Question

FAQ for the PSYC1001 Essay Assignment 2015 Last Updated 24th April 2015
What is the question asking?

The question wants you to critically review the focus paper. Start by reading it several times, putting it aside and thinking about it. Is it methodologically sound? Have they defined and operationalized the variables appropriately? Is there a more appropriate way to study this kind of thing? How useful and applicable are these results?

Your task requires that you refer to other research on similar topics and/or using similar methods. Imagine if you were asked to review a movie – the third Harry Potter movie. It would be a poor, inward looking review if you just re‐described it and picked at it. You would draw in much more information and make a more compelling argument if you explained why it was the best Harry Potter movie, it was the only movie to do X, it was the shortest and most succinct because unlike Harry Potter 5 and 6, it avoided narrative tangents outlined in the books. Of course Harry Potter’s 7 and 8 did benefit from having enough time to better represent the books, however… And so it goes on, comparing and contrasting what was done and found I n the focus paper with other research. At every stage you need to justify your argument with evidence from the focus paper and other peer reviewed papers.

So can I just attack the methodology using what I have learnt from lectures and tutorials?

Absolutely not. Because…

1. The focus paper was peer reviewed and published in a leading journal, and is likely to be methodologically sound. It is unlikely to be seriously flawed.
2. It is not very constructive to just throw rocks at something. Offer constructive comments, solutions, and perhaps re‐explain from your perspective what you think the researchers actually found.
3. You do not get any marks for labelling issues. If you find problems, explain them fully and expand on them. In the past too many students feel that naming a logical fallacy is all you need to do. See how far that gets you in a real argument.
4. One fully developed theme will score much higher than five to ten petty pokes at the methods.

So can I criticize the sample/sample size?

No. I don’t know where this ‘criticism’ comes from, but too many students seem to think going after the sample size is the easiest form of attack. But it rarely matters. The 2015 focus paper describes a study where a power analysis was conducted – in other words they mathematically determined how many participants they needed to detect an effect of a particular size, and guess what – they detected an effect… and you do not need more participants if you have already detected an effect. Nor does it really doesn’t matter if the sampling was not random: are the results from a visual search for red and green circles really likely to differ across populations? Age couldn’t be randomly allocated though.

If you are planning on making methodological comments, ensure you develop them and fully explain the nature of the problem. At the very least you need to show why a problem would affect the interpretation of the results. If you cannot do that, then it is not an effective methodological criticism, you are just sewing doubt, emphasising noise, and appealing to ignorance. These researchers found results, those results need to be explained one way or another.

So do I need to summarize the focus paper?

Absolutely not, that would be a complete waste of time and words. Assume your tutor knows it backwards. You only need to mention aspects of the study when you are directly referring to them. Where the question says “briefly outline” aim for two sentences at most, or better yet just describe aspects as they become relevant and you analyse them.

Can I XYZ….?

At the end of the day, it is up to you to answer the question and review the paper. We weren’t looking for a specific answer last year and we aren’t looking for one this year. This research has just been published so this assignment is not a simulation, you are being asked to contribute to a discussion about what has just been found. No one is hiding a ‘correct answer’.

How many more references do I need to find ?

You need to support any argument you make with evidence obtained from peer reviewed sources. It is tempting to state a few ideas from your own personal view or experiences, and then not bother to support them. Do not do that. You need to support every aspect of your argument with evidence or theory from a reference. Ensure you do that, and those are all the references you need.

This may help: you are building a house and decide initially how big it will be (decide on your argument). The number of bricks you need to build it is determined by the size you have decided on. When students ask “How many references do I need?” tutors hear: “I’m building a house, how many bricks do I need?”

If you do not have enough references to support your argument, then that means many of your points will come across as unjustified assertions or assumptions. In that case, you will lose marks for having a poorly supported argument. It is also important to consider alternative viewpoints. Do not just create an argument and search for evidence in support of it. Demonstrate the depth of your consideration by finding articles with alternate views which you can argue against. If your argument is crude or simple, and does not consider alternative views, then you won’t need many references – but understand that you will lose marks for the poor argument, not for the lack of references. Find just the right number to support what you are arguing. And remember ‐ using a textbook, lecturers, websites or magazines as references is not appropriate. Find peer reviewed journal articles using PsycINFO.

Do we need to talk about p‐values and go digging into the results sections?

Absolutely not. Authors of research papers present their statistical tests to be as open as possible, but the way they describe the results and conclusions needs to be consistent with those statistical tests. Don’t ever talk about p‐values anywhere except in the results section of a research report, which means nowhere in the current essay assignment.

Do I need to only use psych papers, or can I use other papers from other fields, e.g. anthropology, etc…?

Yes, because it sounds as if you are trying to shoe‐horn the question into a field you already know something about or are interested in. If you wish to critically review a psychology paper then you would use research as close as possible to that particular paper. If you choose to talk about research from only tangentially related fields, then you will lose marks for ignoring relevant research which directly address issues arising from the focus paper. In the past we have even had to assess some students’ work as a non‐serious attempt when they have wandered so far from the topic, that’s why the starter reference is called the FOCUS PAPER.

So I found some other papers on attentional capture and adolescence and I’ll write my essay on that?

No. Nowhere have you been asked to write an essay on the topic the focus paper is on. You have been asked to write an essay on the topic paper. Your essay is about the topic paper, its research and its conclusions. Certainly you will talk about other similar research, but only in so far as you can relate that research back to the focus paper.

So I cannot just write an essay on cognitive control on adolescence and mention the focus paper?

No. The focus of the essay is on the focus paper. So focus on the focus paper. Do not just summarise content on the topics. Express an original and empirically supported viewpoint on the focus paper.

There’s a school of thought from (economics, neuroscience, decision making) which I think can be used to explain this study and all the data. Can I use that literature?

No, avoid seeking answers far away from the core literature directly associated with the focus paper. By all means search the literature on adolescence, cognitive control, extinction of learning etc. as a psychologist doing a follow‐up study would.

However if you find yourself bringing in material from an entirely different field, whether or not you think it ‘explains’ the focus paper, your essay will come across as something you want to talk about that you have adapted to make it seem relevant.

Instead, struggle on the same field as everyone else, and read about the topics introduced in the focus paper.

What’s the word limit?

The word limit is 1000 words, not including a brief (~150 word) abstract. School of Psychology policy is that we will allow 5% over or under the word limit before a separate penalty can be applied, BUT if you are pushing things so much, it is worth considering that your efficiency will affect your grade either way. Write concisely, decide what is relevant and compelling, and realize everyone has the same limit. The penalty for exceeding or undercutting the word limit by more than 5% (50 words) can be as high as an entire grade, or a refusal to accept your submission as a serious attempt.

What words are counted in the word limit?

Counted in the word limit:

• ·  All body text
• ·  All quotes (avoid using)
• ·  All in text citations
• ·  All endnotes and footnotes (do not use)
• ·  Anything at all you want the marker to read or consider, except:

Not counted in the word limit:

• ·  Abstract
• ·  References section

Basically highlight all the text from the end of your abstract to the end of your concluding sentence. You should not use quotes at all if you can avoid it, it is like saying to the marker: “I did not know how to put this into my own words!”. Also you should not use footnotes and endnotes at all. That is like saying to the marker: “I could not write this paragraph properly, here’s an asterisk leading to a place where I struggle to explain things further.” Be succinct in your writing, and be prepared to make decisions about what to leave out.

Can I use the same papers cited in the focus paper?

Of course you can. And some of the most relevant papers are cited by the focus paper. Just be sure to demonstrate you have actually used them in a novel way – if you simply cite and use those papers in your essay in exactly the same way they are used in the focus paper, you’re actually just plagiarising the focus paper, and it would be more appropriate to put “cited by Roper…” every single time you use one they have already mentioned. Directly cite the other papers only if you are using new information from them not mentioned in the focus paper. The only sources you should not cite are lectures or lecturers, textbooks, websites, magazines etc.

Should I talk about the fact that for one of the key tests when they were working out the contribution of visual working memory, the p‐value rose from 0.05 to 0.06 ?

Absolutely not. Don’t even mention this. This was certainly a curiosity worth pointing out in lectures about the p‐value, but it has no relevance to the results or interpretation of the research. The effect size is also quoted for each of the tests, and controlling for visual working memory reduces it by less than 1%, so what the researchers have said is fully justified – differences in visual working memory do not account for the key finding.

Here’s a list of things I want to attack the paper about, can you check through them for me?

First and foremost no – no one can check any written materials you have produced. Secondly though, and much more importantly, focus on creating a single coherent argument composed of just a few (or even just one) key point, which is comprehensively argued for. Distinguish your essay from essays hurriedly written at the last minute, by fully developing an argument, aspects of which can be backed up by other papers you have read. Do not panic if you are forced to leave things out – just choose the strongest argument. Do not shove in a dozen or more small (and most likely ineffective, e.g. Criticize the sample) criticisms and assume that makes a good argument. Developing your argument means explaining why each key point leads to a different interpretation of the results. Too many students simply throw in a criticism… and leave it at that, leaving the tutor to comment: “Fine, but why would this matter?”. For example with the sample size, a student writes: “They needed more participants…” and the tutor comments “Why? They found a result? Why would they need more if they found a result?”.

There must be an infinite number of arguments we could formulate about the focus paper, which one do we pick?

Look at the exemplars from last year, the approaches are very different, but most are quite compelling. Start with a little reading of the paper and closely associated papers, jot down your key concerns, then research more. Some of your concerns simply won’t be supported by other research, but some will – so your choice of possible arguments is certainly constrained. The other constraints are effectiveness and coherence. Once you have a draft essay of a few thousand words, read through and see which points make the most sense, and can be followed through the best. A useful question to ask is “does this criticism lead to a reinterpretation of the results (if so explain how), or am I just spreading doubt by highlighting noise?”. Pull out the key criticisms that can be fully developed, and throw out the rest – what is left becomes your core argument which can be polished into 1000 compelling words.

Should we viciously attack the focus paper as if it is pseudoscientific nonsense?

Obviously not – look at the earlier question about attacking the method. It is worth emphasising though that many of the examples used in the Science and Statistics lectures were examples of straight up pseudoscience, easily identified and taken down with reference to logical errors. Real researchers often do not even bother addressing

pseudoscience; many believe just mentioning gives it more credibility and attention than it ever deserves. And what you are being asked to do in your essay has nothing to do with those issues.

This slide (shown and explained in the last Science and Stats lecture) may help; the essay topic is asking you to do everything on the right column, and nothing on the left column.

How do I know if my argument/essay is sufficiently related to the focus paper?

If you have made an argument or a single point, ask yourself this – “Is the point I have made likely to result in a different interpretation of the results of the study? Is the point I have made going to lead to a different conclusion?”

If the answer is NO, then your point or argument is not directly relevant to the focus paper. Here are a few examples:

• You argue that the researchers “did not consider” some factor that may have played a role. Now if the factor REPLACES what they have argued for, you may have a strong point, be sure to develop it fully. On the other hand, if it’s just something they

weren’t interested in e.g. “They did not consider cultural background” – then that

point will not in any way change the conclusions made.

• ·  If you write a lot about research from other fields which is different and found

different results – how is that going to change the interpretation of the focus paper?

You have work to do to argue it is relevant.

• ·  If you notice minor methodological concerns – e.g. they used reaction times, why

not error rates, or sample size issues – but you cannot actually explain how that

would have led to a different conclusion, your concerns won’t have any impact.

• ·  Why talk about ‘future research’ unless it relates to internal issues in the focus paper? For example a long paragraph on how they could better study “cultural

concerns” will take you even further from the focus paper and has no relevance to a critical review.

Always make it clear to the marker that you have struggled to critique the focus paper as the question asks. Don’t ever give the marker the impression you ended up talking about what you wanted to talk about because you could not formulate an argument about the focus paper.

Related Samples