Assignment: Royal Society of Medicine
Assignment: Royal Society of Medicine
In this assignment, you will read an article about the Mozart effect and identify various parts of the research process. This exercise will help you learn how to read a research article and to understand the research process.
Read the following article:
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365. 6447: 611. (October 14, 1993). (ProQuest Document ID 76004658).
In your article summary, respond to the following questions:
State the research hypothesis in your own words. Identify the independent and dependent variables.
What were some variables the researchers controlled in their study? Why was this necessary?
What evidence do the researchers offer as a test of their hypothesis? Is this evidence empirical (observable)? Is it valid?
What explanation do the researchers offer for their findings? Does the evidence justify this explanation?
Read the following article:
Jenkins, J.S. (2001). The Mozart effect. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 94, 170-172.
Based on your readings, respond to the following:
Do you think there is any merit in the study (Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993)? Give three reasons for your position.
Does the study take individual differences in spatial ability into account? Explain your answer.
What are two ways in which the experiment could be modified to make the results more generalizable?
Write a 5–6-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M1_A3.doc.
Permalink:
By Wednesday, May 13, 2015, deliver your assignment to the M1: Assignment 3 Dropbox.
Assignment 3 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Accurately identified and described the research hypothesis and variables studied in the research article. Identified any control variables, and explained the necessity of controlling them.
12
Evaluated validity of the evidence presented as a test of the hypothesis in the research article.
12
Evaluated interpretation of results in the research article.
12
Critically assessed the merit of the research study providing at least three reasons.
12
Evaluated whether the test took into account individual differences in spatial ability giving reasons.
12
Suggested at least two ways to modify the experiment to make the results more generalizable.
20
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
20
Total:
100
