Lab report

This Lab Report Guide is complete for 2008. See also general feedback.

Overview

The lab report contributes 45% of the final mark.
It requires you to:
- administer and enter the data for 5 surveys
- write a 3,500 word lab report in APA style, with the results to include at least one of each of:
  - qualitative analysis
  - factor analysis
  - MLR
  - and advanced ANOVA
    based on the combined data from The University Student Motivation, Satisfaction, and Learning Self-Efficacy Questionnaire version 3 (TUSMSLSQ3).

Sample report

Here is the top lab report from 2007, and its marking and feedback sheet:

Note: Not everything in this example lab report is correct. It simply provides an example of one way someone approached the lab report requirements.

Word count

Overall word count <= 3,500 words. This is the absolute maximum, otherwise a penalty of 1% per extra 10 words will be applied.
To calculate your word count:
1. Do not include: Title, abstract, tables, figures, reference list, or appendices.
2. Do include: Everything (text, numbers, symbols, citations, etc.) from the beginning of the introduction to the end of the discussion (but not content mentioned in #1).
The word counts suggested for each section below are just that - i.e., suggestions

Pre-pages

Cover sheet (UC's)

p. 1
Download coversheet and insert.

Cover page (yours)

p. 2
Title (~10-15 words)
- Does the title accurately convey the content of the report?
- Is it succinct, specific, and catchy/memorable?
Student name, ID.

Abstract

p. 3
~160-200 words.
Marked as part of Intro.
Describe the purpose of the study.
Summarise the literature review.
Summarise research question and/or hypotheses.
Describe the method without being overly detailed.
Summarise key results.
Summarise theoretical implications.
Summarise methodological implications.

Introduction (10%)

p. 4
~600 words.
Background reading: eReserve
- /Motivation & Satisfaction
  - /Motivation
  - /Satisfaction
Concisely explain the study's purpose.
Introduce and explain the research question and clearly state testable hypotheses.
The research question is up to you, and you should use your own ideas, but it must connect logically to the data and should draw on the background reading listed in the references.
Overview and critique relevant past research, identifying key issues which can be addressed in this study.
Create logical hypotheses with theoretical argument and citations.
Do the hypotheses state the direction (where appropriate) of the expected findings?
Do the hypotheses inappropriately imply causation for cross-sectional research?
Are the hypotheses clearly identified, possibly by number? (this usually makes it easier to organise the results and discussion).
Note that the literature review is only worth 10%; students could conceivably get full marks in this section using only the references available on ereserve. It's more about setting up the study with a clear, logical, well explained focus, and citing supplied literature as appropriate. Additional references may well be helpful, but also may not be particularly necessary. This is because the emphasis for this unit are on the other sections.

Method (15%)

~600 words
Clearly explain how the study was conducted in sufficient detail to allow a replication study, but without extraneous detail.
Will someone, say in Japan in 20 years time, have sufficient information to fully replicate the study?

Participants

Has a descriptive, relevant description of the participants been succinctly provided? (probably one to two paragraphs).
You may wish to compare the sample with these population statistics for UC students 1995-2005.

Measures/Instrumentation

Has the development of the materials been well described?
Are the questionnaire items described and examples provided? Only provide details for the instrumentation used to collect the data used in your report.
Is the measurement scale accurately described, including the meaning of high/low scores?
Copy of TUSMSLSEQ3 survey
Background to the instrumentation can be found in:

Procedure

- Is the sampling technique described?
- How long did participants take?
- Refusal rate?
  - Report the refusal rate and the reasons for refusal for the surveys you attempted to administer.
- Procedural anomalies?
  - e.g., were there are unanticipated responses or procedural occurrences?

Results (45%)

General

~1300 words.
The approach to analysis should follow two basic steps:
- Measurement validation - factor analysis, reliability analysis, composite scores, and possibly qualitative analysis. These analyses constitute intermediate techniques for creating reliable and valid data for the hypothesis testing;

- Hypothesis Testing - MLR, ANOVA, and possibly qualitative analysis. Once you have derived suitable composite measures, test your hypotheses (which you stated towards the end of the introduction) using at least one MLR (with three or more IVs) and at least one advanced ANOVA.
Clearly describe and explain the IVs and DVs.
Avoid reporting of results in a robotic (mindless) manner; strive to demonstrate the depth of your understanding.
Structure each of the results sections in a similar, logical manner.
Are SPSS variable names used in reporting and discussing results? (They are inappropriate)
Are the directions of any relationships reported?
Is the strength of relationship (e.g., Cohen's d, ¿2) reported where appropriate?

Data

Data entry
Download the Lab report data.

Screening

The data is provided as received, with minimal screening.
Make sure you screen your data thoroughly before analysing!
You may wish to check and contribute to the list of data screening errors.
Describe how the data was screened before proceeding with the statistical analyses:
- Were there any out of range values and what did you do about them?
- Was there any missing data and how did you deal with it?

Required analyses

The minimum required analyses for the lab report consist of:
- 1 factor analysis (FA), with corresponding reliability analyses and creation of composite scores for any factors used in the MLR and ANOVA analyses.
- 1 qualitative analysis
- 1 MLR (involving at least 3 IVs)
- 1 Advanced ANOVA, out of of:
  - factorial ANOVA (i.e., at least 2 x 2)
  - mixed ANOVA (i.e., at least 2 x (2))
  - ANCOVA
  - MANOVA
Note that you do not need to analyse all the data from the survey - only analyse and discuss data relevant to your hypotheses.

Qualitative Analysis (10%)

Present a qualitative analysis of at least one of the qualitative motivation or satisfaction variables.
- If analysing satisfaction, examine one or both of the "least" and "most" satisfied questions. These responses are independent of one another.
- If analysing motivation statistically, examine the three possible response fields together because they are related and dependent on one another. A multiple response analysis can be used.
Describe purpose of analysis.
Explain data coding.
Present descriptive results (frequencies/percentages), with the themes / trends illustrated by representative quotes.
For more details, see:
- Lecture - Advanced MLR, Qualitative, & ANOVA
- qualitative analysis, including Writing Up a Qualitative Analysis
- Qualitative (search of the Discussion group)

Factor analyses, reliabilities, & composite scores (15%)

Report fully the results of at least one factor analysis.
Whilst the minimum requirement for this section is to report fully on one FA, in order to do MLR and ANOVA, most people will probably find themselves wanting to use composite scores from at least two of Motivation, Satisfaction, and Learning Self-efficacy. In this case, options include:
- Present all FAs in full detail, and the other(s) in full detail too (if word count permits)
- Present one (or two) FAs in full detail, and summarise the results of the others.
- Present one (or two) FAs in full detail, and present the main results of the others in the
If you are focusing only one of Satisfaction, Motivation, and Learning Self-efficacy in your MLR and ANOVA, then you should just report on the one relevant FA.
Explain type & purpose of factor analyses.
Explain the extent to which FA assumptions were met (sample size, cases:variables ratio, factorability of correlation matrix)
Number of factors extracted & how this was decided. (Was the expected structure was evident?)
% of variance explained
Which items were retained/deleted and why?
Table of factor loadings.
Name and describe each factor.
Reliabilities.
Calculation of composite scores to represent latent factor scores
- Describe method used
- Descriptive statistics (could be covered instead in subsequent analyses)
Correlations amongst factors (could be covered instead in subsequent analyses).

For more detail see Writing Up a Factor Analysis (.doc).

Multiple linear regression (10%)

Explain type & purpose of regression.
Describe IVs and DVs, and any manipulations (recoding).
Explain the extent to which assumptions were met, particularly correlations between IVs and DV, and amongst IVs.
Present correlation table (could be part of the MLR coefficients).
Report amount of variance explained (R2)), and at each step if a hierarchical MLR is being conducted.
Report significance and size of R2.
Report significance, size, direction and relative contribution of each IV.
Present a table of multiple regression coefficients, including B for intercept & IVs and Beta, t, p, and possibly the zero-order and partial correlations for each IV.
State whether hypothesis/hypotheses was/were rejected.
For more detail see Writing up a MLR (.doc).

ANOVA (10%)

Present at least one advanced ANOVA. An advanced ANOVA is any ANOVA not taught in the second year unit (Experimental Psychology). The following types of ANOVAs are acceptable:
- Factorial ANOVA
- Mixed ANOVA
- ANOCOVA
- MANOVA
Explain purpose and type of ANOVA.
Explain IVs and DVs, and any manipulations (recoding).
Address assumptions, particularly normality of DVs & homogeneity of variance.
Provide a table of descriptive statistics, with cell means, standard deviations, ns and marginal (sub-total) and total descriptive statistics.
Figures (e.g., line graph, bar graph, or error bar graph) may be used to help illustrate mean differences amongst variables of interest (optional).
Present the statistical significance of main effects and interaction effects, eta-squared for the overall model, and the partial eta-squared for each IV. Include comment on direction and size of effects.
Present posthoc tests or planned comparisons to identify differences between any means which aren't clear from the main analysis.
State whether hypothesis/hypotheses was/were rejected, including the direction and effect size.
For more detail see Writing up an ANOVA (.doc).

Additional analyses

You can also report any additional analyses that you deem appropriate, however it will be possible to gain maximum marks by using just regression/ANOVA for hypothesis testing, along with relevant descriptive statistics.
You may wish to report more than the minimum. In marking, some account will be taken of the scope of the analysis undertaken. In other words if a more advanced analysis is appropriate (given the research questions(s) and/or hypothesis(es), then report on relevant additional analyses would represent higher quality work than a relatively well conducted, but more narrowly scoped analysis. Be aware, however, that there's much to also be said for keeping it simple and getting it right, within the word count, and avoiding being overly ambitious and unnecessarily complex. The best reports are usually not the most complex ones. If in doubt, go with analyses which meet the min. criteria, which relate to your central research question, and which you are confident about interpreting and presenting.

Discussion (30%)

~900 words
Insightful and balanced interpretation of the results with tangible recommendations for future practice and research.
Does the discussion demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the research area and the results?
Is this discussion boring because it just resummarises the results without providing useful, addition commentary?
Is the discussion limited in scope or does it demonstrate a breadth of thinking and analysis?
Does the discussion try to defend its hypotheses (or attack the hypotheses) or does it take a balanced, considered approach?
Do you consider the power of the study?
Do you consider the appropriateness of the sampling technique?
Do you consider the generalisability of the findings?
Does the discussion build upon the material reviewed in the introduction?
Do you consider a range of potential implications and applications of the current study?
Is the discussion balanced, emphasising the strengths and the weaknesses of the current study?
Appendices
Selected SPSS output with annotations to demonstrate how you arrived at your results.
Do not include the questionnaire (instead reference the online version); same with the survey administration guidelines.

References

Complete (i.e., none missing; all cited).
Make effective use of a core set of relevant, peer-reviewed, citations. This means citing appropriate references with meaningful depth (as opposed to lightly dumping references but without much context or explanation), particularly in the Introduction and/or Discussion.
Core set of references can also be supplemented with relevant other resources, such as useful non-peer-reviewed internet references. Make careful selection, however, to ensure you are citing high quality, academically acceptable material.
Use APA style, including APA style for electronic sources. For example, to cite the survey:

Neill, J. T. (2008). The university student's motivation, satisfaction, and learning self-efficacy questionnaire v.3. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au/download/attachments/43548693/TUSMSLSEQ3.doc?version=1

Appendices

Appendices are optional. It is possible to write a perfectly good report with no, or very few appendices. More appendices are not necessarily better.
Appendices are generally best used for providing additional detail which is relevant to understanding the main body, but the presentation of which would break the flow of the main report.
Note that the results section should be complete (e.g., as for a journal article) and therefore should not require any additional documentation.
You may provide copies of statistical output in the appendices, but it is generally not necessary. However, providing copies of output in appendices can help a marker to diagnose problems with results.
Appendices do not need to follow APA style, but they should be well organised, selective, and well labelled. Avoid dumping.
Do not include the surveys in the appendix; instead reference the relevant electronic documents1;
Unless you specifically refer to an appendix in the main body, then it shouldn't be included.

Submission

Due electronically: 9am, 9th June, 2008 (yes, this a public holiday)
Single-space the report; (double-spacing is only for hard copies - to allow comments)
Submit via email to james.neill@canberra.edu.au
- Subject: Lab report submission (If you use this subject line, you will receive an automatic email receipt. If you don't, you will receive a manual receipt within 24 hours.)
- Message: None necessary
- Attachment
  - Name your attachment using this format: Surname_studentnumber.ext e.g., Neill_u000000.doc
  - Only attach a single document (multiple file attachments will NOT be accepted)
- Do not submit a hard copy.
A -5% penalty per day will apply to late assignments, and extensions will only be granted in extreme circumstances because the whole semester has been available to complete the assignment. It is anticipated that students will experience several days during semester in which they are not physically and/or psychologically well enough to work on academic tasks. Therefore, this would not constitute grounds for extension. Substantial, unanticipated events which impact of your capacity to study (> 1 week) with documentation may provide reasonsable grounds for extension. Thus, please be warned: do not leave this assessment to the last minute.
Technology problems (e.g., hard drive crashes, internet access problems, corrupted disks, viruses, etc.) are entirely your problem and will not be accepted as grounds for an extension. You should take appropriate precautions to avoid these problems (e.g., make backups, have a plan B (and C), and avoid leaving the assignment to the last minute).

Marking

Each student is to contribute at least 5 cases of real data by the end of W4. Failure to do so will attract a -10% penalty on the lab report.
Marking for each section will reflect a combination of quality of execution/expression and level of ambition. It is recommended, however, to only attempt and present what you can competently and confidently handle, i.e., it is better to do the simple well, than attempt the complicated and flop. It is also very important that the lab report provide a cohensive, meaningful package. So there is no point in simply pursuing complexity as end in and of itself. In summary: Coherence and competence are most important; sophistication of the research will also be considered.
~10% of the marks in each section will reflect APA style.
Marking criteria template (with breakdown of marks applied to each section)

Attachments

Name	Size	Creator	Date
TUSMSLSEQ3.doc	169 kb	James Neill	Mar 04, 2008
Neill2008_WritingUpAMLR.doc	94 kb	James Neill	Mar 30, 2008
Neill2008_WritingUpAnANOVA.doc	64 kb	James Neill	Mar 30, 2008
SurveyResearch2008_LabReport_UNSCREENED.sav	109 kb	James Neill	Mar 26, 2008
Coversheet_7126-6667_LabReport_2008.rtf	133 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
Neill2008_WritingUpAFactorAnalysis.doc	198 kb	James Neill	Mar 30, 2008
TUSMSLSEQ3 - Demographics.doc	37 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
TUSMSLSEQ3 - Learning Self-Efficacy.doc	41 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
TUSMSLSEQ3 - Motivation.doc	352 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
TUSMSLSEQ3 - Satisfaction.doc	288 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
MarkingCriteria2008_template.xls	22 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
LabReport2007_HD_Sample.pdf	880 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008
LabReport2007_HD_Sample.xls	22 kb	James Neill	Mar 31, 2008

External links

2007 notes about the lab report
2007 lab report general feedback & revised marking criteria
Qualitative analysis
Research questions and hypotheses
Survey tracks engagement (The Australian, May, 2008)