Aim: The purpose of this assignment is to assess your ability to understand and interpret flaws in design, methodology, results and drawing conclusions from a poorly designed experiment. Instructions: You are an academic who has read and reviewed and article by Dr Techphobe. In this article you have noted several errors in hypotheses, design, method, analysis and interpretation. You have been provided with the manuscript, the data set and the introduction to your letter to the editor. Using what you’ve learned in this course so far review the article noting and explaining any errors you find and recommending any changes that you can think of. There will be many.
The following criteria will be used to assess your responses Identification and Explanation of Errors: / 40 Correction of Errors: / 40 Presentation, writing style and expression: /20 Total Mark /100 Word Length: 1500 words
Structure: There are several ways to structure this assignment. One is to have a subsection for each of design, methodology, analysis and interpretation. Under each subsection make a statement identifying the error “On page XX line YY the author claims …” explain the error, then make a recommendation or correction “A more appropriate claim/analysis/interpretation would be….”. For any change in analysis include RELEVANT output from SPSS. Tips: • Note that the correction of the errors is worth as much as the identification and explanation of the errors. So be thorough in your corrections. • Don’t bother looking up the references in the manuscript, they are not real. If there are any fallacious claims made by the author that you want to correct, find a peer reviewed source to substantiate your correction and include the reference in APA format. • If you are having trouble with procrastination set a timer for 30mins and see if you can race it. Then give yourself a reward at the end. If you feel like it do it agai