Observational Study measuringthe Frequency both Males andFemales drop their cigarette

butt.by Katherine Jones

FILE

TIME SUBMITTED 03-NOV-2016 12:06AM

SUBMISSION ID 61371574

WORD COUNT 1742

CHARACTER COUNT 9278

EMP_TURNITINTOOL_1290683728.OBSERVATIONAL_REPORT-_CIGARETTE.DOCX (114.98K)

FINAL GRADE

55/100

Observational Study measuring the Frequency both Malesand Females drop their cigarette butt.GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

InstructorOverall, this is a reasonably thorough study thatcontains many posit ive elements. Youdemonstrate engagement with the demands ofthe report, although a lack of clarity inexpression sometimes hinders communication.See in-text comments and below f or moredetailed f eedback.

The abstract is reasonably concise and includesall of the key elements.

You present some usef ul inf ormation in theintroduction, and indeed the studies you selectare appropriate and discussed well. However, asyou are looking to explore the genderdif f erences as well, you needed to includeadditional inf ormation about why you believemales will drop more cigarette butts thanf emales.

The method is concise and includes all of theinf ormation required to replicate the study. Thisleads into a clear results section in terms of thechi-square analysis. It would also have beenusef ul to consider the descriptive statistics more(see in- text comment).

Your discussion covers a number of key areasand is able to link them to previous research.However, you could have made more of yourcontradictory f indings. For example, did yourstudy tap into any areas ignored by previousstudies? Nevertheless, you demonstrate somegood awareness of the relative strengths andlimitations of the research and suggest somesuitable f uture avenues f or investigation.

APA ref erencing is generally accurate throughoutalthough there are some details to check. Yourwritten style is clear overall but there are manyincidents of spelling and grammatical errors,suggesting that more proof -reading is needed. Inparticular, take care to avoid shortened f orms(e.g. doesn’t) in f ormal report writ ing.

Judith Hebron

QM

QM

PAGE 1

Sp.Spelling error

Comment 1gender af f ects whether people dispose of their cigarette butt in a bin or not (or somethingalong these lines).

Comment 2or

Comment 3it

Comment 4bin?

Comment 5dif f erence

Sp.Spelling error

Comment 6This suggests that ... (i.e. new f ull sentence needed).

Comment 7- 's

Comment 8Ref erence needed to support this

Comment 9Good use of ref erence

Comment 10in?

Comment 11In other words, ... ?

Comment 12Good question to pose at this point

QM

QM

PAGE 2

Comment 13-rs'

Comment 14omit?

Comment 15al.

Comment 16af f ected

Sp.Spelling error

Sp.Spelling error

Comment 17Good point

Comment 18Good use of the study

Comment 19Good evaluation

Comment 20were not - avoid shortened f orms

Comment 21not

Comment 22did not

PAGE 3

Comment 23The preceding review of the literature supports your hypothesis but you also need toinclude some justif ication of why you are looking f or a dif f erence between males andf emales.

Comment 24

QM

QM

No need to be this specif ic here

PAGE 4

Comment 25Tally charts are not counted as materials so this t it le could be omitted

Comment 26were = data is a plural noun

Awk.Awkward:The expression or construction is cumbersome or dif f icult to read. Consider rewrit ing.

PAGE 5

Comment 27did not

Comment 28No apostrophe needed

Comment 29Or you could explain that of the participating males, 53% dropped their cigarette butts asopposed to 59% of f emales?

Comment 30non-signif icant

PAGE 6

Comment 31As mentioned in the results, you could explore the relative percentages, while bearing in mindthe non-signif icant results.

Comment 32Appropriate conclusion and clearly expressed.

Sp.Spelling error

PAGE 7

Comment 33were not

Comment 34

statistically signif icant

Comment 35New sentence needed here

Comment 36This is a reasonable conclusion, although you could also have considered the implications interms of the strengths of your study, i.e. maybe you have tapped into one or more aspectsthat previous research did not.

PAGE 8

Comment 37Generally the ref erencing is very good here, although you need to check some of the details.Also, it is recommended to use more sources in a report of this sort to ensure a thoroughoverview of previous literature.

Comment 38Just include doi: .... - there is no need f or the http:// part

RUBRIC: PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICAL REPORT

ABSTRACT (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

INTRODUCTION (15%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

4 / 8

4 / 8

Either absent or disorganised and uninf ormative.

Lacks organisation and is conf used.

Shows evidence of organisation and covers some of the relevant inf ormation.

Organised and covers most of the relevant inf ormation.

Organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Well organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Very well organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Exceptionally well organised, succinct and comprehensive

4 / 8

No introduction at all.

Introduction section, but no rationale or no basis in previous work.

Attempt to provide a rationale f or the study, although weak.

Rationale provided and it is largely clear how the study f ollows on f rom previouswork.

Rationale f ollows on logically f rom the literature review and extends previous work.

Very clear and convincing.

Extremely clear, ef f ective and convincing.

Exceptionally clear, ef f ective and convincing.

HYPOTHESES (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

METHODOLOGY (20%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

4 / 8

Absent or seriously f lawed.

Presented but with no link to previous studies.

Presented, but no, or unconvincing explanation.

Presented, with some explanation.

Clear, precise and explained.

Explicit, clear and f ully explained.

Explicit, very clear and f ully explained

Extremely clear and f ully explained.

4 / 8

Very poor. Very dif f icult to understand how the study was conducted.

Poor. Dif f icult to see how study was conducted.

Some description of the main details of the study. Would allow a broadly similarstudy to be conducted.

Generally good and provides details of most major and minor aspects.

Very good with clear and explicit accounts of all major and most minor details.

Accurate with complete attention to detail, while remaining concise.

Flawless. Complete attention to detail, while remaining concise.

Flawless. Complete attention to detail. Entirely concise.

RESULTS (20%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

DISCUSSION (20%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

4 / 8

Either no analysis, or inappropriate analysis.

Unclear and reported incorrectly.

Shows a basic understanding of the results and how to report them.

Correct and mainly clear. Some evidence of insight.

Clear, correct and largely concise. Reasonably insightf ul.

Clear and correct with insight, conciseness, and sophistication.

Very high standard of clarity, insight, conciseness, correctness and sophistication.

Prof essional standard of clarity, insight, conciseness, correctness andsophistication.

4 / 8

No discernible account.

Superf icial account of some basic issues.

Some discussion. Descriptive with litt le evaluation. A limited account of some basicissues.

Reasonably good account but slightly basic and unsophisticated.

Very good account of the theoretical and practical implications and limitations ofthe f indings. Good summary.

Insightf ul analysis. Very sophisticated. Very ef f ective.

Searching and crit ical analysis. Outstanding account of theoretical and practicalimplications and limitations of the f indings.

Original and searching crit ical analysis. Comprehensive and highly ef f ective.

DESIGN (7%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

APA FORMAT (4%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

4 / 8

Entirely misconceived. Severe and f undamental weaknesses.

Basic f laws. Very litt le evidence of methodological understanding. Inappropriateway of testing the hypothesis.

Basic and ill-conceived. A limited way of testing the hypothesis

Sound although not novel, original or ground breaking. An appropriate way oftesting the hypothesis.

Novel, creative and sophisticated, although not necessarily particularly original orground breaking. A very good way of testing the hypothesis.

Excellent in terms of its originality and has a design that is novel, creative andsophisticated. An excellent way of testing the hypothesis.

Outstanding in its originality and has a design that is novel, creative andsophisticated. Outstanding way of testing the hypothesis.

Exceptional in its originality and has a design that is novel, creative andsophisticated. Optimal way of testing the hypothesis.

4 / 8

Inadequate or absent.

Inadequate.

Limited ref erencing and/or adherence to APA style.

Largely consistent and accurate, including in- text citations and the f ormat andcontent of the ref erences list.

Consistent and accurate, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content ofthe ref erences list.

Excellent, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erenceslist.

Flawless, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erenceslist.

Flawless, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erenceslist.

STYLE (4%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

4 / 8

Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication.Error-strewn.

Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn.

Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with litt le clarity. Poor delivery, paceand audience engagement.

Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is inef f ective. Satisf actory delivery, paceand audience engagement.

Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace and audience engagement.

Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly conf ident delivery,pace and audience engagement.

Prof essional and sophisticated with great clarity and coherence. Excellent,controlled, conf ident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.

Prof essional and sophisticated with great clarity and coherence. Excellent,controlled, conf ident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.