Recent Question/Assignment

Assignment overview
The purpose of this assignment is to explore the construct of sustained attention and vigilance, based on three different attentional measures. You will generate a full research report on this topic, which will include a title page, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion and reference list. You will be required to discuss team results from an experimental task—the data of which has been provided for you—in the format of a scientific research report.
Assignment details
This assignment is designed to assess:
• your ability to formulate hypotheses based on relevant literature (of which key references will be provided) and the measures used in the experiment
• your ability to use the data provided to you to test those hypotheses and interpret the findings.
These two aspects of report writing will be assessed through your introduction and discussion of the research report. They will additionally be assessed through your ability to integrate the information into an APA-formatted report which reads and flows well.
Read the following instructions to understand the requirements for this assignment:
Step 1: Read the primary reference
The primary reference for the introduction section of your report is Oops!': Performance correlates of attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and Links to an external site.normal subjects Links to an external site.(Robertson et al., 1997). Please ensure you read this before you begin working through this assignment.
Step 2: Write your report
In this research report, you will need to demonstrate a critical evaluation of the literature; rather than just a summary, evaluation and/or interpretation of your results in relation to results reported in the relevant literature.
Use the document Assignment 2B Major report (DOCX 1.2 MB) Download Assignment 2B Major report (DOCX 1.2 MB)to write your report.
You are required to write the introduction, method, results and discussion sections, along with an abstract and title page. These sections are indicated in blue text in the document.
The key information for the method and results have been provided for you, but you will need to organise this information according to APA format.
A submission checklist has been included at the beginning of the document for you to refer to.
Note: The word count for this assignment includes the text of the introduction, method, results and discussion. It does not include the title page, references, Figure or Table captions, or abstract.
Supporting resources
The suggested references for the limitations and directions for future research within your discussion section are:
• You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: The Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention Links to an external site.(Dang, Figueroa & Helton, 2018).
• Sitting with it. An investigation of the relationship between trait mindfulness and sustained attention Links to an external site.(Petranker & Eastwood, 2021).
• Failures of sustained attention in life, lab, and brain: Ecological validity of the SART Links to an external site.(Smilek, Carriere & Cheyne, 2010).
The following resources will assist you in writing reports:
• Efficient reading of papers in science and technology (PDF 21 KB) Links to an external site.(Hanson & McNamee, 2000).
• Writing research reports (PDF 1.7 MB) Download Writing research reports (PDF 1.7 MB)(Swinburne University of Technology, n.d.).
• American Psychological Association (APA) style guide Links to an external site.(Swinburne, 2022).
Submission details overview
This assignment will be submitted through Canvas. When you are ready to submit your assignment, select the 'Start Assignment' button at the top of this page. You will be taken to the 'File Upload' tab where you can choose your file or submit your URL.
Please note: When you submit your assignment through Canvas, you are also submitting the assignment through Turnitin, which is a text-matching service that compares your work with an international database of information sources. You will need to agree to using it.
Once you have submitted your assignment, select 'Submission Details' on the right of your screen to view your originality report if you haven't already done so.
Please allow a 24-hour turnaround for an originality report to be generated. See the 'Turnitin originality report' area of the Academic practice page in the Study Resources section of the Student Hub for several guides to assist with the submission process.
Resubmissions after the due date without prior approval from your Unit Coordinator may not be marked.
Assignment support
Don't forget that in addition to your eLAs who provide discipline-specific content advice, you can access the 24/7 draft writing service from Studiosity.
If you need assistance with academic feedback on a draft of your assignment task, see Assignment support: Studiosity.
Assignment criteria
• Title page
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Structure, presentation, writing style
Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:
Assignment 2 marking guide
Criteria No Pass Pass
50–59% Credit
60–69% Distinction
70–79% High Distinction
80–100%
Title page
(2%) Did not meet the criterion Many aspects missing on the title page. Some aspects missing, either in the title or the relevant information. The title captures the research topic and includes most of the relevant information. The title captures the topic and includes all relevant information.
Abstract
(3%) Did not meet the criterion. The abstract does not provide adequate detail about structure, research, and/or conclusions reached. The abstract is either too long or too short and does not contain all relevant information. Abstract provides a clear outline but may either be too long or too short. There may be some further detail required. The abstract is no more than 150 words, outlines the structure of the study, outlines reviewed research, discusses conclusions reached and describes the overall findings.
Introduction
(25%) Did not meet the criterion. The introduction is able to provide a basic description of the area of study and relevant theory. There is the presence of a basic rationale and aim however, the argument does not entirely support the hypotheses. Hypotheses are generally operationalised, but with a combination of minor and major errors. Good explanation of the area of study and relevant theory. There is evidence of a rationale and aim for the study and an argument that supports the hypotheses. Hypotheses are appropriately operationalised, with minor errors. Very good explanation of the area of study and relevant theory. The introduction provides a clear rationale for the study and the aim is clearly described. It also presents a logical argument that supports the hypotheses.
Hypotheses are appropriately operationalised, with the exception of some minor issues with wording. Excellent explanation of the area of study and relevant theory. The introduction provides an excellent rationale for the study with a clearly articulated aim. It also presents a strong, logical argument that supports the hypotheses. Hypotheses are clearly articulated, logically justified and appropriately operationalised.
Method
(10%) Did not meet the criterion Many aspects missing in the method, such as participants, measures, procedures or proposed data analyses. Some aspects missing in the method, such as participants, measures, procedures or proposed data analyses. The method includes most of the relevant information. The method includes all relevant information.
Results (15%) Did not meet the criterion Many aspects missing in the results, such as a summary of how data was selected, a description of observed relationships between measures, or highlighting of comparisons relevant to hypotheses. Some aspects missing in the results, such as a summary of how data was selected, a description of observed relationships between measures, or highlighting of comparisons relevant to hypotheses. Results include most of the relevant information. Results include all relevant information.
Discussion
(20%) Did not meet the criterion. A basic discussion of the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses. A basic discussion of the literature is stated in the introduction with minor errors. Limitations are stated but not supported or tied to the research literature. A good discussion of the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses. A good discussion of the literature is stated in the introduction. Provides some good examples of limitations of the study and ties these to the results. Provides suggestions for future research. A very good discussion of the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses. A very good discussion of the literature is stated in the introduction. Provides very good examples of the limitations of the study and ties these to the results. Provides very good suggestions for future research and ties these to limitations. An insightful discussion of the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses. An insightful discussion of the literature is stated in the introduction. Provides excellent examples of limitations of the study and ties these to the results. Provides excellent suggestions for future research and ties these to the limitations.
References
(10%) Did not meet the criterion. The basic breadth of coverage of relevant research. Most citations have been integrated appropriately within the introduction and discussion. Most references are included in the reference list. Most referencing (in-text and in the reference list) adheres to APA style, but with significant errors. Good breadth of coverage of relevant research. The majority of citations have been integrated appropriately within the introduction and discussion. All references are included in the reference list. Both in-text references and the reference list adhere to APA style, but with some errors. Very good breadth of coverage of relevant research. All citations are integrated appropriately within the introduction and discussion. All references are included in the reference list. Both in-text references and the reference list adhere to APA style, but with minor errors. Excellent breadth of coverage of relevant research. All citations are integrated appropriately within the introduction and discussion. All references are included in the reference list. Both in-text references and the reference list adhere to APA style with no errors.
Structure, presentation, writing style
(15%) Did not meet the criterion. Some evidence of organisation into appropriate sections.
The student demonstrates an adequate understanding of research papers but does not integrate information in the report in a way that relates logically to the hypotheses.
The document is typed and double-spaced, but not all indenting is correct. The report generally adheres to APA style with significant errors.
Several spelling and grammatical errors, however, the overall meaning is reasonably clear. Attempts at transitional or opening sentences are present, but paragraph integration could be improved. Most information is organised into appropriate sections.
Some information in the report is not well integrated or does not relate logically to the hypotheses.
The document is typed, double-spaced and generally correctly indented. The report adheres to APA style with some errors.
Several spelling and grammatical errors are present. Fluency sometimes lacking in transitional sentences and integration across paragraphs. Virtually all information is organised into appropriate sections.
The student demonstrates a very good ability to integrate information in the report, which relates logically to the hypotheses.
The document is typed, double-spaced and correctly indented. Report adheres to APA style with minor errors.
A few spelling and grammatical errors are present, but minor errors in the fluency of transitional or opening sentences are present. All information is organised into appropriate sections.
Document is typed, double-spaced and correctly indented. Report adheres to APA style without error.
Virtually free of spelling and grammatical errors. Fluency is seen in the use of transitional and opening sentences.
References
Dang, J.S., Figueroa, I.J., & Helton, W.S. (2018). You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: The Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research , 236, 2255-2262. DOI:10.1007/s00221-01805291-6
Petranker, R., & Eastwood, J.D. (2021). Sitting with it. An investigation of the relationship between trait mindfulness and sustained attention. Consciousness and Cognition , 90, 102101
Robertson, I.H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B.T., & Yiend, J. (1997). 'Oops!': Performance correlates of attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia , 35(6), 747-758. DOI: 10.1016/S0028-
3932(97)00015-8
Smilek, D., Carriere, J.S.A., & Cheyne, J.A. (2010). Failures of sustained attention in life, lab, and brain: Ecological validity of the SART. Neuropsychologia , 48, 2564-2570. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.002