Rewrite And Edit My Research Paper

instructor of my study: type of notes taken during lecture affect student learning, this is a research paper that information should be based on a type of notes taken during lecture affect student learning study that I did and all my classmates, mine was on one college student who asked to take note on computer (word program) and the note was based on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2BIWsYU7AE and asked to not use phone or anything else during taking his note on the computer. 

please don’t forget to copy all the SPSS output, and do  Table (only one needs),

Example Methods, Results, and Discussion Sections

Methods

Participants

Participants were 16 undergraduate students (93.75% female; median age = 21.00 years) recruited from an introductory research methods and analysis course at a mid-Atlantic university. Participants self-reported their race and ethnicity as African American/Black (43.75%), Caucasian (37.50%), Hispanic (12.50%), and Asian American (6.25%). There were five participants in the low and medium spin conditions, and there were six participants in the high spin condition. Participants were not compensated for their participation.

Design

The study used a single factor, multilevel (number of spins: low vs. medium vs. high) independent groups design. The dependent variable was tail placement accuracy (cm).

Materials

Materials included a picture of a donkey that was projected onto a white board and paper donkey tails with adhesive attached. A tape measure was used to measure distances.

Procedure

Participants were recruited to play the game Pin the Tail on the Donkey and randomly assigned to one of the three spin conditions. Participants stood on a marked spot on the floor. A picture of a donkey was projected onto the white board approximately six feet from the marked spot. There was a red spot marked on the donkey where the tail should be placed.

The experimenter instructed all participants that their objective was to pin a donkey tail on the marked spot on the donkey. Participants were warned to keep their eyes closed and not use the edge of the whiteboard to help them find the donkey. After the experimenter gave the participant the donkey tail, the experimenter spun the participants according to condition. Participants in the no spin condition were not spun at all. Participants in the low spin condition completed five full clockwise turns. Participants in the high spin condition completed 10 full clockwise revolutions. The experimenter paced the spins to keep the speed of the spins as consistent as possible between participants.

After each participant completed the spins, the experimenter pointed the participant towards the picture of the donkey drawn on the chalkboard. After participants placed the donkey tail on the chalkboard, the experimenter measured the distance from the center of the bow on the tail to the spot marked on the donkey. All distances were measured in centimeters. A research assistant wrote down the distances and participants’ demographic information, which were then entered into SPSS.

Results

We hypothesized that participants would be less accurate in tail placement as the number of spins increased. Participants placed the tail an average of 75.47 cm away the spot marked on the donkey. A between-groups one-way ANOVA showed a significant relationship between number of spins and tail placement accuracy, F(2, 13) = 3.95, p = .046, η2 = .38 (see Table 1). Post-hoc Tukey tests revealed there were no significant differences in accuracy between participants in the no spin condition and those in the low spin condition, t(13) = -0.43, p = .902, d = -1.64, CI.95 = -9.99, 6.71, and between those in the no spin condition and those in the high spin condition, t(13) = -2.59, p = .054, d = -1.46, CI.95 = -52.69, 49.77. Likewise, there was no significant difference between those in the low spin condition and those in the high spin condition, t(13) = -2.14, p = .120, d = -1.20, CI.95 = -52.71, 50.32.

Discussion

Overall, results suggested that the number of spins did not impact tail placement accuracy, despite finding an overall relationship between number of spins and tail placement accuracy. Contrary to our hypothesis, this result suggests that dizziness does not impact one’s accuracy when playing pin the tail on the donkey. These results must be interpreted with caution, however, due to limitations in the study design. First, the sample size was small, which may have compromised our ability to ascertain differences between the groups due to a lack of statistical power. Indeed, the effect sizes for the comparisons between the high spin condition and the low and medium spin conditions indicates that a high degree of dizziness may in fact compromise accuracy, but the large confidence intervals around the effect sizes indicate this effect is tenuous.

Moreover, although participants were warned not to use the edge of the whiteboard to help them, several participants still felt for the edge and then moved around the board before placing the tail. Participants were also all tested together, and some participants yelled out helpful hints or cheered while other participants were completing the task. These limitations may have obscured any real differences that may have existed between conditions by making the task too easy for the participants. Participants placed the tail on average just over two feet from the marked spot on the donkey, however, suggesting that the task may instead have been too difficult for participants. Future research should seek to replicate the study in a room without distractions and test each participant without an audience to measure impact. Future research could also vary the distance from the donkey used in the task as a different manipulation of task difficulty.

Table 1

Average tail placement accuracy (in inches) by spin condition

 

 

Spin Condition n M SD

 

None (0 spins) 5 21.20 10.60

Low (5 spins) 5 43.30 18.48

High (10 spins) 6 147.50 52.35

Note: Higher scores mean greater distance from the target and lower accuracy

Appendix

 

GET

FILE=’C:\Users\jperillo\Dropbox\Teaching\Indiana University of Pennsylvania\PSYC 290 RDAI\Assignments\Labs\One-Way ANOVA Lab\PinTheTailResults.sav’.

DATASET NAME DataSet0 WINDOW=FRONT.

ONEWAY Distance BY Condition

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives
Distance
  N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
          Lower Bound Upper Bound    
0 Spins 5 21.2000 10.59835 4.73973 8.0404 34.3596 8.00 33.50
5 Spins 5 43.3000 18.47837 8.26378 20.3561 66.2439 13.00 61.00
10 Spins 6 147.5000 128.23533 52.35185 12.9253 282.0747 12.00 310.00
Total 16 75.4688 94.89195 23.72299 24.9044 126.0331 8.00 310.00

 

 

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Distance
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
30.126 2 13 .000

 

 

ANOVA
Distance
  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 51030.634 2 25515.317 3.947 .046
Within Groups 84036.600 13 6464.354    
Total 135067.234 15      

 

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Distance
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
          Lower Bound Upper Bound
0 Spins 5 Spins -22.10000 50.85019 .902 -156.3667 112.1667
  10 Spins -126.30000 48.68535 .054 -254.8506 2.2506
5 Spins 0 Spins 22.10000 50.85019 .902 -112.1667 156.3667
  10 Spins -104.20000 48.68535 .120 -232.7506 24.3506
10 Spins 0 Spins 126.30000 48.68535 .054 -2.2506 254.8506
  5 Spins 104.20000 48.68535 .120 -24.3506 232.7506

 

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Race Gender

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Frequency Table

Race
  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid African American/Black 7 43.8 43.8 43.8
  Asian American 1 6.3 6.3 50.0
  Caucasian/White 6 37.5 37.5 87.5
  Hispanic 2 12.5 12.5 100.0
  Total 16 100.0 100.0  

 

Gender
  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 1 6.3 6.3 6.3
  Female 15 93.8 93.8 100.0
  Total 16 100.0 100.0  

 

 

EXAMINE VARIABLES=Age

/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF

/COMPARE GROUPS

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES

/CINTERVAL 95

/MISSING LISTWISE

/NOTOTAL.

 

Descriptives
  Statistic Std. Error
Age Mean 21.6875 .75674
  95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 20.0745  
    Upper Bound 23.3005  
  5% Trimmed Mean 21.3750  
  Median 21.0000  
  Variance 9.163  
  Std. Deviation 3.02696  
  Minimum 18.00  
  Maximum 31.00  
  Range 13.00  
  Interquartile Range 2.75  
  Skewness 2.056 .564
  Kurtosis 5.731 1.091