Monday 30 March 2009
RIs done and dusted at last
!!Well done everybody!!
I have finally got the RIs processed and packed up... You are probably glad to see the back of them and I certainly am too!
Having said that, I hope you look back on it as quite an enjoyable part of the course. Running your own experiment and taking responsibility for research is something many of you will be doing more of when at university, so hopefully you have benefited from the experience. Even when things didn't go well, you can learn a lot...these can be the best lessons, in fact. Try to keep in mind feedback I have given you regarding use of sources, references, backing up your data etc.
Overall, I'd like to post here what I have said to a few of you informally - I thought they were a really good batch of projects, and I am very confident that all of them will get a decent mark. Many are deserving of very high marks indeed.
Please comment here or speak to me if you have any feedback on doing the RIs, e.g. suggestions of things that could be improved.
Well done again on some excellent work.
I have finally got the RIs processed and packed up... You are probably glad to see the back of them and I certainly am too!
Having said that, I hope you look back on it as quite an enjoyable part of the course. Running your own experiment and taking responsibility for research is something many of you will be doing more of when at university, so hopefully you have benefited from the experience. Even when things didn't go well, you can learn a lot...these can be the best lessons, in fact. Try to keep in mind feedback I have given you regarding use of sources, references, backing up your data etc.
Overall, I'd like to post here what I have said to a few of you informally - I thought they were a really good batch of projects, and I am very confident that all of them will get a decent mark. Many are deserving of very high marks indeed.
Please comment here or speak to me if you have any feedback on doing the RIs, e.g. suggestions of things that could be improved.
Well done again on some excellent work.
Monday 16 March 2009
Friday 13 March 2009
Citations
Just to add to my previous comments....a couple of issues about citations. The standard format used in Psychology is 'in text citations', where you refer to a previous work with name and year.
A lot of you are writing things in the format:
"...Selye did an experiment in 1936 where..."
This is non-standard. The standard way to express it would be:
"Selye (1936) did an experiment..."
OR
"...rats were stressed (Selye, 1936)."
Use brackets for the years. As well as being the standard format, it is also more accurate, as the year in question is the year of publication, but this might not be the year the research was actually carried out. So to say for example "Milgram did an experiment in 1963..." would be innacurate; his study was actually carried out between 1961-62, even though the citation would be "Milgram (1963)".
All part of correct presentation and style - this is level 2.
A lot of you are writing things in the format:
"...Selye did an experiment in 1936 where..."
This is non-standard. The standard way to express it would be:
"Selye (1936) did an experiment..."
OR
"...rats were stressed (Selye, 1936)."
Use brackets for the years. As well as being the standard format, it is also more accurate, as the year in question is the year of publication, but this might not be the year the research was actually carried out. So to say for example "Milgram did an experiment in 1963..." would be innacurate; his study was actually carried out between 1961-62, even though the citation would be "Milgram (1963)".
All part of correct presentation and style - this is level 2.
RI - one week to go
It's just a week until the deadline for RIs.
By and large I've been very pleased about how punctually you have submitted first drafts, and a majority have also given me an (optional) second draft to mark, which is great.
The standard has also been very good, with some first drafts needing very few changes indeed. Main problems have been missing sections, or sections which have been very short.
All of you should look over your introductions and ask whether you have a suitable amont of background research, and how relevant it is. Also, ensure that your discussion section contains all three parts - comparison of results to previous research, evaluation of methods and ethics, and broader implications/conclusions.
It is important not to forget the smaller sections too. Generally, references have been missing or incorrectly structured. Make sure that your write-ups are neatly presented, and have the correct headings (see the two examples in the textbook if you're unsure). Make sure it looks nice on the page, and again, avoid the use of first-person pronouns, and superfluous capital letters!
Added together, there are 7 marks for references plus presentation/style - compared to 5 for your background research part of the intro. So pay attention to these smaller details, don't let marks trickle away.
By and large I've been very pleased about how punctually you have submitted first drafts, and a majority have also given me an (optional) second draft to mark, which is great.
The standard has also been very good, with some first drafts needing very few changes indeed. Main problems have been missing sections, or sections which have been very short.
All of you should look over your introductions and ask whether you have a suitable amont of background research, and how relevant it is. Also, ensure that your discussion section contains all three parts - comparison of results to previous research, evaluation of methods and ethics, and broader implications/conclusions.
It is important not to forget the smaller sections too. Generally, references have been missing or incorrectly structured. Make sure that your write-ups are neatly presented, and have the correct headings (see the two examples in the textbook if you're unsure). Make sure it looks nice on the page, and again, avoid the use of first-person pronouns, and superfluous capital letters!
Added together, there are 7 marks for references plus presentation/style - compared to 5 for your background research part of the intro. So pay attention to these smaller details, don't let marks trickle away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
