PSY20008: Psychology of Infancy and Early Childhood Assignment

PSY20008: Psychology of Infancy and Early Childhood

 

Assignment : Journal article presentation

Word/time limit: 1000 (+/- 10%)

Weighting: 40%

 

Assignment overview:

 

In this assignment, you will have the opportunity to harness both your critical thinking and analytical skills to present key insights from an assigned piece of research. Using PowerPoint slides, you will be required to convey the key concepts and ideas from the research in a clear and easy to understand manner.

 

 

You will be required to select the following article for your presentation.

 

1. Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues(Links to an external site.) (Uhls et al., 2014) from the Week 10 readings.
2. Article separately attached.

Put yourself in the place of a lecturer or tutor who must teach about the research described in your chosen article. To do this you must:

• create a PowerPoint presentation about this research
• produce five multiple-choice questions used to assess students’ understanding of your presentation. Each question should have four possible answers.

You will not be required to deliver this presentation.

Guidelines

To achieve full marks for this assignment, your presentation should relate not only to the article, but also to alternative explanations and possible follow-up experiments.

• You should include no more than 200 words per section, including speaker notes and words on the slides. The title page, slides with tables or figures and the reference list will not be included in the final word count.
• Your presentation should include figures. You may wish to include images and graphs.
• Your slides should include some notes to expand on the points detailed in your slide. This keeps slides from becoming too wordy.
• To submit, you should save your PowerPoint presentation as a PDF. (See below for further support with this.)

Presentation structure

1. Title page
2. Introduction (1-2 slides)

• Why is this research important?
• What research findings led to this study being carried out?
• What are the specific hypotheses being investigated?

3. Method and procedures (1-5 slides)

• How was the study conducted? For example, think about what was done to the child and what the child experienced.
• What procedures did the participant experience?

4. Results (1-2 slides)

• What were the results?
• Results presented should link with the hypotheses under investigation.

5. Discussion (1-2 slides)

• What has the author/s has concluded from the study?
• Were the author’s hypotheses supported?

6. Limitations, future directions, aspects of the study that could be improved (1-2 slides)

• Could there be alternative explanations for the data?
• What follow-up experiments would be appropriate to conduct?

7. Multiple choice questions

• Five multiple choice questions with four possible responses (a, b, c, d) – 1 per slide.
• Include answers in the notes.
• Questions should be clear and answers unambiguous.

8. Reference list (in APA format).

Supporting resources

Take a look at the following resources from the Student Hub to help you prepare your presentation:

• Designing your presentation(Links to an external site.). This short motion graphic will walk you through how to design a great presentation.
• APA style guide. APA 7^th edition

When you are ready to submit your presentation, you will need to save your PowerPoint file as a PDF with notes. For help with this step, watch one of the following videos. The first video shows PC users how to do this, the second video gives Mac users instructions, and the third video gives instructions for students using Keynote to create their presentation. Use the arrows to move between the videos.

Save PowerPoint as PDF with speaker notes (2015) https://bit.ly/2yZpC80

 

 

Assignment Q&A – PSY20008

1. In previous units I have always been told, that the results section is just stating statistics and what data we collected. The discussion section is where you knowledge if the hypothesis was supported or not and what this data now tells us.

In the details of this assignment we have been instructed to link back to the hypothesis in both sections of results and discussion

Is this right??

1. It sounds like you have done psychology units before. All research reports follow the same structure across all psychology units. When we say the results and discussion section need to link back to the hypothesis is because it is central to our research. Without a hypothesis, we have nothing.

For example, your hypothesis might be:

eating chocolate before studying improves memory 

And then, the results in the research you’re reviewing might do a comparison between males and females, might do some other statistics on the data, before getting to the main test which actually examines the hypothesis. What we are wanting you to focus on is that – the main results, not every single (and unnecessary) analysis. This therefore requires you to read this section carefully to determine which is the key component/s that are relevant rather than chucking it all in and hoping for the best. You do not need to re-state or discuss the hypothesis again in this section, if that makes sense. Nor do you need to interpret results.

With the discussion, it is always good practice in a research report to refer back to the hypothesis and identify whether or not they are supported. This is usually the very first part of the discussion section.

Has this cleared it up for you? I always hope I make sense in my explanations.

2. Am I right in saying, the results sections we are just stating what the results are, and in the discussion talking about what the results mean?
3. You can use some of the images from the results section as well, provided that you do actually use the note section to provide some further context to this. E.g. avoid slapping an image on a slide and assuming the reader will be able to infer what you were intending them to understand. We don’t expect you to have a solid grasp of stats, however we do expect you will put a little bit of info in the notes so we understand

And yes, discussion is reflecting on whether hypotheses were supported (SUPER brief) and what the results mean, limitations/strengths of study, and future research, and a brief conclusion.

3. Do the multiple choice slides count towards the word count?

Do slide headings count towards the word count?

3. Yes to both! It certainly is a tight word count – use some images to help you convey information as they’re not included.

 

 

Assignment criteria:

 

 

No Pass	Pass 50-59%	Credit 60-69%	Distinction 70-79%	High Distinction 80-100%
Introduction (10%)	Did not meet criterion.	Provides concise contextual information but somewhat deficient in accuracy and/or detail. Article outline is present but lacks detail or is unclear.	Provides concise contextual information but not completely accurate and/or not sufficiently detailed; relatively clear outline of article. Attempts to engage reader and set the scene but with limited success.	Accurate and concise contextual information on topic and clear outline of journal – with minor deficiencies. Engages reader and sets the scene well.	Accurate and concise contextual information on topic and clear outline of journal. Engages reader and sets the scene very well. Establishes why the article is important.
Method (20%)	Did not meet criterion.	Describes the main elements, but some important points missing; poor or unclear expression. Multiple errors.	Describes all the main elements of the study, but understanding of some elements may be unclear.	All the main study elements were described, but there is some room to improve clarity or accuracy.	Covers all critical details of the study accurately, clearly, and concisely. Clear and logical style.
Results (10%)	Did not meet criterion.	Key information needed for research questions presented, but description unclear; some crucial aspects of the data may not have been discussed; numbers from figures repeated in text; poorly structured.	Key data is presented, but description could be clearer; 1-2 important aspects of the data not discussed; some numbers from the figure repeated in text; sequence of results could be more logical.	All data relevant to hypotheses is described. Description of data is sound but may be a little unclear; aspects of the data relied on in Discussion section not reported.	Clear, concise, and accurate description of relevant pattern of results. Data relevant to hypotheses is described. Additional patterns in the data later used in the Discussion may be presented. Logical structure.
Discussion/conclusion (10%)	Did not meet criterion.	Reiteration of results with no significant elaboration.	Generally correct interpretation of results. Somewhat lacking in precision or clarity. Links to hypotheses could be clearer.	Correct and clear interpretation of results with respect to hypotheses. May include some discussion of other data/analyses for understanding or critiquing the study.	Correct, clear, precise, and well-structured interpretation of data. Clear linking to research hypotheses. Elaboration of any additional data/analysis presented (for example, to explain unexpected results or critique the study).
Follow-up experiments/criticisms (10%)	Did not meet criterion.	Superficial critique. Vague or general ideas for future studies.	General limitations of current study are discussed. Ideas for future studies are given, but do not clearly extend the current research question or address identified problems.	Specific limitations discussed (e.g., method, sampling, internal and external validity issues). Some ideas for future studies which extend the study/theory or address problem with it.	Relevant and appropriate critique of limitations of present study. Specific ideas for future studies which extend the study/theory or resolve problems with it. Evidence of good critical thinking.
Multiple choice questions (25%)	Did not meet criterion.	Most questions are either obviously answered or unreasonably confusing.	Some questions are either obviously answered or unreasonably confusing.	Overall, contains good questions which require knowledge of the presentation material.	All questions are good, requiring knowledge of the presentation material.
Structure and format of presentation (15%)	Did not meet criterion.	Presentation is mostly confusing or cluttered, interfering with readability.	Presentation has significant confusing or cluttered elements, interfering with readability at multiple points.	Presentation is mainly clear with a few areas that could be made less confusing or cluttered.	Presentation is clear and largely helps the reader to understand the material better.

References

Alexander, G., Hawkins, L., Wilcox, T., &Hirshkowitz, A. (2016). Infants Prefer Female Body Phenotypes; Infant Girls Prefer They Have an Hourglass Shape. Frontiers In Psychology, 7.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00804.

Beaman, A., Klentz, B., Diener, E., &Svanum, S. (1979). Self-awareness and transgression in children: Two field studies. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 37(10), 1835-1846.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1835.

Gunderson, E., Gripshover, S., Romero, C., Dweck, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. (2013). Parent Praise to 1- to 3-Year-Olds Predicts Children’s Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later.Child Development, 84(5), 1526-1541.doi: 10.1111/cdev.12064.

Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. (2013). Sleep spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 110(43), 17267-17272.doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306418110.

Larsen, N., Lee, K., &Ganea, P. (2017). Do storybooks with anthropomorphized animal characters promote prosocialbehaviors in young children?.Developmental Science, 21(3), e12590.doi: 10.1111/desc.12590.

Myers, L., LeWitt, R., Gallo, R., &Maselli, N. (2016). Baby FaceTime: can toddlers learn from online video chat?.Developmental Science, 20(4), e12430.doi: 10.1111/desc.12430.

Reid, V., Dunn, K., Young, R., Amu, J., Donovan, T., &Reissland, N. (2017).The Human Fetus Preferentially Engages with Face-like Visual Stimuli.Current Biology, 27(12), 1825-1828.e3.doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044.

Taylor, L., Swerdfeger, A., &Eslick, G. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629.doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085.

Uhls, Y., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers In Human Behavior, 39, 387-392.doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036.

 

PSY20008: Psychology of Infancy and Early Childhood