I Need Someone To Rewrite

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

Running head: NOTES TAKEN DURING LECTURE 2

NOTES TAKEN DURING LECTURE 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Notes Taken During Lecture Affect Student Learning

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Notes Taken During Lecture Affect Student Learning

Every day across the globe in classrooms students are taking notes. Note taking is mainly associated with lecture-based lessons and it is prevalent and likely that student will take notes when the lecture is going on (Luo, Kiewra, Flanigan, & Peteranetz, 2018). Consequently, other learning experiences also lend note taking. For instance, watching videos in a blended environment, doing research projects, going on field trips, and reading assigned handout or books all require not taking. Note taking is an important activity that all students should engage in while the lecture is going on. This enables students to capture some of the concepts that might be challenging. Note taking is a skill and activity that improves students learning. If teachers want their students their student’s to discover it is better, they encourage them to take notes.

With the advancement in technology not taking has to take a shift. People are moving from the traditional note-taking methods of using paper and pen to new technologies such as phones, laptops, tablets, and iPads. Primarily, at the college classroom, there has been a shift from a student taking not using longhand pencil-paper to the use of laptops (Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013). The study that I took investigated whether the medium of taking affected the achievement and note taking when notes were being reviewed and recorded (Aguilar-Roca, Williams, & O’Dowd, 2012). One of the unique aspects of the study was to identify how laptop note-taking affected while from video lecture.

From the study, it was evident that note taking using a laptop was adequate as the notes from the computer have more ideas on the lectures and more verbatim strings than other types of note-taking. The student mainly was based on facts and concept items when recording the notes. It is evident the use of a laptop is growing and becoming more popular among college students (Liu, Yang, Williams, & Wang, 2019). This is an aspect that in the study proved to be productive in two main elements of product function and process function. Additionally, looking at the processes in laptop note taking the student recorded more words in the form of idea unit (Friedman, 2014). However, when it came to drawing, and in the picture the speed here was slow. The main factor for the high number of ideas and information in laptop taking is because if high typing speed.

The student in this study has mastered his typing speed, and this enabled him to get more ideas and information during the lecture. Another important factor that played a crucial role in the process of note-taking was the fact that he was using a modern computer that had a high speed of processing commands (Kay, & Lauricella, 2016). Additionally, I came to find out that note takers using computer approached the note-taking process as a non-generative transcription process, and therefore the main intention was to take note of word for words as compared to another writing process such as longhand where note takers approached the process if note taking as a generative process where they write the lecture ideas word to word.

Moreover, from the process, it is evident that note-taking strategies stimulate different note-taking approaches. The laptop notes takers used primarily verbal note-taking strategy and approached the process as a transcription process (Stacy, & Cain, 2015). This is necessary as it helps them capture the ideas of the lecture faster as compared to a situation where they have to record everything in a book that the lecturer was dictating. Additionally, the is process improves the learning process as the student stays attentive to the lecture as he is taking notes.

Moreover, the process helps the student learn more as they take more from the lectures; they take notes than the ones they do not take notes (Desselle, & Shane, 2018). Additionally, the process requires that the note taker to recall the information they the lecturer is communicating and translate it written words. This practice of translating the sounds to written words help exercise the memory of assisting the student in learning during the lecture. One of the most crucial advantages of taking note through computers is that the computer is much faster than other forms of note-taking. This mainly opens the possibility that the student does not have to become selective no the notes he or gets down.

Some of the potential downfalls of taking notes using computers were that the student is not trying to judge what is essential and therefore he or she might end up getting irrelevant information (Mueller, & Oppenheimer, 2016). Secondly, one might not process the information deeply as he or she is not trying to interpret the data but rather paraphrase (Jansen, Lakens, & IJsselsteijn, 2017).

To sum up, different note-taking mediums promote different approaches in note-taking. Primarily, laptop note-taking support transcription oriented verbatim-style that contain mainly verbal information. This process allows the note-taker to record more notes and ideas than other note-taking strategies. The note-taking process aims at helping the student to get the best notes possible and working the limits of his or her memory. Moreover, from the study, I got to identify that transcription works better when taking note on the computer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education59(4), 1300-1308.

Desselle, S. P., & Shane, P. A. (2018). Laptop Versus Longhand Note Taking in a Professional Doctorate Course: Student Performance, Attitudes, and Behaviors. INNOVATIONS in pharmacy9(3), Article-15.

Friedman, M. C. (2014). Notes on note-taking: Review of research and insights for students and instructors. Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, 1-34.

Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review22, 223-233.

Kay, R., & Lauricella, S. (2016). Assessing laptop use in higher education: The Laptop Use Scale. Journal of Computing in Higher Education28(1), 18-44.

Liu, C. J., Yang, C. L., Williams, J. J., & Wang, H. C. (2019, April). NoteStruct: Scaffolding Note-taking while Learning from Online Videos. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. LBW1116). ACM.

Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science46(6), 947-971.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Technology and note-taking in the classroom, boardroom, hospital room, and courtroom. Trends in Neuroscience and Education5(3), 139-145.

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education62, 24-31.

Stacy, E. M., & Cain, J. (2015). Note-taking and handouts in the digital age. American journal of pharmaceutical education79(7), 107.

 

 

PSYC 290: RDA I Final Paper

For this course, you have completed a class experiment. You will be responsible for writing up this experiment in a final research paper for the course. This paper and associated assignments will comprise 30% of your final grade.

 

This paper will consist of the following sections: Cover Page, Abstract, Introduction, Methods (with appropriate subtopics), Results, Discussion, References, Tables, Figures, and Appendices.

 

The paper must be written in proper APA format. You should include at least one table or figure for each of your one-way ANOVA analyses. You may wish to include other tables or figures as appropriate. You do not have to use both tables and figures; you could just use one kind. Make sure to follow APA formatting guidelines.

 

Your appendices should include your SPSS output for your data analysis.

 

Requirements:

1. You must use at least 10 empirical, peer-reviewed journal sources for your paper. You will likely need more. Be sure all your points are supported – a research paper is no place for common sense or generalizations for how the world works. If you cannot back up a point with a research citation, it is probably not a point you should be making.

2. Your introduction should set up and support your research hypotheses for all of the variables explored in the study – IV and DV. Your introduction should justify their use and allow you to develop reasonable hypotheses.

3. You should follow best practices for each paper section as discussed in the draft assignments.

4. Please remember to follow the feedback given for updating the sections of your research papers. The grades given for the different sections of your paper are draft grades; that does not mean you would earn the same grade for the final paper.

 

Final grades will be assigned based on the following elements:

· APA Format

· Running head and page numbers are present, and properly formatted.

· Cover page is properly formatted and includes all necessary information.

· Font, margins, and spacing follow proper APA guidelines.

· References are properly formatted and ordered.

· The abstract clearly and succinctly summarizes all parts of the paper.

· Introduction

· At least ten relevant articles are discussed in an appropriate level of detail. The aims of the current study are clearly linked to the existing body of literature. The hypothesis is stated clearly and explicitly at the end of the Introduction.

· In-text citations are properly utilized, positioned, and formatted.

· The writing is clear and free from spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

· Methods

· Sampling methods and participant demographics are described in detail.

· Any measures that are employed in the study are adequately described.

· Experimental design and study variables are accurately identified.

· Experimental procedures are described in sufficient detail.

· The writing is clear and free from spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

· Results

· Appropriate statistical tests are used, and the results are accurately described.

· Both inferential and descriptive statistics are provided and explained clearly.

· Descriptive stats are presented in appropriate tables or figures for each statistical test.

· Results are presented in proper APA format (italics, decimals, symbols, spacing, etc.).

· The writing is clear and free from spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

· Discussion

· The results of the study are summarized clearly and concisely, in plain language.

· Findings are discussed in the context of the existing body of literature.

· Limitations of the study and possible directions for future research are discussed.

· Connections to the existing body of literature or new body of literature are made as appropriate.

· The writing is clear and free from spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

 

You need to demonstrate a thorough knowledge not only of your topic, but also of your study design, data analysis, and results.

 

Note: There are also a lot of resources on our Blackboard shell about writing APA papers, interpreting results, performing analyses, etc. Make good use of them.

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)