Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Psychology...

Description

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Assessment guide Sample Paper 1 Overall First Impression Criteria Overall first impression Description Please read the entire report and give your overall impression of the report before you conside Weight

Mark

100%

80 / 100 H1

Justification (required): This report was thorough, clear and concise.

Proceed to the next slide to mark this report using individual marking criteria. At the end of the ex compare your 'first impression' marks to your marks calculated using the assessment guide.

A. Title and Abstract Criteria A1. Title Content Description Clearly and concisely outlines the main topic of the research, including the relationship betw Weight 2%

Mark 70 / 100 H2B

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

merely alluding to the fact that the relationship is the subject of investigation. This can be difficult so some careful thought is needed.

A. Title and Abstract Criteria A2. Abstract (Background) Description Describes the problem under investigation (i.e., the research topic). Weight 2%

Mark 80 / 100 H1

Justification (required): The author described the problem under investigation clearly and concisely.

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 78 (H2A) Comments: An abstract should be both informative and succinct. For this reason, try to limit discussion of the sentences that convey the most essential information only. In this report, the author's discussion too long and needs to be made more concise. As an example, here is a more concise version th details: "Previous research has found that moral judgments are linked to both emotional and rati is known about how personality traits affect their engagement to alter moral judgment. This study between utilitarian responses and two personality traits thought to be differentially associated wi processes—Disgust Propensity and Need for Cognition."

A Title and Abstract

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Justification (required): Method was described well.

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 90 (H1) Comments: The description of the method was excellent. The author has described the essential features of included most of the relevant sample characteristics. In addition to describing the number of part of participants, it would also be pertinent to report the gender composition of the sample here.

A. Title and Abstract Criteria A4. Abstract (Results) Description Describes the main findings accurately. Weight 2%

Mark 90 / 100 H1

Justification (required): Results were delivered well.

Expert panel's response: You got it spot on!! Marks given by an expert panel: 90 (H1) Comments:

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Discusses the implications of the study's findings with regard to the problem under investigat Weight

Mark

2%

75 / 100 H2A

Justification (required): This was alluded to however, there was room for a clearer explanation of the implications.

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 70 (H2B) Comments: Discussion of the implications was mostly good; however, it could still be improved substantially. limitations addressed" are too vague and nonspecific to warrant inclusion in the abstract. Additio (that a dual-process model is a sufficient theoretical framework for moral cognition) is somewhat conclusion was not explicitly stated in the Discussion. This therefore appears to be new informat abstract should not contain information that does not appear in the body of the report. Thus, if th conclusion, they should have first presented this information in the appropriate section of the rep

A. Title and Abstract - Overall mark

Your marks

Expert's marks

Criterion

Weight

Mark

Criterion

A1. Title Content

2%

70

A1. Title Content

A2. Abstract (Background)

2%

80

A2. Abstract (Background)

A3. Abstract (Method)

2%

95

A3. Abstract (Method)

A4. Abstract (Results)

2%

90

A4. Abstract (Results)

A5. Abstract (Discussion)

2%

75

A5. Abstract (Discussion)

Total

10%

82.00%

Total

(H1)

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Justification (required): This section was done well, although i felt there were areas that were ambiguous and hard to follow. the importance of the problem more effectively.

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 74 (H2B) Comments: This opening is mostly good; it captures an essential aspect of the research topic (moral judgme (deontology and utilitarianism) appropriately. However, it would be beneficial to introduce the con here as well, since that is also an essential part of the topic. This notion is introduced subsequen appeared here first, allowing the reader to immediately understand that the report is concerned w in certain personality traits are related to moral judgment. Additionally, it would be worthwhile outlining the importance of the topic in further detail, so as to interest. Why is the relationship between personality traits and moral judgment interesting and im deserve research attention?

B. Introduction Criteria B2. Literature Review (Relevance and Understanding) Description Provides a succinct and focused review of literature relevant to the problem. Summarises key background information accurately and in appropriate detail. Weight 8%

Mark 74 / 100 H2B

Justification (required): There was a good review of past literature, however, i felt it could have been written in a more succin

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

personality trait reflecting how people vary in the extent to which they pursue and enjoy effortful al., 2009), and then explaining how NFC is related to the "controlled-cerebral processes" that we

B. Introduction Criteria B3. Literature Review (Rationale) Description Develops a cogent rationale by critically evaluating the literature and explaining how the curr research. Weight 7.000000000000001%

Mark 76 / 100 H2A

Justification (required): This section was mentioned briefly, however, the rationale for this research could have been more im

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 77 (H2A) Comments: Overall, the Introduction presented a cogent rationale for the study undertaken. Certain points in benefited from more detailed explanation in order to further reinforce the rationale. For example, the author is treating Need for Cognition (NFC) as related to controlled, effortful processes, such throughout the Introduction (pp. 5–6). However, little in the way of a rationale is given for treating variable is first introduced in the final paragraph as part of the aims of the study, but no effort is m variable was selected or how it fits with the previously reviewed findings on controlled, effortful p rationale for investigating Disgust Propensity (DP) is strong, the rationale for investigating NFC is variable is essential to the study's hypotheses, the rationale for its inclusion needs to be thoroug by the end of the Introduction the reader should fully understand why the study focuses on NFC.

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Justification (required): Aim and hypothesis is clear and concise.

Expert panel's response: Your mark was too high. Marks given by an expert panel: 74 (H2B) Comments: The aims and hypotheses were mostly well-stated. The aim in particular was written quite clearly the purpose and scope of the study—although, as mentioned previously, the rationale for focusin clear. The wording of the hypotheses could be improved. The author has substituted the word "conseq "utilitarian" in the hypotheses. Given that they discuss the aim in terms of utilitarian responses (U discuss their findings in these terms as well, it would be preferrable to use the same term (UR) c avoid ambiguity. It is also best practice to phrase the hypotheses in a way that allows the reader to anticipate the be used to test those hypotheses. For this reason, it would be worthwhile to split the hypotheses fact four hypotheses under investigation. This would nicely foreshadow the results, in which the a correlations intended to test these hypotheses.

B. Introduction - Overall mark

Your marks

Expert's marks

Criterion

Weight

Mark

Criterion

B1. Opening

5%

75

B1. Opening

B2. Literature Review

8%

74

B2. Literature Review

(Relevance and Understanding) B3. Literature Review

(Relevance and Understandi 7.000000000000001% 76

(Rationale)

B3. Literature Review (Rationale)

B4. Aims and Hypotheses

5%

Total

25%

90

B4. Aims and Hypotheses

77.96%

Total

(H2A)

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Weight 1%

Mark 95 / 100 H1

Justification (required): Well done although no eligibility / exclusion criteria mentioned.

Expert panel's response: Your mark was too high. Marks given by an expert panel: 80 (H1) Comments: Overall, this subsection of the Method was very good and included most of the essential informa participants, the gender composition of the sample, descriptive statistics for years of age). It wou describe how the sample was obtained and whether any formal exclusion criteria were applied.

C. Method Criteria C2. Materials and Measures Description Describes all outcome measures, and the materials used to derive them, with sufficient deta Weight 2%

Justification (required): Well done.

Expert panel's response:

Mark 90 / 100 H1

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Some additional information would have further enhanced this subsection. In particular, it is cons describe the psychometric properties of the measures (e.g., test-retest reliability). Information on in the literature and often reported within the original source for the measure. Finally, the author's measure (the trolley problem) was lacking in detail, which may make efforts to reproduce the stu

C. Method Criteria C3. Procedure and Design Description Describes the procedures that were carried out in the study, including a detailed outline of ho groups or conditions and the specific steps involved in collecting and analysing data. Weight 2%

Mark 75 / 100 H2A

Justification (required): Overall well done, however, did not outline how participants were allocated to groups/conditions

Expert panel's response: You got it spot on!! Marks given by an expert panel: 75 (H2A) Comments: Although the procedure was generally good, some additional information would have enhanced be worthwhile commenting on whether participation was voluntary, whether a reward was offered whether participants were debriefed, and how long it took to complete the questionnaires. It wou explicitly state the design of the study.

C Method Overall mark

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Criteria D1. Statistical Information Description Presents all relevant statistical information accurately and completely. Weight 5%

Mark 90 / 100 H1

Justification (required): Well done.

Expert panel's response: Your mark was too low. Marks given by an expert panel: 100 (H1) Comments: Excellent work. Criterion D1 requires that the author report the correct statistical values for the co has done this perfectly.

D. Results Criteria D2. Presentation Description Describes the results of each analysis appropriately and presents statistical and mathematic Style format. Presents results in an organised manner, following the structure set by the study's design an hypotheses. Avoids making interpretive comments that are better suited for the Discussion (e.g., interpret hypotheses stated in the Introduction).

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

The author did a very good job of presenting the results according to the conventions of APA Sty these conventions was evident though: The Publication Manual advises authors to "space mathe space words" (p. 187). Thus, instead of writing "r(594)=-.10, p=.02," in future the author should w This small difference in spacing makes the statistical information much easier to read. When describing the results, it's also important to interpret effect sizes. A Pearson's correlation is there are conventions for interpreting the magnitude of a correlation as either "small," "medium," provides a helpful guide to these conventions as they relate to various effect size measures.) In f would be encouraged to interpret the magnitude of the effect in terms of these conventions to en description of their results. On a lesser note, when describing non-significant results, it's not necessary to say, for example, positive correlation" (emphasis added). Rather, it's sufficient to simply state that there was no sig

D. Results Criteria D3. Tables and Figures Description Presents at least one table or figure, which is referred to and described appropriately in text. Tables/figures conform to the requirements of APA Style. Each table/figure serves a purpose and does not merely duplicate information contained in t figure. Weight 5%

Mark 100 / 100 H1

Justification (required): Well done.

Expert panel's response: You got it spot on!! Marks given by an expert panel: 100 (H1) Comments:

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

D3. Tables and Figures

5%

Total

20%

100

D3. Tables and Figures

92.50%

Total

(H1)

E. Discussion Criteria E1. Hypotheses Description Opens with a clear statement summarising the aims and hypotheses and indicating whether or not. Weight 7.000000000000001%

Mark 70 / 100 H2B

Justification (required): Did not summarise aim/hypothesis. Author indicated clearly whether the hypotheses were supported

Expert panel's response: You got it spot on!! Marks given by an expert panel: 70 (H2B) Comments: The opening to the Discussion was of fair-to-good quality. In this part of the Discussion, it was ex summarise the aims and hypotheses and clearly indicate whether the hypotheses were supporte aim was not summarised; rather, the Discussion began by immediately focusing on the results a hypotheses. It is commendable that the author clearly indicated whether the hypotheses were su "contrary to the hypotheses" and "the current study supports the hypothesis that ..." However, the discussed in the same order as they were originally presented in the Introduction. It is best pract presentation of hypotheses and findings, meaning that the order in which hypotheses and finding discussed remains the same across different sections of the report. This doesn't necessarily mea phrase the hypotheses exactly as they were phrased in the Introduction; rather, it means that the structure remains the same (i.e., the first hypothesis is discussed first, the second is discussed s

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Considers how the study's findings are similar to or different from relevant prior work. Considers what the results mean for the problem under investigation, particularly with regard the Introduction. Reflects on how the study advances scholarship in the field without overstating the importan Weight

Mark

10%

80 / 100 H1

Justification (required): This section was well articulated however more a more detailed explanation on how this particular st the field would have been beneficial.

Expert panel's response: Your were close! Marks given by an expert panel: 76 (H2A) Comments: Interpreting the findings is often the most challenging part of the Discussion and, indeed, the who author has done a good job of this. In particular, they have compared their findings to that of rele have made a very good attempt at explaining why the study's findings may diverge from those re However, the author's consideration of the theoretical implications of the findings could be more comprehensive discussion of how the findings lend support to one of the two major theoretical fr Introduction (either the Dual Process Model or the Social Intuitionist Model) would be useful. Bec frameworks was limited, the interpretation was not as well-integrated as it could be. In writing thi helpful to remember that your role here is to reflect on the reasons that led you to your hypothes Introduction presented an argument, in which you derived particular hypotheses from within a th Dual Process Model). Those hypotheses were either supported or not; whatever the case may b the theoretical framework from which your hypotheses were derived.

E. Discussion Criteria E3. Future Directions Description

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Your mark was too high. Marks given by an expert panel: 75 (H2A) Comments: The discussion of future directions was generally good. However, when discussing limitations wi useful to link these to specific findings. In other words, it would be helpful to explain how the limit provide an explanation for the specific results obtained. It is also best to avoid "poking holes" by limitations. Instead, focus on one or two key limitations, explain why they constitute limitations an may overcome them.

E. Discussion Criteria E4. Conclusions Description Concludes by briefly returning to a discussion of why the problem is important and how the f issues motivating the research. Weight 7.000000000000001%

Mark 75 / 100 H2A

Justification (required): Conclusion lacked clarity. It did not specify the importance of the problem under investigation.

Expert panel's response: Your mark was too high. Marks given by an expert panel: 67 (H3) Comments: The conclusion to this report was of fair quality. The author describes what the study did, but not adds to the literature on the research topic). The conclusion gives the author the opportunity to p message" that captures how the study has furthered understanding of a topic that is interesting a

29/08/2021

Sample Paper 1 Assessment Guide

Total

30%

78.50%

Total

(H2A)

F. Writing and Presentation Criteria F1. Written Expression Description Demonstrates clarity and conciseness in written expression. Demonstrates continuity and flow within and across all sections of the report. Exhibits a professional tone suitable for academic writing. Word choice is appropriate and sentences are well-constructed, with no errors in spelling, gr Contains an appropriate amount of original material. Weight 5%

Mark 79 / 100 H2A

Justification (required): Written expression was done well, some parts however, were overtly verbose and co...