home

=IB Psychology 2=

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1KJerpy2IoeU3Vzbvbyvo2i55Hj3UGFo3iDiVADDn8_Q/viewform?usp=send_form

=Class topic orders= Each class topic will get its own page dedicated to it in the navigation pane on the left. Research methods Qualitative research The IA Biological Cognitive Social Abnormal Option1 Review IB Test- May 6 & 7, 2015

=Agendas=



=The Internal Assessment= For your internal assessment, whether you are HL or SL, your choice of topics are as follows:

Serial Position Effect- tests recall of items at the beginning and end of list than items in the middle. Memory Load Interference- tests individuals ability to remember lists of words while reading sentences of varying complexity Stroop Effec- tests speed of reading name of color when the word is printed in a different color http://psychcentral.com/classics/Stroop/

Next, you will need to do some additional research. Use google scholar to find 2 additional articles. Read and create a one page write up that includes the hypothesis, any variables, research methods and a description of the findings. Remember this should be in sentence and paragraph form.

As you plan out your experiment read the IA criteria.

- identify the study being replicated - explain the study being replicated including data from the original study - why you are replicating the study - your aim (should include your iv and dv) - your hypothesis (HL include research and null hypothesis)
 * Introduction**

//Design// - Identify and operationalize IV and DV - Identify your experimental design and justify its application to your aim - indicate how you will will follow ethical guidelines within your study
 * Methods** (divided into 3 sections)

//Participants// - Identify the relevant characteristics of all participants - Identify and explain sampling method used

//Procedures// - clearly describe the procedures used so that the experiment is replicable - Make sure to include how ethical guidelines were followed in procedures - reference necessary materials that will be in the appendices

- clearly and accurately states the results you found - relate relate those results to your aim - apply appropriate statistics (SL descriptive/ HL descriptive and inferential) - explain your usage of each statistic and its relevance to your aim - create a graph that is relevant to the aim of your study
 * Results**

- Discuss your findings with reference to the original study - What limitations occurred in your design that would thus limit your results and generalizability - How might you modify the study if you were to perform it again - What further research should be undertaken as related to the topic - state a conclusion
 * Discussion**

Internal assessment criteria—SL
The SL experimental study is assessed against seven criteria that are related to the objectives for the psychology course and the sections of the report.
 * Criterion A || Introduction || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion B || Method: Design || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion C || Method: Participants || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion D || Method: Procedure || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion E || Results || 4 marks ||
 * Criterion F || Discussion || 6 marks ||
 * Criterion G || Presentation || 2 marks ||
 * || Total || 20 marks ||

A Introduction

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There is no relevant introduction. The study replicated is not identified. The aim of the student’s study is not stated. ||
 * 1 || The study replicated is identified but not explained. The aim of the student’s study is not clearly stated. ||
 * 2 || The study replicated is clearly identified and relevant details of the study are explained. The aim of the student’s study is clearly stated. ||

B Method: Design

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || The independent variable and dependent variable are not accurately identified. No appropriate experimental design is identified. There is no evidence of appropriate application of ethical guidelines, for example, there is no evidence that informed consent was obtained from participants or their parents. ||
 * 1 || The independent variable and dependent variable are accurately identified but are not operationalized. The experimental design is appropriate to the aim of the research but its selection is not appropriately justified. There is clear indication and documentation of how ethical guidelines were followed. ||
 * 2 || The independent variable and dependent variable are accurately identified and operationalized. The experimental design is appropriate to the aim and its use is appropriately justified. There is clear indication and documentation of how ethical guidelines were followed. ||

C Method: Participants

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || No relevant characteristics of the participants are identified. No relevant sampling technique is identified or the sampling method is incorrectly identified. ||
 * 1 || Some characteristics of the participants are identified but not all are relevant. Some relevant participant characteristics have been omitted. The sample is selected using an appropriate method but the use of this method is not explained. ||
 * 2 || Relevant characteristics of the participants are identified. The sample is selected using an appropriate method and the use of this method is explained. ||

D Method: Procedure

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || No relevant procedural information is included. The information provided does not allow replication. There are no details of how the ethical guidelines were applied. ||
 * 1 || The procedural information is relevant but not clearly described, so that the study is not easily replicable. Details of how the ethical guidelines were applied are included. Necessary materials have not been included and referenced in the appendices. ||
 * 2 || The procedural information is relevant and clearly described, so that the study is easily replicable. Details of how the ethical guidelines were applied are included. Necessary materials have been included and referenced in the appendices. ||

E Results

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There are no results or the results are irrelevant to the stated aim of the student’s experimental study. Descriptive statistics have not been applied to the data. There is no graphing of data. ||
 * 1–2 || Results are stated and accurate and reflect the aim of the research. Descriptive statistics (one measure of central tendency and one measure of dispersion) are applied to the data, but their use is not explained. The graph of results is not accurate, is unclear or is not sufficiently related to the aim of the study. Results are not presented in both words and tabular form. ||
 * 3–4 || Results are clearly stated and accurate and reflect the aim of the research. Appropriate descriptive statistics (one measure of central tendency and one measure of dispersion) are applied to the data and their use is explained. The graph of results is accurate, clear and directly relevant to the aim of the study. Results are presented in both words and tabular form. ||

F Discussion

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There is no discussion or it is irrelevant to the aim of the research. ||
 * 1–2 || Discussion of the results is very superficial. The findings of the student’s experimental study are not compared to those of the study being replicated. Limitations of the design and procedure are not accurately identified. No modifications are suggested and there is no conclusion. ||
 * 3–4 || Discussion of the results is not well developed. The findings of the student’s experimental study are discussed with reference to the study being replicated. Some relevant limitations of the design and procedure have been identified, but a rigorous analysis of method is not achieved. Some modifications are suggested. The conclusion is appropriate. ||
 * 5–6 || Discussion of results is well developed (for example, differences in the results of calculations of central tendency and/or dispersion are explained). The findings of the student’s experimental study are discussed with reference to the study being replicated. Limitations of the design and procedure are highly relevant and have been rigorously analysed. Modifications are suggested and ideas for further research are mentioned. The conclusion is appropriate. ||

G Presentation

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || The report is not within the word limit of 1,000–1,500 words. Required sections of the report are missing, for example, no abstract is included.. No references are provided. Appendices are missing or incomplete. ||
 * 1 || The report is within the word limit of 1,000–1,500 words. The report is complete but not in the required format. The reference for the study being replicated is cited but it is not presented using a standard method of listing references. Appendices are not labelled appropriately and/or are not referenced in the body of the report. The abstract is poorly written and does not include a summary overview of the student’s experimental study, including the results. ||
 * 2 || The report is within the word limit of 1,000–1,500 words. The report is complete and in the required format. The reference for the study being replicated is cited using a standard method of listing references. Appendices are labelled appropriately and are referenced in the body of the report. The abstract is clearly written and includes a summary overview of the student’s experimental study, including the results. ||

Internal assessment criteria—HL
The HL experimental study is assessed against nine criteria that are related to the objectives for the psychology course and the sections of the report.
 * Criterion A || Introduction || 5 marks ||
 * Criterion B || Method: Design || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion C || Method: Participants || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion D || Method: Procedure || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion E || Results: Descriptive || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion F || Results: Inferential || 3 marks ||
 * Criterion G || Discussion || 8 marks ||
 * Criterion H || Citation of sources || 2 marks ||
 * Criterion I || Report format || 2 marks ||
 * || Total || 28 marks ||

A Introduction

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There is no introduction or the background research presented is not made relevant to the experimental hypothesis. The aim of the study is not stated. No hypotheses are stated. ||
 * 1–3 || Background theories and/or studies are identified but are limited in number, not well explained and/or not highly relevant to the hypotheses. The aim of the study is clearly stated. The experimental and/or null hypotheses are stated but are unclear or not operationalized. The prediction made in the experimental hypothesis is not clearly justified by the background studies and/or theories. ||
 * 4–5 || Background theories and/or studies are adequately explained and highly relevant to the hypotheses. The aim of the study is clearly stated. The experimental and null hypotheses are appropriately stated and operationalized. The prediction made in the experimental hypothesis is justified by the background studies and/or theories. ||

B Method: Design

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || The independent variable and dependent variable are not accurately identified. No appropriate experimental design is identified. There is no evidence of appropriate application of ethical guidelines, for example, there is no evidence that informed consent was obtained from participants or their parents. ||
 * 1 || The independent variable and dependent variable are accurately identified but are not operationalized. The experimental design is appropriate to the aim of the research but its selection has not been appropriately justified. There is clear indication and documentation of how ethical guidelines were followed. ||
 * 2 || The independent variable and dependent variable are accurately identified and operationalized. The experimental design is appropriate to the aim and its use is appropriately justified. There is clear indication and documentation of how ethical guidelines were followed. ||

C Method: Participants

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || No relevant characteristics of the participants are identified. No relevant sampling technique is identified or the sampling method is incorrectly identified. The target population has not been identified. ||
 * 1 || Some characteristics of the participants are identified but not all are relevant. Some relevant participant characteristics have been omitted. The sample is selected using an appropriate method but the use of this method is not explained. The target population has been identified and is appropriate. ||
 * 2 || Relevant characteristics of the participants are identified. The sample is selected using an appropriate method and the use of this method is explained. The target population has been identified and is appropriate. ||

D Method: Procedure

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || No relevant procedural information is included. The information provided does not allow replication. There are no details of how the ethical guidelines were applied. ||
 * 1 || The procedural information is relevant but not clearly described, so that the study is not easily replicable. Details of how the ethical guidelines were applied are included. Necessary materials have not been included and referenced in the appendices. ||
 * 2 || The procedural information is relevant and clearly described, so that the study is easily replicable. Details of how the ethical guidelines were applied are included. Necessary materials have been included and referenced in the appendices. ||

E Results: Descriptive

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There are no results or the results are irrelevant to the stated hypotheses of the student’s experimental study. Relevant descriptive statistics have not been applied to the data. There is no graphing of data. ||
 * 1 || Results are stated and accurate and reflect the hypotheses of the research. Descriptive statistics (one measure of central tendency and one measure of dispersion) are applied to the data, but their use is not explained. The graph of results is not accurate, is unclear or is not sufficiently related to the hypotheses of the study. Results are not presented in both words and tabular form. ||
 * 2 || Results are clearly stated and accurate and reflect the hypotheses of the research. Appropriate descriptive statistics (one measure of central tendency and one measure of dispersion) are applied to the data and their use is explained. The graph of results is accurate, clear and directly relevant to the hypotheses of the study. Results are presented in both words and tabular form. ||

F Results: Inferential

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || No appropriate inferential statistical test has been applied. ||
 * 1 || An appropriate inferential statistical test has been chosen, but not properly applied. ||
 * 2 || An appropriate inferential statistical test has been chosen and explicitly justified. Results of the inferential statistical test are not complete or may be poorly stated. ||
 * 3 || An appropriate inferential statistical test has been chosen and explicitly justified. Results of the inferential statistical test are accurately stated. The null hypothesis has been accepted or rejected appropriately according to the results of the statistical test. A statement of statistical significance is appropriate and clear. ||

G Discussion

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || There is no discussion section, or the discussion of the results is irrelevant to the hypotheses. ||
 * 1–2 || Analysis of the results is very superficial. The findings of the student’s experimental study are not compared to those of the study being replicated. Limitations of the design and procedure are not accurately identified. No modifications are suggested and there is no conclusion. ||
 * 3–5 || Discussion of the results is not well developed or is incomplete (for example, discussion of either the descriptive or inferential statistics is missing). The findings of the student’s experimental study are mentioned with reference to relevant background studies and/or theories. Some relevant limitations of the design and procedure have been identified, but a rigorous analysis of method is not achieved. Some modifications are suggested. The conclusion is appropriate. ||
 * 6–8 || Discussion of results is well developed and complete (for example, descriptive and inferential statistics are discussed). The findings of the student’s experimental study are discussed with reference to relevant background studies and/or theories. Limitations of the design and procedure are highly relevant and have been rigorously analysed. Modifications are suggested and ideas for further research are mentioned. The conclusion is appropriate. ||

H Citation of sources

 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || Sources are not cited within the report. No references are provided, or no standard citation method is used. ||
 * 1 || The references are incomplete or a standard citation method is not used consistently. ||
 * 2 || All in-text citations and references are provided. A standard citation method is used consistently throughout the body of the report and in the references section. ||

I Report format
[|© International Baccalaureate Organization]
 * ~ Marks ||~ Level descriptor ||
 * 0 || The report is not within the word limit of 1,500–2,000 words. Required sections of the report are missing, for example, no abstract is included. Appendices are missing or incomplete. ||
 * 1 || The report is within the word limit of 1,500–2,000 words. The report is complete but not in the required format. Appendices are not labelled appropriately and/or are not referenced in the body of the report. The abstract is poorly written and does not include a summary overview of the student’s experimental study, including the results. ||
 * 2 || The report is within the word limit of 1,500–2,000 words. The report is complete and in the required format. Appendices are labelled appropriately and are referenced in the body of the report. The abstract is clearly written and includes a summary overview of the student’s experimental study, including the results. ||