of the relevant literature, a method section, the results section provided by the lecturer, a discussion section, and references.
 
 
 
The breakdown of marking will be as follows:
Abstract (10%)
Literature review (25%)
Method Section (25%)
Discussion Section (25%)
Reference Section (15%)
 
 
Assessment criteria

  1. Organise the content of the report in structured way
  2. Present key literature relating to the topic
  3. Identify appropriate hypotheses based on the existing literature
  4. Write the method section appropriately so that another researcher could replicate the study
  5. Insert the results section provided
  6. Interpret the results in the context of the pertinent literature
  7. Reference appropriately

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General Requirements for Students:

  1. A proportion of assessment marks is allocated to presentation. All assignments must be word-processed, with word count noted unless otherwise stated by the lecturer.

 
 
Structure of Report
 
Abstract

  1. Short summary of report
  2. This should include one or two lines from each section of the report
  3. This section should be written last
  4. The abstract should be clear, concise, and should give a reader a clear overview of the subject matter

Introduction

  1. Tells the reader why the current research has been undertaken
    1. Exploratory?
    2. Hypothesis testing?
    3. Re-examination of other work?
  2. It should contain
    1. Initial brief discussion of area under investigation such as ‘memory’
    2. Should provide a review of existing, literature that is pertinent to the concept / theory in question, including key results found to date and different methods used.
    3. A rationale for the present study should be provided
    4. Section ends with formal hypothesis / hypotheses
  3. The layout should move from broad (e.g., memory research in general) to specific content (e.g., interference) – Visualise a funnel
  4. All statement in the introduction section should be supported with references
    1. All information should relate to your research question

 

  1. Avoid just writing down everything you know about the topic

Method
Must contain all details so that anyone reading can replicate exactly what you did
Sub sections

  1. Design – what was the design used? Experimental / quasi-experimental / correlational. Between groups or within groups. The independent variables and dependent variables
  2. Participants – age, sex, how many, how participants were recruited
  3. Materials – such as paper / pens / specialist equipment / questionnaires
  4. Procedure – exact details of the running of the study

 
Results

  1. Summary of results
    1. Mean and Standard deviations
    2. Graphs or tables if they aid interpretation
  2. Rule of thumb is to graph only significant results
  3. Do not draw conclusions here
  4. Report results in concise fashion

Discussion

  1. Start with summary of results
  2. Then relate it to your research in the introduction
  3. Was / were your hypothesis / hypotheses supported?
  4. What do your results mean – implications for the field of cognitive psychology and implications for societal / practical level
  5. Strengths and limitations of the study should make up a part of discussion
  6. Future suggestions – directions for future research

 
CA title
 
Abstract
Please place your abstract here
 

  1. Introduction

Please place your literary review here as well as your hypothesis
 

  1. Methodology

 
70 participants with a mean age of 26.4 took part in this experiment across full and part time first year BA in psychology course
Range: 17-49
Gender break down: 49 females and 21 males
 

  1. Results

 
3.1: Introduction
This section will provide a statistical summary of the data for each memory trial. Following this the findings for the group comparisons will be reported.  Specifically, paired samples t-tests were conducted in order to explore whether memory performance differed significantly across trials 1 -4.
 
3.2: Descriptive statistics for trials 1-4
Table 1.1 displays the mean word recall, standard deviation and number of participants across the 4 memory trials. Analysis of the initial results indicates that condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33) showed the highest retention and recall of words with an increase of 1.46 words recalled when compared to condition 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39). This suggests that repeated exposure to the first list facilitated increased learning as shown by the higher mean score.  Condition 4 on the other hand showed the lowest mean score (x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83). This reduction in retention shown by the decrease of 2.03 words between condition 1(x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 4(x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83) indicates the retroactive interference effect as a result of the second list being introduced in condition 3(x̄: 5.93, SD: 1.70). Further analysis was conducted in order to investigate this effect.
 

  Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4
6.16 7.61 5.93 5.59
SD 1.39 1.33 1.70 1.83
N 70 70 70 70

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for memory recall detailing mean, standard deviation and number of participants across 4 conditions
 
3.3. Performance differences in memory across trials
A series of paired samples t-tests was conducted in order to examine if there was a statistically significant difference in memory recall following the repeated exposure to the first list of words between condition 1 and the repeated condition 2.  Analysis of these results revealed that there was a statistically significant increase in memory recall (t(69) = -7.828, p < 0.001) between condition 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33) of 1.46 words. The 95% confidence limits show that the population mean difference of the variables lies somewhere between -1.82 and -1.08. In addition to this a comparison of the word recall between condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33)  and condition 4 (x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83) was carried out which confirmed that the decrease of 2.03 words between both conditions was statistically significant (t(69) = 11.67,  p  <  0.001). The 95% confidence interval showed that the population mean difference lies somewhere between 1.68 and 2.37. Finally an analysis was conducted to assess word recall for both lists between group 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and group 3 (x̄: 5.93, SD: 1.70). This analysis showed no significant difference in total word recall (t(69)  =  0.923, p  > 0.05). Please see Graph 1.1 for further details.
 
Graph 1.1 showing total word recall and standard deviation across condition 1-4. * Significant difference at p<0.001% using paired samples t-test comparing condition 2, 3 and 4 against condition 1.
 

  1. Discussion

Please place your discussion here

  1. Reference Section

Please place your APA reference section here
 
Assessment Task
This CA requires students to submit a research report based on an in-class experiment.  In the experiment students participated in a memory test which involved retroactive interference. The lecturer collected data from each participant and conducted statistical analysis of the data. Therefore, the results section will be written by the lecturer and the task of the students is to create a report including an abstract, a review of the relevant literature, a method section, the results section provided by the lecturer, a discussion section, and references.
 
 
 
The breakdown of marking will be as follows:
Abstract (10%)
Literature review (25%)
Method Section (25%)
Discussion Section (25%)
Reference Section (15%)
 
 
Assessment criteria

  1. Organise the content of the report in structured way
  2. Present key literature relating to the topic
  3. Identify appropriate hypotheses based on the existing literature
  4. Write the method section appropriately so that another researcher could replicate the study
  5. Insert the results section provided
  6. Interpret the results in the context of the pertinent literature
  7. Reference appropriately

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General Requirements for Students:

  1. A proportion of assessment marks is allocated to presentation. All assignments must be word-processed, with word count noted unless otherwise stated by the lecturer.

 
 
Structure of Report
 
Abstract

  1. Short summary of report
  2. This should include one or two lines from each section of the report
  3. This section should be written last
  4. The abstract should be clear, concise, and should give a reader a clear overview of the subject matter

Introduction

  1. Tells the reader why the current research has been undertaken
    1. Exploratory?
    2. Hypothesis testing?
    3. Re-examination of other work?
  2. It should contain
    1. Initial brief discussion of area under investigation such as ‘memory’
    2. Should provide a review of existing, literature that is pertinent to the concept / theory in question, including key results found to date and different methods used.
    3. A rationale for the present study should be provided
    4. Section ends with formal hypothesis / hypotheses
  3. The layout should move from broad (e.g., memory research in general) to specific content (e.g., interference) – Visualise a funnel
  4. All statement in the introduction section should be supported with references
    1. All information should relate to your research question

 

  1. Avoid just writing down everything you know about the topic

Method
Must contain all details so that anyone reading can replicate exactly what you did
Sub sections

  1. Design – what was the design used? Experimental / quasi-experimental / correlational. Between groups or within groups. The independent variables and dependent variables
  2. Participants – age, sex, how many, how participants were recruited
  3. Materials – such as paper / pens / specialist equipment / questionnaires
  4. Procedure – exact details of the running of the study

 
Results

  1. Summary of results
    1. Mean and Standard deviations
    2. Graphs or tables if they aid interpretation
  2. Rule of thumb is to graph only significant results
  3. Do not draw conclusions here
  4. Report results in concise fashion

Discussion

  1. Start with summary of results
  2. Then relate it to your research in the introduction
  3. Was / were your hypothesis / hypotheses supported?
  4. What do your results mean – implications for the field of cognitive psychology and implications for societal / practical level
  5. Strengths and limitations of the study should make up a part of discussion
  6. Future suggestions – directions for future research

 
CA title
 
Abstract
Please place your abstract here
 

  1. Introduction

Please place your literary review here as well as your hypothesis
 

  1. Methodology

 
70 participants with a mean age of 26.4 took part in this experiment across full and part time first year BA in psychology course
Range: 17-49
Gender break down: 49 females and 21 males
 

  1. Results

 
3.1: Introduction
This section will provide a statistical summary of the data for each memory trial. Following this the findings for the group comparisons will be reported.  Specifically, paired samples t-tests were conducted in order to explore whether memory performance differed significantly across trials 1 -4.
 
3.2: Descriptive statistics for trials 1-4
Table 1.1 displays the mean word recall, standard deviation and number of participants across the 4 memory trials. Analysis of the initial results indicates that condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33) showed the highest retention and recall of words with an increase of 1.46 words recalled when compared to condition 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39). This suggests that repeated exposure to the first list facilitated increased learning as shown by the higher mean score.  Condition 4 on the other hand showed the lowest mean score (x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83). This reduction in retention shown by the decrease of 2.03 words between condition 1(x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 4(x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83) indicates the retroactive interference effect as a result of the second list being introduced in condition 3(x̄: 5.93, SD: 1.70). Further analysis was conducted in order to investigate this effect.
 

  Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4
6.16 7.61 5.93 5.59
SD 1.39 1.33 1.70 1.83
N 70 70 70 70

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for memory recall detailing mean, standard deviation and number of participants across 4 conditions
 
3.3. Performance differences in memory across trials
A series of paired samples t-tests was conducted in order to examine if there was a statistically significant difference in memory recall following the repeated exposure to the first list of words between condition 1 and the repeated condition 2.  Analysis of these results revealed that there was a statistically significant increase in memory recall (t(69) = -7.828, p < 0.001) between condition 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33) of 1.46 words. The 95% confidence limits show that the population mean difference of the variables lies somewhere between -1.82 and -1.08. In addition to this a comparison of the word recall between condition 2 (x̄ : 7.61, SD: 1.33)  and condition 4 (x̄: 5.59, SD: 1.83) was carried out which confirmed that the decrease of 2.03 words between both conditions was statistically significant (t(69) = 11.67,  p  <  0.001). The 95% confidence interval showed that the population mean difference lies somewhere between 1.68 and 2.37. Finally an analysis was conducted to assess word recall for both lists between group 1 (x̄: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and group 3 (x̄: 5.93, SD: 1.70). This analysis showed no significant difference in total word recall (t(69)  =  0.923, p  > 0.05). Please see Graph 1.1 for further details.
 
Graph 1.1 showing total word recall and standard deviation across condition 1-4. * Significant difference at p<0.001% using paired samples t-test comparing condition 2, 3 and 4 against condition 1.
 

  1. Discussion

Please place your discussion here

  1. Reference Section

Please place your APA reference section here