Week 1 — Measuring a Mental Process: A Short Lab Report

Assignment 1 of the term — summarize what a reaction-time laboratory measured and explain it to someone new to psychology.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based lab report. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on one small laboratory measurement.

The task

A small laboratory, built the way Wundt's 1879 Leipzig laboratory was, timed one simple behavior: a light flashes and the participant presses a key as fast as possible. The reaction-time sample is an illustrative set of nine trials constructed for this course (not real data). The times, in milliseconds (ms), are 312, 289, 401, 356, 298, 275, 388, 342, and 310. The mean of the nine trials is 330.1111 ms and the median is 312 ms.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Add the nine reaction-time trials (312, 289, 401, 356, 298, 275, 388, 342, and 310 ms). What is the total, in milliseconds?
2. The slowest trial took 401 ms and the fastest took 275 ms. What is the range of the nine trials, in milliseconds?
3. The median trial took 312 ms. How many milliseconds longer than the median trial did the slowest trial (401 ms) take?
4. One second is 1,000 ms. How many seconds did the median trial (312 ms) take?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name the behavior each trial records and the mental process a researcher infers from it, and say what the total is for.
• Problem 2: say what the range shows about how much the trials varied, and explain why a timed number, which anyone can check, outlasted introspection as a method.
• Problem 3: explain why a few slow trials pull the mean above the median, then offer an explanation for the slow trials from each of two of the six perspectives (biological, psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, sociocultural). Name each perspective and keep the language hedged: "may," "might," "is associated with."
• Problem 4: write one falsifiable hypothesis about reaction time that a laboratory like this one could test, name a result that would show it to be wrong, and say why it is a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Explain it to a non-expert

A family member who has never studied psychology sees your report and asks, "Why would anyone time how fast people press a button?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains what the timing measures (the key press you can see, and the mental process behind it you cannot), reports how long a typical trial took in everyday words, and names one limit, including that this sample is illustrative and has only nine trials. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a grocery store that times how long shoppers stand at a new self-checkout screen before tapping "Pay." Model answer: "We timed the pause before people tap Pay because the pause is something we can see, and it hints at something we can't: how long people spend figuring out the screen. Most shoppers paused only a few seconds, but a few took much longer, so we look at the middle shopper, not the average. One week at one store is too little to say why the slow shoppers paused; we'd need to test an idea, such as whether bigger buttons shorten the pause."

Use that pattern for the reaction-time sample, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the family member before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory psychology course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about measuring a mental process. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, and never diagnose or label me or anyone I describe.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the reaction-time sample, an illustrative set of nine simple-reaction-time trials constructed for this course (not real data). In each trial a light flashes and the participant presses a key. The times are 312, 289, 401, 356, 298, 275, 388, 342, and 310 ms; the mean is 330.1111 ms and the median is 312 ms.
PROBLEM P1: Add the nine reaction-time trials (312, 289, 401, 356, 298, 275, 388, 342, and 310 ms). What is the total, in milliseconds?
PROBLEM P2: The slowest trial took 401 ms and the fastest took 275 ms. What is the range of the nine trials, in milliseconds?
PROBLEM P3: The median trial took 312 ms. How many milliseconds longer than the median trial did the slowest trial (401 ms) take?
PROBLEM P4: One second is 1,000 ms. How many seconds did the median trial (312 ms) take?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, the behavior each trial records, the mental process inferred from it, and what the total is for; for P2, what the range shows and why a timed number outlasted introspection; for P3, why a few slow trials pull the mean above the median, plus hedged explanations for the slow trials from two named perspectives; for P4, a falsifiable hypothesis about reaction time, a result that would show it to be wrong, and why it is a hypothesis rather than a theory. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a family member who is new to psychology, explaining what the timing measures, how long a typical trial took in everyday words, and one limit, including that the sample is illustrative and small. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (40 points), psychological reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct total, range, difference, or time in seconds = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a falsifiable hypothesis with a result that would show it wrong AND a family-member message with the typical trial and a named limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a perspective alone does not earn a unit, and a perspective explanation stated as certain rather than hedged is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the family member AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised lab report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised lab report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the family member — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the nine trials with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 1 skills — telling behavior from mental processes, summarizing and interpreting a reaction-time measurement, explaining one behavior from two perspectives, and writing a falsifiable hypothesis — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the family member. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised lab report, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com