Assignment 2 FAQ 2024

(1) I have never seen or written a psychological lab report before and I am unsure what is

APA 7th formatting for the Discussion section of a lab report. What should I do?

As this is a third-year psychology subject, there are some expectations that students are

familiar with psychological writing and lab reports. Nonetheless, there are ways you can

catch up. There are additional resources available on the subject LMS in Modules, under the

Student Support tab.

(2) What does the F values and p values mean? Effect sizes were not reported in the results,

do I need to discuss this?

An F statistic is a value you get when you run an ANOVA test to find out if the means

between two populations are significantly different. A large F value means that the variation

among groups is greater than you would expect by chance. The F value in the ANOVA test

also determines the p value; the p value is the probability of getting a result at least as

extreme as the one that was actually observed, given that the null hypothesis is true. A p

value of less than .05 in this study means you can reject the null hypothesis and support the

hypothesis.

Effect sizes are not reported in the results, and you do not need to discuss this.

(3) APA format states we should have running head with the title of the paper. Do we need to

do this for the assignment when the lab slide says no title is needed, just “Discussion” is

sufficient?

No. Just the heading - Discussion (in APA format) is sufficient.

(4) Since I did not write the Introduction section, how do I know what references to use? / In

the background and research rationale for this assignment (in Assignment Information), there

are no references in it. How do I refer to references in the Discussion section? / Can I bring in

new literature in the Discussion section?

Yes, you can bring in any appropriate and relevant literature because you are doing your own

literature research. If you were writing a full lab report, you would have used those references

in the Introduction, so they are not necessarily “new” literature for the Discussion section.

There are no citations in the background and research rationale given so you can build up

your own reference list.

The key readings are a great starting point, and you might find a lot of what you need in there

and from them, you can also expand your reading (for instance look at their reference list).

(5) How many references are we expected to include?

You should use as many as needed to support your argument/ claim/ point/ inference/

suggestion. There really is no rule about the number of references (some people refer to the

10 references per 1000 word guide but do note that there is no specific justification for this

guide).

Tips you can consider are: (1) you do not need a long list of references to support each

claim/statement - sometimes 1 or 2 are sufficient if that study(s) is clearly supporting your

point; (2) you may not need to introduce a new reference for each claim/statement -

sometimes the same study can support different points that you are making so you can use

ABC et al. subsequently; (3) writing concisely and clearly - having references for every

sentence is probably unnecessarily; if you find that happening, you should re-examine what

you are writing.

(5) I am confused about research aim and hypotheses.

Research aim and hypotheses are different. Research aim is about the research question/issue

and hypotheses are the specific predictions you make to help examine and answer that

research question/issue. Lab Class 4 slides will give you this information.

(6) How do I restate the aim and hypotheses in my own words and not copy word for word?

Restating them in your words means you should not just cut and paste it entirely into your

writing because it will stand out as not flowing well with your paragraph. Write them into

your own paragraph in a way that makes sense and promotes readability; it is not expected

that you try to replace the words or phrases or so with a similar meaning word/phrase (i.e.,

thesaurus). Your tutors know that you will be using mostly the same key words and there will

be repetition of words/phrases, so the focus is on you writing it smoothly into your own

paragraph.

(7) The hypotheses are long; can I not restate them since I will be discussing them later?

It is conventional to restate the hypotheses in the first paragraph of the Discussion and briefly

state if they were supported. Furthermore, it reminds the readers what are the hypotheses so

they can follow your discussion later easily.

(8) What does overall ability distribution mean in hypothesis 1?

The overall ability distribution just means the entire data distribution of the sample’s

responses on dot enumeration on the dot arrays (i.e., all the children in this sample). To

illustrate this, if we have a sample of children, and we plot all their individual responses on a

graph, we will get an overall distribution of their ability on this test.

(9) Do we have to refer to the term that has already been abbreviated? For example, for

reaction time, can I just use RT in the discussion? Or do I need to restate “reaction time (RT)

again?

If they are common abbreviations, you do not need to state the term and abbreviation again in

the Discussion section. Common abbreviations are well accepted, e.g., RT (reaction time) or

VSWM (visuospatial working memory) etc.

But if there are uncommon abbreviations (e.g., ones that you made up) then you should do so

or else your tutor will not know. E.g., if you made up PSNS for precise small number system

or CN for core number. However, it is strongly recommended not to overuse abbreviations

because it affects readability.

A rule of thumb is: if you look at your writing and see abbreviations very often as you scan

through – it is probably too much; if you are abbreviating to reduce word count, it is probably

worthwhile to try and write more concisely and clearly.

(10) Do we need to define terms/concepts again in the Discussion. E.g., define subitizing

ability, core number abilities, domain-specific etc?

No, you do not need to define terms/concepts used again in the Discussion because this is

generally done in the Introduction/Methods. However, if you use a term that you are

introducing into the Discussion and it is not likely that it will be mentioned before, you

should define it. E.g., if you are introducing a new concept into the Discussion (i.e., not

mentioned in any of the materials or resources provided).

(11) Should I use the collective “we” or singular “I”; passive (i.e., the authors found) or

active voice (i.e., we/I found)?

APA recommends using the active voice so you can use either “we” or “I”. It is also fine to

use “it is hypothesized” for example.

(12) The profiles are identified using latent class analysis analysing RT data for set sizes 1 –

9 (not just small sets) on dot arrays but the hypothesis states subitizing profiles. Why does

this mean?

Yes, the RT data for 1-9 set sizes are used in LCA because we don’t know what is the

subitizing performance for each child (i.e., some may subitize to 2, some to 3, some to 4 and

so on. And we know that LCA will pick up on parameters such as subitizing RT (and

subitizing range) when identifying the latent subgroups of similar DE performance.

And when you look at the results (i.e., the profiles), you can see different subitizing ability

patterns there.

(13) How do I describe/characterize the response patterns of the profiles?

Refer to Lab Class 4 and in particular, refer to the discussion activity on the profiles– you can

the useful information in there that directly answers this question. Consider what is needed to

fully describe the response patterns of the profiles (and compared to the other profiles).

(14) When describing/characterizing the profiles, can I refer readers to the graphs in the

Results section? Or, when describing/characterizing the profiles, am I just repeating

information in the Results section?

No, you should not ask reader to refer to the graphs, you should use your words to

communicate those findings to your readers.

No, in the Results section you are just reporting the statistical results. In the Discussion

section, you are communicating and interpreting those findings to the readers.

(15) If the focus is on subitizing (i.e., subitizing profiles), can I just ignore the counting

range?

You should still describe/characterize the response patterns of the profiles which includes the

counting range. The counting range may also provide information, even if it is not the focus.

(16) Do children in the slow profile have developmental dyscalculia?

Do the findings in this study provide evidence to directly support this inference/claim? OR

Do the findings in this study suggest that this is a possibility (past research suggest this is

possible too) and for future research, what kind of data do you need in order to examine this

possibility? – Please note that I am not suggesting that both are reasonable interpretations of

the findings; one of them is more reasonable than the other.

(17) Referring to marking criteria 2, what does “conceptual understanding of the study and its

results” mean?

For example, telling the reader the results show some children display x whereas some

children display y and that suggests abc - is good but that’s on one level of understanding. If

you have a clear understanding of the motivating arguments/ study rationale, you may go on

to discuss what this pattern of findings suggest conceptually.

A poor example - e.g., if you are examining the hypothesis that an apple a day keeps the

doctor away and your results show that eating apples is associated with lower instances of GP

visits. That is discussing your findings on one level. Conceptually, you may want draw

deeper on the results and discuss the vitamins inherent in apples that may be benefiting a

stronger immune system and therefore less GP visits.

(18) When I am writing and structuring the discussion, I find that the way I structure the

discussion covers criteria 2 and 3 of the marking criteria at the same time. Is this acceptable

or should I write the discussion according to criteria 2 and then criteria 3?

Yes, this is acceptable. While criteria 2 is primarily focused on describing, characterizing and

interpreting the profiles and criteria 3 is primarily focused on interpreting and discussing all

findings, you may structure your discussion in the way that it combines both criteria 2 and 3

as long as it is clear. There are different ways you can structure your discussion, e.g., discuss

each hypothesis in turn.

(19) How many limitations do I need to include?

If it is well-written (i.e., stated clearly what is the limitation and justified why it is a limitation

in this study), you do not need many. E.g., it is more useful to appropriate and adequately

address 2 key limitations than to just list 5 limitations. If you discuss more than 3, it is

probably unnecessary for this study (and bearing in mind the amount of word count you want

to allocate to this).

51作业君版权所有