Week 3 Analysis Workshop: Does Gaming Rewire Your Reactions?

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that the brain keeps changing its connections with practice, which is called neuroplasticity, and that careful writers say a brain claim is associated with an outcome unless an experiment shows a cause. Ads love to stretch that idea: play this game and rewire your brain. In this workshop you compute and interpret a correlation on a small illustrative dataset, turn a fuzzy word like faster reactions into an exact measurement, and design the experiment that could test the ad's claim. Then a chatbot does the same job, and you catch where it goes wrong.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Do these data show that action video games rewire the brain for faster reactions, and what study could actually test that claim?

Workshop data: gaming hours and reaction time (illustrative)

Source: An illustrative dataset constructed for this workshop (not real data): eight students' self-reported weekly hours of action video games, each paired with that student's time in milliseconds to press a key after a light appears.

• Rows: 8 students, one row each; the data table below shows all 8 rows
• Columns: Weekly hours of action video games; reaction time in milliseconds
• Status: Illustrative data built for this workshop, not results from a real study

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• Google Sheets (free) or Excel
• A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

• operationalize-a-construct
• design-a-correlational-or-experimental-check
• compute-and-interpret-r

Procedure

1. Open a blank sheet. In cell A1 type Hours and in cell B1 type ReactionMs. Enter the eight hours values from the data table in cells A2 to A9 and the matching reaction times in cells B2 to B9, keeping each student's pair on the same row. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Rows 2 through 9 hold eight pairs, and each row matches one row of the data table.
2. In cell D1 type =AVERAGE(A2:A9) and in cell D2 type =AVERAGE(B2:B9). Record both averages in the results table. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Each cell shows one number, in hours and in milliseconds.
3. In cell D3 type =CORREL(A2:A9,B2:B9) and record the result in the results table, rounded to four decimals. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: The cell shows one number between −1 and +1.
4. Select A1 to B9 and insert a scatter chart with hours across the bottom and reaction time up the side. Describe in words which way the dots run from left to right. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: The direction you describe matches the sign of the number in D3.
5. Fill in the design table: turn the ad's claim into an experiment, naming each part in your own words. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: Every row of the design table has an entry.
6. Answer the five analysis questions, then complete the critique step with a chatbot or the equivalent route. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: Five written answers and one critique report are ready to submit.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available.

Plot the eight pairs by hand on graph paper with hours across the bottom and reaction time up the side, compute the two averages with a calculator, and find r with any calculator that has a correlation function (often labeled r or CORREL). Complete every scaffold table, every analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Copy these illustrative pairs into your sheet and add a one-line note for any student whose pair stands out to you.

Student scaffold table 1

Student	Weekly hours of action games	Reaction time (ms)	Your note
S1	0	345
S2	2	330
S3	3	338
S4	5	310
S5	6	316
S6	8	298
S7	10	300
S8	12	285

Record what the spreadsheet computed so a reader can check every number you interpret.

Student scaffold table 2

Quantity	Your value	What it means in words
Average weekly hours
Average reaction time (ms)
Correlation r
Direction of the dots, left to right

Turn the ad's claim into an experiment that could actually test it, one design decision per row.

Student scaffold table 3

Design part	Your plan
Testable hypothesis
Independent variable (IV) and its conditions
Dependent variable (DV) and its operational definition
How participants are chosen (sampling)
How participants are placed into conditions (assignment)
One way to check the measure's reliability
One reason the measure may or may not be valid for the ad's claim
What the result would be allowed to claim

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Report r from your sheet to four decimals and the two averages. Give the direction and the strength of the association in one sentence.
2. Write the interpretation sentence for these data using the words associated with, then name one third variable and one reason the arrow could run the other way.
3. Using your design table, explain why random assignment, not random sampling, is what would let your experiment support a cause, and name your IV and DV.
4. Your DV is measured in milliseconds to press a key after a light appears. Explain how you would check that this measure is reliable, and whether it is a valid measure of brain rewiring or only of reaction speed.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) These data come from eight students and are illustrative: name one limit on what any study this small could claim, and what you would change. (b) This week's chapter calls neuroplasticity a lifelong ability: explain why that broad idea is not itself a testable hypothesis, and how your hypothesis makes it testable.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 3 Analysis Workshop tables above. Eight students reported their weekly hours of action video games and took a simple reaction-time test (milliseconds to press a key after a light appears). The data are illustrative, built for a psychology class. Hours: 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. Reaction times in ms: 345, 330, 338, 310, 316, 298, 300, 285. A gaming ad says these data prove that gaming rewires your brain for faster reactions. Please do five things. First, compute the correlation r and say what it shows. Second, name the independent and dependent variables in this study. Third, design a study that could test whether gaming causes faster reactions, and say how participants should be chosen and placed into groups. Fourth, say whether a reaction-time app that gives the same score every time you take it must be measuring brain rewiring. Fifth, say whether neuroplasticity is a theory or a hypothesis here, and write one testable hypothesis.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often accept the ad's wording and say the strong correlation shows that gaming makes reactions faster or rewires the brain.
• Chatbots often label gaming hours the independent variable and reaction time the dependent variable in these survey data, as if something had been manipulated.
• Chatbots often say that randomly sampling students from campus would let the study show that gaming causes faster reactions.
• Chatbots often treat a consistent score as proof that the app measures what the ad claims, such as brain rewiring.
• Chatbots often call 'gaming rewires your brain' the hypothesis, or call a prediction a proven theory.

In 3–4 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least two places where it went wrong, and correct each one using your own tables and this week's course terms.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "The correlation is strong, so the data prove that action games rewire the brain for faster reactions. Gaming hours are the independent variable and reaction time is the dependent variable. To be sure, we should randomly sample students from campus, because random sampling is what proves cause. The reaction app gave each student the same score twice, so it is a valid measure of brain rewiring. Our hypothesis is neuroplasticity, and these data prove that theory." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (cause read from a correlation, an IV and DV named in a correlational study, random sampling confused with random assignment, reliability confused with validity, or a theory confused with a hypothesis), cite evidence from your tables or this week's ideas, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 3 and Objective 2) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed data, results, and design tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions
• The scatterplot, from the spreadsheet or drawn by hand
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Analysis Workshop report on the illustrative gaming-and-reaction-time data: three completed tables (the data with your notes, the computed averages and r with their meanings, and an experiment design that tests the ad's claim), a scatterplot, written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's analysis of the same data, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Computing and reading r	The averages and r are computed from the eight pairs, r is reported to four decimals, and its direction and strength are stated correctly and match the scatterplot.	r and the averages are computed, but the direction or strength is misread, or the scatterplot description does not match the sign of r.	No r is computed, or the values are invented rather than computed.
Interpreting the association honestly	The interpretation says associated with, names a plausible third variable, and names a reverse-direction explanation.	The interpretation avoids causal wording but names only one of the two alternative explanations, or slips once into causal wording.	The data are read as proof that gaming causes faster reactions, or no interpretation is given.
Designing the experimental check	The design names a testable hypothesis, an IV with its conditions, a DV, random assignment to conditions, and a sampling plan, and states what the result could and could not claim.	The design is an experiment but blurs random sampling with random assignment, swaps the IV and DV, or leaves out what the result could claim.	No design is given, or the design is another correlational survey presented as an experiment.
Operationalizing and judging the measure	Reaction speed is operationalized as milliseconds to press a key after a light, with a way to check reliability and an accurate judgment of whether it validly measures the ad's claim.	An operational definition is given, but reliability and validity are blurred or one of them is missing.	No operational definition is given, or the measure is assumed valid because it is consistent.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least two errors are quoted and corrected with course terms and evidence from the student's own tables, and one correct point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one error is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.

Quality Gate

• Every number in the results table comes from your own spreadsheet or calculator work on the eight pairs, never from memory or a chatbot.
• The direction you describe for the scatterplot matches the sign of r.
• Every sentence about the data says associated with, and none says the games cause or rewire anything.
• The design table names an IV, a DV with an operational definition, the sampling, and the assignment.
• No statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables.