Extended+Response+Resources

**EXTENDED RESPONSE RESOURCES**

 **2011 November Exam Extended Response Question & Markscheme** Judy, an Educational Psychologist, was interested in studying the effects of positive reinforcement on students’ mathematics performance at school. Judy works at Mountain Hills Secondary College, a coeducational secondary school. There are 100 Year 8 students at the school; 60 females and 40 males. The Year 9 students are aged between 12.5 and 14.5 years old. Judy selected two of the Year 8 Mathematics Classes (Class A and Class B) to participate in the study. Class A contained 20 students, 12 females and 8 males. Class B contained 23 students, 14 females and 9 males. Informed consent was obtained from the students’ parents and all ethical guidelines were strictly followed. Prior to the experiment, each participant sat a numeracy test of 40 questions (Numeracy Test A) administered by their Mathematics teacher. The teachers then gave the results of the test to Judy. The teacher of Class A was instructed to continue teaching the students Mathematics as she normally would. The teacher of Class B was instructed to provide students with praise whenever they got a question right. These students were also given stickers when they completed a worksheet and were rewarded with 15 minutes of free time for every 5 homework sheets they completed. At the end of four weeks, the mathematics teachers administered a second numeracy test of 40 questions (Numeracy Test B) and sent the participants’ results to Judy. The mean difference in the number of questions correct was calculated. The results are presented in the table below:
 * This Page is a work in progress. Below is a copy of the Unit 4 Extended Response Question, suggested markscheme and assessment criteria for 2011.**
 * Use this as a stimulus to train your students on the art of writing extended responses.**
 * __The Scenario:__**
 * Table 1: Mean number of correct responses on Numeracy Test A and Numeracy Test B **
 * || Mean number of questions correct on Test A || Mean number of questions correct on Test B || Mean difference of number of questions correct between Test A and Test B ||
 * Class A || 29.8  ||  30.8  ||  1  ||
 * Class B || 30.6  ||  35.2  ||  5.6  ||

The level of significance was set at 0.05. A test of significance was conducted and p<0.05.

You are required to write two parts of a psychological report on this research. i. ** Introduction ** : Write the final section of the introduction which should contain the variables to be studied, the way they are operationalized and a statement of the hypothesis (or hypotheses) that was being tested. ii. ** Discussion ** : Write the initial section of the Discussion which should contain the conclusion(s) based on the hypothesis (or hypotheses) and a statement of the implication of the conclusion(s). Weaknesses of this experimental design and procedures to eliminate these should be described. (10 Marks)

** Answer Key: ** ** Introduction ** ** IV: ** Teacher’s positive reinforcement of the students’ responses vs no positive reinforcement or normal teaching ** DV: ** Student learning of mathematics/mathematics performance (Operationalised as the improvement in the number of questions correct between the first and second numeracy tests of 40 questions each) **__ Possible Hypotheses __**__ : __ Operationalisation may or not be provided – not specified in question: Year 8 students from Mountain Hills Secondary College who are rewarded with praise when they get a mathematics question correct will show increased learning of mathematics than students who are not reinforced. (For population – ‘Year 8 student at Mountain Hill S.C.’ or ‘Students’ are both acceptable) ** Discussion ** **__ Conclusion __** : That the hypothesis is supported, positive reinforcement for mathematics performance increases learning of mathematics for Year 8 students from Mount Hillside S.C.   This suggests that the process of positive reinforcement for mathematics performance should be an important component of teaching mathematics. **__ Weaknesses: __**
 * Initial mathematical ability was not controlled for and this may influence ability to learn //(Repeated Measures or Matched Participant designs would eliminate this problem)//
 * Convenience sampling meant that different teachers taught the experimental and control groups. Experimenter effect was not eliminated. //(To control this, have the same teacher for both classes and ensure that the teacher was not aware of the variables or hypothesis).//

**// Marking Checklist: //**// If the student indicated that methodological issues prevent a conclusion being drawn, this can earn a mark but they can therefore not gain a mark for ‘Implications’. // // Both conditions // || // Operationalised // || // Prediction // || // Implications // || // Remedy // || // Remedy must be congruent with the weakness identified //
 * // IV: // || // Correct //
 * // DV: // || // Correct //
 * // Hypothesis: // || // Population //
 * // Conclusion: // || // In terms of hypothesis //
 * // Weakness: // || // Identified //

**Assessment Criteria for 2011 Unit 4 Extended Response Question – VCE Psychology** **Knowledge and Comprehension:** ¥ Correctly explains operationalization of DV   ¥ Contains at least one correct hypothesis: (Population; IV; DV) ¥ Discussion contains at least one conclusion: (appropriately accept/reject hypothesis   ¥ Implications of the conclusions correct    ¥ At least one weakness of the design correctly identified and appropriate procedures for elimination identified  ||  ¥ Contains at least one correct hypothesis: (Population; IV; DV)    ¥ Discussion contains a correct conclusion based on the hypothesis    ¥ Implication of the conclusion is correct    ¥ One weakness of the design correctly identified and appropriate procedures for elimination identified  ||  ¥ Contains a hypothesis with one essential part missing: (Population; IV; DV)    ¥ Discussion contains a correct conclusion    ¥ Implications of the conclusion are omitted    ¥ At least one weakness of the design correctly identified and appropriate procedure for elimination identified  ||  ¥ Some relevant aspects of a correct hypothesis are included ¥ A conclusion is identified but implications are not relevant ¥ A weakness of the design is identified but an appropriate procedure to overcome the weakness is not addressed || ¥ IV/DV not operationalized ¥ No or little relevant aspects of a correct hypothesis are included ¥ Limited or no identification of an appropriate conclusion ¥ Limited or no identification of a design weakness || **Higher Order Thinking Skills:** ¥ Effective and clear written communication ¥ Critical and insightful interpretation and evaluation of the study to draw conclusions ¥ Comprehensive correct use of psychological terminology and information || ¥ Effective and clear written communication ¥ Effective and clear interpretation and evaluation of the study to draw conclusions ¥ Comprehensive correct use of psychological terminology and information || ¥ Some clarity of written communication ¥ Some relevant interpretation and evaluation of the study to draw conclusions ¥ Some correct use of psychological terminology and information || ¥ Limited clarity of written communication ¥ Limited interpretation and evaluation of the study to draw conclusions ¥ Limited use of psychological terminology and information || ¥ Very Limited application or use of report writing conventions ¥ Little or no clarity of written communication ¥ Limited interpretation and evaluation of the study to draw conclusions ¥ Limited use of psychological terminology and information ||
 * **Very High** || ¥ Introduction correctly contains IV & DV and acknowledges different levels of the IV
 * **High** || ¥ Introduction correctly contains IB & DV and acknowledges different levels of the IV and correctly operationalizes variables
 * **Medium** || ¥ Introduction correctly contain IV & DV but may not operationalize DV or describe both conditions of IV
 * **Low** || ¥ Introduction correctly contains either IV or DV but does not operationalize DV or describe both conditions of IV
 * **Very Low** || ¥ Limited / incorrect identification of IV or DV
 * **0 Marks** || ¥ No correct information / no attempt  ||
 * **Very High** || ¥ Effective and clear application and use of report writing conventions
 * **High** || ¥ Effective and clear application and use of report writing conventions
 * **Medium** || ¥ Some appropriate application and use of report writing conventions
 * **Low** || ¥ Limited appropriate application and use of report writing conventions
 * **Very Low** || ¥ Limited appropriate application and use of report writing conventions
 * **0 Marks** || ¥ No understanding or comprehension of the study, research methodologies and psychological reporting conventions shown.  ||