Week 2 — What Does the Evidence Allow? A Short Research-Methods Report

Assignment 2 of the term — read four classic studies and one illustrative dataset, work out what each one found, and explain to someone new to psychology what a study can and cannot claim.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based 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. Last week you saw why psychology tests its ideas against evidence instead of trusting common sense; this week you learn how that testing works and how much each kind of study may claim. 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.

The task

You will use these study results, all from this week's chapter:

• Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning: savings were 58.2% at 19 minutes and 21.1% at 31 days.
• Loftus and Palmer (1974), Experiment 1: students who heard "smashed" averaged a speed estimate of 40.8 mph; "hit" averaged 34.0 mph; "contacted" averaged 31.8 mph.
• Loftus and Palmer (1974), Experiment 2: a week later, 16 of 50 students in the "smashed" group, 7 of 50 in the "hit" group, and 6 of 50 in the control group, which got no speed question, reported broken glass that was never in the film. Students were randomly assigned to their condition.
• Milgram (1963): 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch. They believed the shocks were real; none were given.
• An illustrative dataset built for this course: 10 students reported hours of sleep and their next-day quiz score out of 20, and r = 0.8457. Nobody's sleep was changed.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Ebbinghaus's savings were 58.2% at 19 minutes and 21.1% at 31 days. By how many percentage points did savings fall?
2. In Loftus and Palmer's Experiment 1, "smashed" averaged 40.8 mph and "contacted" averaged 31.8 mph. By how many mph did the "smashed" estimate exceed the "contacted" estimate?
3. In Loftus and Palmer's Experiment 2, 16 of 50 students in the "smashed" group reported broken glass. What percentage of that group is this?
4. In Milgram's study, 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch. What percentage of participants is this?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation: what that value shows about the study's design and one use or limit of it. For problem 1, name the operational definition and say why replication matters. For problem 2, label the independent variable and the dependent variable. For problem 3, say what the control group adds and why random assignment lets the study claim a cause. For problem 4, name two protections that today's research rules require for a study like this and say why.

Explain it to a non-expert

The volunteer editor of a community wellness newsletter has never studied psychology and wants to print the headline "Study shows sleep raises quiz scores" about the 10-student sleep data. Write a 3–5 sentence message that recommends a more honest headline, explains in everyday words what r = 0.8457 does and does not show, names one third variable that could explain the link, and names one limit of the data — for example, that the dataset is illustrative and small, or that nobody was randomly assigned to sleep more. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one honest headline can be defensible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a gym manager who read that members who use the sauna report being happier. Model answer: "I'd say 'Sauna users report feeling happier,' not 'The sauna makes members happier.' The study asked people about two things and found they went together, but nobody was assigned to use the sauna. Members with more free time might both use the sauna more and feel happier, so free time could explain the link. A fair test would randomly assign some members to sauna sessions and compare them with members who did not get them."

Use that pattern for the sleep headline, with your own recommendation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the editor 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. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about research designs, what each design can claim, and research ethics. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning: 58.2% at 19 minutes and 21.1% at 31 days. Loftus and Palmer (1974), Experiment 1: smashed 40.8 mph, hit 34.0 mph, contacted 31.8 mph. Experiment 2, a week later, students randomly assigned to conditions: 16 of 50 smashed, 7 of 50 hit, and 6 of 50 control (no speed question) reported broken glass that was never in the film. Milgram (1963): 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch; they believed the shocks were real. An illustrative dataset built for the course: 10 students' hours of sleep and next-day quiz scores out of 20, r = 0.8457; nobody's sleep was changed.
PROBLEM P1: Ebbinghaus's savings were 58.2% at 19 minutes and 21.1% at 31 days. By how many percentage points did savings fall?
PROBLEM P2: In Loftus and Palmer's Experiment 1, "smashed" averaged 40.8 mph and "contacted" averaged 31.8 mph. By how many mph did the "smashed" estimate exceed the "contacted" estimate?
PROBLEM P3: In Loftus and Palmer's Experiment 2, 16 of 50 students in the "smashed" group reported broken glass. What percentage of that group is this?
PROBLEM P4: In Milgram's study, 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch. What percentage of participants is this?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: what that value shows about the study's design and one use or limit of it; for P1, the operational definition and why replication matters; for P2, the independent and dependent variables; for P3, what the control group adds and why random assignment supports a cause; for P4, two protections today's research rules require for a study like this. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a newsletter editor who is new to psychology, recommending a more honest headline than "Study shows sleep raises quiz scores," explaining what r = 0.8457 does and does not show, naming one third variable, and naming one limit of the data. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations from the studies (40 points), design and interpretation 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 difference or percentage = 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 accurate account of what that value shows about the study's design plus a use or limit tied to that study = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P2, swapped IV and DV labels do not count. For P3, calling random sampling the reason for the causal claim does not count. For P4, BOTH two accurately named protections with a reason AND a final message that recommends an honest headline, says "associated with" rather than "causes," and names a third variable and a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0. 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 editor 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 research-methods report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised research-methods report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the editor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of each study's design 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 2 skills — turning an idea into an operational definition, labeling the variables in an experiment, explaining why random assignment supports a cause, keeping a correlation separate from a cause, and naming the protections research participants are owed — 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 editor. 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 research-methods 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