Internal Assessment Guide--HL 2010

Internal Assessment Guide HL Psychology

adapted from: Wally Hobbs Teacher Support Material (IBO) The Holy Guide to Internal Assessment (Jay Atwood)

HL Psychology Internal Assessment Guide

Page 1 Updated January 2010

CONTENTS

General Guidelines................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title Page ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction Section ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Method Section...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Results Section....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Discussion Section ................................................................................................................................................. 6 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Appendices............................................................................................................................................................. 7

GENERAL GUIDELINES Please see the APA Style Guide for complete information on writing, formatting, headings, page numbering, title page, and so on. Some basic rules to get you started You can write in first person to enhance flow Write in past tense, and be consistent Number all pages, starting with the title page, in the top right corner Use a standard font (Times New Roman 12 pt), left justified, double-spaced Use APA style in-text citations (in-text references) to refer to the works of others (ex: Neisser 1964) Word count includes the Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion sections only (minus citations, headings, and graphs)



TITLE PAGE See the APA Style Guide for details on how to format and layout your title page, and for what details to include. This is how it should look:

1__

An experiment measuring the effect of category headings on recall

Wallace Hobbs

000186-072

HL Psychology

15 December 2005

1993

ABSTRACT Although this is the first section after the title page, it should be the last section you write. It is a summary of the entire paper, and it should begin on its own page. It does not count towards the word count. Recommended word length: 200. Abstract Summarize your aim and hypotheses Summarize your method

→ State the type of design (i.e. independent measures, repeated measures) → State your variables (i.e. IVs and DV) → Briefly describe any controls you used (i.e. counterbalancing, double blind, etc.) → Briefly describe your participants → Briefly describe your procedure

Summarize your results State your conclusion



INTRODUCTION SECTION This section includes two main things: the background, and the justification for the research study. The background should lead logically to your aim and hypotheses, so try to funnel the introduction from broad concepts to more specific topics directly related to the research study. Recommended word length: 600. General introduction to the psychological area under investigation

Identify the perspective in which your study took place → For example: Cognitive psychology

Introduce the specific area of research to which the study was relevant

→ For example: memory Write about the particular topic that your study addressed

→ For example: the effect of ‘state dependence’ and ‘cue dependence’ on memory

Summary of key theories and research studies

Include studies/theories related to your hypotheses, cited in APA style → Discuss 3-5 background theories/studies (cut and paste from your annotated references if possible) → Essentially you are explaining the theoretical framework that supports your study

For each background theory/study:

→ Describe the procedure and conclusion → Evaluate (CEGM, or supporting/contradicting research) → Relate it explicitly to your own hypotheses

Rationale and justification for the study

Briefly and clearly justify why it is important to study this topic Briefly explain and justify the prediction you are making

Aim and hypotheses

State your aim → Make a clear statement about what is being investigated → For example: The aim of this study is to investigate how the use of category

headings affects the number of words that people can recall. State your null hypothesis (H0)

→ It’s not a prediction: it is simply a statement that there is no difference between the experimental conditions State your research hypothesis (H1)

→ Make sure it is operationalized (it must be evident how the variables will be quantified or measured) → For example: The mean number of words recalled by the group given category headings

is significantly greater than the mean number of words recalled by the group without category headings.

→



METHOD SECTION Precision and clarity are necessary in this section, because this is where you demonstrate your understanding of research methodology. Anyone should be able to replicate your study EXACTLY by reading this section. This section is subdivided into four parts, each with a label: design, participants, materials, and procedures. Recommended word length: 400. Design

State the method used (for example: experiment)

State which design was used (for example: repeated measures), and fully justify why this design was used

Briefly describe how each of the ethical guidelines were followed (especially consent, withdrawal, anonymity/confidentiality, debriefing, no stress/discomfort, etc.)

Clearly identify your independent (IV) and dependent (DV) variables, making sure they are operationalized

Participants

Identify the characteristics of your target population, and explain how they are relevant to your H1 → The population being sampled should be completely described (number, age, gender, language, etc.)

State your sample size, and the number of participants in each condition/group → If appropriate describe any distinguishing characteristics of your sample (number, age, gender, language, etc.)

Identify and justify your sampling and allocation procedures → It is okay to use an opportunity sample, as long as it is fully justified

Do not state “Taipei American School” and do not give characteristics that allow readers to identify individuals

Materials

This section can be in the form of a list, and any materials specifically developed for the experiment should be listed and referenced to a sample copy in the appendix → As a minimum this section should include: informed consent, debriefing statement, standardized instructions, and any

experimental materials → For example:

standardized instructions (see Appendix C)

Procedure

Carefully and accurately describe how you carried out the experiment itself, in chronological order → This section may be done in bullet points → You do not need to repeat any details from previous sections here (i.e. sampling procedures, ethics, etc.) but you do need to

sequence when sampling was done and ethical guidelines followed → Describe your experiment in step-by-step fashion, including such details as:

Where it was conducted and how participants were grouped during the experiment (individual, pairs, etc.)

How the IV was manipulated and the DV measured

The role(s) of the researcher(s)

Standardization – instructions to increase reliability and limit distraction; location to increase reliability; etc.

Identify and explain any other controls used and how → For example: counterbalancing, single-blind, double-blind, etc.



RESULTS SECTION This section includes numerical and graphical summaries of collected data: the reader should be able to understand the results by looking only at the text or by looking only at the graph. This section should be written in paragraph form (and may include a table), supported by a graph, and should reflect the hypotheses exactly. DO NOT include raw data (i.e. each participant’s score) – these go in the Appendix. Recommended word length: 200. Interpretation of descriptive statistics

Use descriptive statistics to summarize the central tendency → Mean, median, mode – include only the most relevant measure(s) → For example: “The mean number of words recalled by the experimental group was 2.5”

Use descriptive statistics to summarize the dispersion

→ Range, variance, standard deviation – include only the most relevant measure(s) → For example: “The standard deviation for the experimental group was 0.7”

Graph

Also use a graph to summarize your results → Graphs should clearly indicate the IVs and DV (on the axes of

a bar graph) → Graphs should match your hypothesis and show how each

group performed in the experiment → Also include N = ___ for each group

Analysis using inferential statistics

Explain which statistical test you chose and why Summarize your calculations

→ May explain how the test was applied to each experimental condition (see Coolican as a model) → State values of N = ___, p < 0.05, critical values (from Appendix in Coolican), calculated values (S, T, x2, or U) → For example: “Each participant’s score on the word recall quiz was allocated points

whenever it was exceeded or equaled by a score in the other group. The lower points total was taken as a Mann Whitney U value for N1=10 and N2=10. The results indicated lower scores for the group without category headings, U=12; the critical value at p < 0.05 is 15.”

→ Include your raw calculations in an Appendix Make a decision of significance

→ Significance level p < 0.05 is appropriate for most psychological research → Essentially you are determining whether the results are due to a real difference between the groups, or the result of chance or

error Make a decision about the null hypothesis

→ If your results were significant (p < 0.05) you can reject H0 … the probability of your result under H0 is less than 5% → If your results were not significant (p > 0.05) you can make no decision regarding H0 … the statistical test has not provided

the required confidence to reject it – your result may be due to chance, error, etc. → Furthermore, this means you can make no decision regarding H1 … it is neither supported nor rejected statistically

0

2

4

6

8

10

List with category headings (N=10)

List without category headings (N=9)

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of w

ords

reca

lled

Figure 1: Effect of category headings on recall



DISCUSSION SECTION This section discusses the implications of your research. It provides an opportunity for you to discuss the larger meaning and applicability of your experiment, in light of the background research, your methodology, and future research and improvements. Do not rehash the Introduction or introduce new research. End with a well-balanced conclusion. Recommended word length: 700. Discussion of the results of the current study and its relation to the study/studies cited in the Introduction

Interpret your results → Discuss whether or not the results were consistent with H1 → Explain the difference, if any, between the groups (i.e. your measure(s) of central tendency should indicate whether the

difference between groups is large/small, so discuss possible reasons why) → Explain the implications of your measure(s) of dispersion (i.e. a relatively large standard deviation might indicate low

reliability) → Comment on any anomalous (particularly unusual) results → Overall, what do your results mean in the big picture?

Link/relate your results to each background study

→ Try to explain why your participants behaved the way they did, in light of the background research → Try to explain why your results were similar/different as compared to the background research → Develop your ideas fully

Identification of strengths and limitations of methodology

Analyze and evaluate your own methodology → Discuss any flaws or limitations that may have affected the outcome of your experiment

→ Try to identify confounding variables that may have influenced the study → Try not to rely on simplistic evaluations such as “the experimental study should have used a larger sample”

→ Discuss which factors were out of your control, if applicable → Discuss strengths of your methodology

→ Again, try not to rely on simplistic evaluations – consider experimental controls, etc. Suggestions for modifications and further research

Suggest modifications to remedy your methodology → Try to ‘fix’ the limitations you identified in the previous paragraph … focus on one or two important modifications → Explain how the experiment might be improved in the future

Suggest further research

→ Consider any questions that arose during your experiment → Consider related topics it might be interesting to study

Conclusion

Very briefly summarize your research in a well-balanced conclusion → Clearly indicate whether or not your hypothesis was supported → Go for the “big picture” – the implications of your findings, what they mean in the grand scheme of things, etc.



REFERENCES See the APA Style Guide for details on how to format your references, and for basic styles. The Reference section should begin on its own page. References Include only sources you actually read and cited in the text of your paper

→ Follow a one-to-one relationship: if it’s in the paper it should be in the References, and vice versa In alphabetical order Use a hanging indent

APPENDICES This section begins on a new page and includes all the materials necessary to allow the experiment to be replicated. It also includes your raw data (possibly in table form). The Appendices do not count towards the word limit. Include copies of all materials necessary for replication Label each item as a separate Appendix (i.e. Appendix A) Include blank copies of the following, as applicable:

→ Any materials used → Standardized instructions → Informed consent statement(s ) → Debriefing statement(s) → Etc.

Include raw data and calculations Include tables of raw data

→ Make sure no participants are identifiable Include statistical calculations

→ Paste your worksheet from Excel → Make sure all relevant calculations are clearly labeled (i.e. central tendency, dispersion, inferential tests, etc.)



IA Rubric (HL)

INTRODUCTION 0 1 2 3 4 5 Aim Clearly stated Very clearly stated

Theoretical Framework Not relevant to hypotheses

Not sufficiently relevant to hypotheses Logical, and relevant

to H1 and H0

Logical, and highly relevant to H1 and

H0 Background Research

Studies Fewer than 3 Lacks analysis Basic analysis Good analysis Analyzed in depth

Hypotheses

There is no introduction

or it is irrelevant

Unclear and not justified Clearly stated and

justified Very clearly stated and well justified

METHOD: Design 0 1 2

Variables Not identified or are irrelevant Accurately identified

Ethical Guidelines Not followed Evidence that all guidelines have been followed

Design Not identified or inappropriate design Appropriate but unjustified Appropriate and justified

METHOD: Participants 0 1 2 Target Population

Characteristics No relevant characteristics are identified Some characteristics identified but not all

are relevant Characteristics identified and made

explicitly relevant

Sampling Technique No relevant sampling technique is identified or justified

Selected using an appropriate method, but the method is not justified

Selected using an appropriate method, and justified

METHOD: Procedure 0 1 2

Procedure Not presented or not relevant Relevant but not clearly described and not

easily replicable Relevant, clearly described, easily

replicable

RESULTS 0 1 2 3 4

Results Stated and accurate, but not sufficiently related to hypotheses

Clearly stated and accurate, and H0 has been rejected (or not) according to statistical tests

Graphs Not sufficiently accurate or clear Accurate and clearly presented

Inferential Statistics

There are no results, or they are irrelevant to

the hypotheses Not appropriately chosen or applied or justified Appropriately chosen, applied, and justified

DISCUSSION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Results Tied to Theoretical Framework

Very superficial discussion of results in light of

theoretical framework, background studies, and

aim

Not fully discussed and not fully

developed in light of framework,

research studies, and aim

Fully discussed but not fully developed

in light of framework,

research studies, and aim

Fully developed discussion of

results in light of theoretical framework, background

studies, and aim

Excellent discussion of

results in light of theoretical framework, background

studies, and aim

Strengths and Limitations

Not always accurately identified

Not all have been accurately identified

Accurate yet incomplete

identification Clearly identified

Clearly identified and discussed

Conclusion None drawn Appropriate conclusion Appropriate and well balanced

Modifications and Improvements

There is no discussion

or it is irrelevant

None suggested Some improvements and modifications suggested

Improvements and modifications

suggested

Improvements and modifications are

suggested for further research

PRESENTATION 0 1 2 Word Limit Outside limit 1500 – 2000 words

Format Not in correct format (APA style) Correct format (APA style)

References None provided Incomplete, or APA style is not used

consistently or correctly Complete, using APA style consistently

and correctly

TOTAL = ______ / 25

Documents

Internal Assessment Guide--HL 2010