Assessment 1: Alerting effects of naps
Due Date: Week 7, Monday, 19/04/2021, 11:59pm via Turnitin
You are required to submit a 2300-word laboratory report describing the alerting effects of naps driving simulator study. This report is worth 40% of your mark for the unit. The report must be written in strict accordance with APA style.
Purpose: this assessment is intended to develop your:
- Understanding and ability to apply psychophysiological concepts for explaining the alerting effects of simulator study results
- Description and critical analysis skills of experimental results
- Ability to synthesis relevant empirical results to inform the meaning of the study results
Points to note with marking criteria:
- The quality of the arguments presented in the introduction and the discussion in terms their theoretical depth, logical robustness, and interpretation of the data;
- The quality of the critical literature review presented in the introduction;
- The accuracy of the Method and Results sections;
- Your ability to i) craft relevant hypothesis(es) and ii) to create relate the results to the research question/hypothesis to the theoretical basis of the study;
- The clarity of expression in all sections;
- Adherence to APA style;
- Legibility, spelling, and grammar;
- Adherence to ethical principles (PLAGIARISM); and
- Adherence to the word limit.
Starting References:
- Tietzel, A. J., & Lack, L. C. (2001). The short-term benefits of brief and long naps following nocturnal sleep restriction. Sleep, 24(3), 293-300.
- Horne, J. A., & Reyner, L. A. (1996, May). Counteracting driver sleepiness: effects of napping, caffeine, and placebo. Psychophysiology, 33(3), 306-309.
- Gillberg, M., Kecklund, G., & Åkerstedt, T. (1996). Sleepiness and performance of professional drivers in a truck simulator–comparisons between day and night driving. Journal of Sleep Research, 5(1), 12-15.
- Ficca, G., Axelsson, J., Mollicone, D. J., Muto, V., & Vitiello, M. V. (2010, Aug). Naps, cognition and performance. Sleep Medicine Review, 14(4), 249-258.
Submission Details:
- The set length for this essay is 2300 words ± 10%. The word count does not include the abstract, tables/figures, or reference list.
- The assignment is due by 11:59 pm on Monday 19/04/2021 via Turnitin.
- APA style: The School of Psychology and Counselling recommends that students use the following APA style guides:
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2020). A Guide to Formatting in Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
PYB374 Human Factors and Safety: Laboratory Report Marking Criteria (2300 words, 40% weighting in final grade) |
||||||||||
|
Grade |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||
|
Mark |
10 9 |
8 |
7 |
6 5 |
4 |
3 2 |
1 |
||
ABSTRACT (5%) |
1. Abstract |
· Fluent, clear, concise description of the study and its findings, including relevant information on aim/hypotheses, sample, design, procedure and conclusion |
· The aim, method, and findings are clearly described, there may be some lack of conciseness or clarity on a limited number of aspects |
· The aim, method and findings are evident, but several aspects may lack clarity and some details may be missing |
· The aim method and findings are somewhat unclear, and there are missing details (e.g., aims, sample, design, procedure, and conclusion) |
· The aim, method, and findings are very unclear or missing. |
||||
INTRODUCTION (35%) |
2. Description literature |
· The relevant literature is clearly and concisely described |
· The relevant literature is clearly described, but there is some omission. |
· The literature is described relatively clearly, but there is some omission or irrelevant detail |
· Important details are missing, or irrelevant details are included, and there is some lack of focus |
· The literature review is very unclear, it lacks important details and includes many irrelevant details |
||||
3. Relation of literature to research question |
· Consistently demonstrates application of literature to topic and critical analysis is well integrated |
· Clear relation of literature to topic. Critical analysis/critical thought is clearly displayed. |
· Demonstrates application of literature to topic with some evidence of critical analysis |
· The literature is somewhat related to the research topic, critical analysis is lacking |
· Little or no relation of the literature to the topic, critical analysis is lacking |
|||||
4. Hypotheses |
· Hypotheses clearly reflect the research aim and the variables being tested and are strongly linked to the literature review |
· Hypotheses reflect the research aim and variables being tested with only minor lack of clarity |
· Hypotheses are somewhat related to the research aim and variables being tested, but there is some lack of clarity |
· Hypotheses are somewhat unclear and their link with the research aim and variables being tested is tenuous |
· Hypotheses are unclear and do not reflect the research aim and the variables being tested |
|||||
METHOD & RESULTS (20%) |
5. Methodology |
· There is a clear, concise description of the methodology, with sufficient detail to permit replication |
· The methodology is described with only minor omissions or irrelevant detail |
· The methodology is described, but there are some omissions or irrelevant detail |
· Significant omissions or irrelevant detail in one or two aspects make replication difficult |
· Significant omissions and lack of clarity make replication impossible |
||||
6. Findings |
· Statistical tests are clearly described and demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions |
· Statistical tests are clearly described with only minor misunderstanding of the data, analyses, or conclusions |
· There is some misunderstanding of the data, analyses or conclusions, some details may be missing |
· Statistical tests are described but lack clarity or important details, there is misunderstanding of some aspect |
· Statistical tests are poorly described and do not demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions |
|||||
7. Figures or tables |
· The appropriate use of tables or figures clearly and concisely describes and demonstrates an understanding of the data |
· Data are clearly presented in a table or figure with only minor errors of presentation or understanding |
· Data are presented in a comprehensible form with some errors of presentation and understanding |
· Data is presented in a comprehensible form, although there may be significant errors |
· Data are not presented in a comprehensible form |
|||||
DISCUSSION (30%) |
8. Overview |
· The results are clearly and concisely described and related to the hypotheses and to theory |
· The results are described and related to the hypotheses and theory with only minor lack of clarity or conciseness |
· The results are described and related to the hypotheses but there are minor omissions and lack of clarity |
· The results are described and related to the hypotheses but there are serious omissions and lack of clarity |
· The results are not described or related to the hypotheses |
||||
9. Discussion of findings in context of the literature |
· Analytical and clear conclusions well grounded in theory and literature |
· Good development shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature |
· Evidence of conclusions grounded in theory/literature |
· Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature |
· Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation |
|||||
10. Limitations, future directions |
· Clear and well thought out consideration of limitations and future directions clearly based on the literature |
· Limitations and future directions are well considered with only minor lack of clarity or support from the literature |
· Limitations and future directions are considered, while lacking clarity these are still somewhat based on the literature |
· Some consideration of the limitations and future directions, although these are not based on the literature |
· No consideration of the limitations of the study or future directions for research, or consideration is very unclear |
|||||
PRSENTATION (10%) |
11. Clarity of expression, format of assignment, referencing |
· Very fluent writing style, and grammar and spelling accurate · Assignment is formatted appropriately · Referencing is consistently accurate |
· Language fluent, grammar and spelling accurate · Assignment is generally formatted appropriately · Referencing is mainly accurate |
· Language mainly fluent, grammar and spelling mainly accurate · Minor errors in the format of the assignment · Referencing is mainly accurate
|
· Meaning apparent, but language is not always fluent, grammar and/or spelling contain errors · Some substantial errors in the format of the assignment · Some attempt at referencing |
· Meaning unclear, grammar and spelling contain frequent errors · Minimal attempt to format the assignment appropriately · Referencing is absent/unsystematic |
||||