Research Project B
Assessment Type 3: Evaluation “The words shaded in yellow on the student work provide evidence to support the assessment decision with reference to the Performance Standards. The comments and words shaded in pink are the commentary provided at implementation workshops to illustrate the elements of an Evaluation.” Is empathy a function of the brain which can be manipulated? Summary of the research question and outcome Performance Standards for Stage 2 Research Project B A P1 Thorough consideration and refinement of a research question. Research Project The purpose of the written summary (150–200 words) is to provide background information about the topic and nature of the Research Project for the external assessors. Suggested contents: • Research topic – title and reasons for choice An example: Written Summary Research Topic: Produce a design and work plan suitable for a mural outside the local swimming pool. I really like murals and am interested in how they are both designed and commissioned. I wanted to put a proposal to the council about putting a mural at the front entrance of the new swimming pool. I researched murals and kept records about their similarities and differences; location, themes, size, materials, colour, artist’s name etc. I also read a number of magazines and articles and talked to my art teacher about design techniques and materials. I interviewed three people who had completed commissions to produce murals in Australia, talked to quite a few councils who had supplied the money for public art and talked to the manager of the local swimming pool. My chosen capability was personal development and I demonstrated my initiative, creative abilities and understanding of notion/construction of identity. All of these things, combined with a growth in self-confidence and planning/problem-solving skills, have emerged as relevant aspects of my capability during my research project. My Research Outcome consists of a work plan which includes a design, together with suggested materials, construction details, and costs. Research Project: The Evaluation This portion of the research project is externally assessed (moderated)! It is worth 30% of the research project mark and covers 4 performance standards: S3, E1, E2 and E3. The evaluation must include: Some notes from SACE on the moderation/grading process and general points: Stage 2 Research Project performance standards Writing the Written Summary An example: Written Summary Comments from last year’s examiners report highlights some key issues and provides details about how to do your best in this external assessment: Evaluation of decisions made in response to challenges and/or opportunities (E2)
My research project question was inspired by a trip to India last year. From this experience I questioned how unwilling society was to eradicate social calamities, particularly poverty, and why some people were more inclined to act on issues of injustice than others. As I researched I discovered that empathy is a neurobiological function of the brain, particularly the left inferior frontal gyrus. I was able to correlate that neurobiological function was connected to the mirror neuron system, and is enhanced when life experiences stimulate an emotional response. I proved this through the application of two surveys which measured empathy levels. My outcome is in the form of a report explaining the results of my research. The key finding of my research is that empathy is not a static measurement but is dependent on age, gender and education, and is able to be manipulated and enhanced over time. (148 words)
Evaluation
In order to begin refining what was a broad topic I conducted extensive reading of online journals and articles to gain a greater understanding. The research process of literature review helped me refine my topic, think more deeply about the concepts and challenge my initial assumptions. For example, Zaki in his article published in Scientific American titled ‘What me care? Young are less empathetic’ blamed the effects of technology on society or our lack of a tribal community for our lack of empathy. In contrast an article by Wein on the National Institutes of Health website titled ‘Rats show empathy too’ presented a completely new angle. My initial idea that empathy was a quality restricted only to humans was challenged. This raised important questions within my research as to whether empathy was simply an emotion, or in fact a function of the brain.
Many of the articles I had built my understanding of empathy on conflicted with other sources so it became important for me to cross reference my research. It was through doing this that my investigation could be further refined, finding that empathy could be enhanced by ones mirror neuron system. It was from researching this that my inquiries led me to the Oxford Brain Journal which discussed how the mirror neuron system functioned and hence validated earlier sources. Not only was the content of this study pivotal for augmenting my understanding of how age, gender and education dictated one’s ability to empathise, but it acted as the catalyst to the development of the qualitative research.
In order to vary the types of research I used for this project I decided to conduct some qualitative tests for empathy on some of my peers to determine whether the results supported the claims of the academic articles or not. I was able to access a large number of psychological tests on the internet including The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES), Basic Empathy Scale (BES), the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) and the Yawning Test. My research indicated that many of these tests have weaknesses and can be misinterpreted. For example the Yawning Test is based on the premise that in a group of people, if one person yawns, the first person to catch the yawn would be the most empathic. I think there needs to be greater research to determine whether this test provides valid or credible results and consequently I dismissed it as a valid test for my purposes. However, one consistent aspect of the results of all of the tests is that empathy is higher in females than males and this is something I would like to test.
Having reviewed the descriptions of these various tests I decided to conduct two of the tests myself. The two tests which became the pivotal part of my qualitative research were the ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index’ test (IRI) and the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test (RME) both sourced through the Oxford Brain Journal. The two tests enabled me to try to independently validate my findings. As some of my sources stated that empathy could in fact be manipulated it was important for me to substantiate whether empathy was actually a static measurement. Initially, the ‘Interpersonal Reactivity’ test is a test designed to measure empathy through four different sub scales including testing perspective taking, empathetic concern, personal distress and fantasy scales. I chose to use this test because it is considered by many of the sources to demonstrate retest reliability and convergent validity. It was also easy and free to get a copy of the test online and the instructions were clear.This test was conducted in the school community and provided indications that empathy was dependent on gender. However, further research indicated that the sub scales which composed the test were uncorrelated and deemed that a higher score in any one sub-scale did not indicate a greater level of empathy. Not only was this detrimental to the substantiation of my findings but it also meant I had used a lot of time conducting and evaluating 150 sets of results. This was a major weakness in my research and highlighted flaws in the approach I took.
As it was initially difficult to draw conclusions from the findings using the ‘Interpersonal Reactivity’ test I sought out another test to use to help me validate my results. The secondary survey I selected was the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test. This test requires participants to determine mental states from photos of pairs of eyes. It has been used in many studies around the world and is considered by experts to be a test that is not influenced by a participant’s cognitive ability or cultural background. However, I did determine that the test required the subject to have a good vocabulary and an understanding of a range of emotions to select from. For example, a participant needed to be able to tell the difference between emotions such as such as being skeptical, sarcastic, aghast, insisting, impatient, preoccupied or flirtatious based on the photos of eyes. This test was readily accessible on the internet and easy to administer as it could be done online. I ensured that each participant remained anonymous for privacy reasons. In order to draw valid conclusions I made sure that there were equal numbers of male and female participants from a broad spectrum of social groups and a range of different ages. This is what eventually provided the success of my findings through this test. I found that age, gender and education were all factors which influenced empathy, proving that the empathetic brain could in fact be manipulated. It is also rewarding to know that empathy at a young age is still developing and growing throughout adolescence.
Although the two tests were conducted in order to validate my findings, the participants did not compose a true cross-section of society, given that it was conducted only within the school and local community.
As I expanded my research into the field of empathy, I came to find that there were many convoluted concepts which were difficult to understand; hence it became important for me to contact experts in the field of neurology to ask them for clearer explanations. However, this is a very narrow field and there were few experts in the field in Adelaide so this was a challenge that could not be overcome. As I was unable to contact a local expert I could have tried emailing or phoning interstate or overseas experts in the field of psychology but I did not follow up this options. The many complex terms and concepts I discovered were difficult to explain in a simple manner but this has forced me to improve my vocabulary.
Another problem I faced was that the results of tests indicated whether one was empathetic or not but did not help determine why. Much of the literature suggested that challenging circumstances and life experiences could add to one’s empathetic ability but I was not able to test this. It might have been useful for me to use the results from the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test’ and research further by interviewing a sample of highly empathetic and less empathetic respondents to find out about their life experiences or backgrounds. It would have been relevant to try to determine why people are more empathetic.
Just as there was much strength in my research, there were similarly many weaknesses which limited the effectiveness of my outcome. I failed to manage my time appropriately for my research intention and hence was unable to interrelate various aspects of the empathetic brain. I had discovered that empathy was principally a function of the left inferior frontal gyrus as this was the sector of the brain which distinguished emotional responses. However, I found that there were many other subdivisions of the brain which coordinated responses and hence my research was not fully reflective of empathy. As I delved deeper into what seemed like a containable topic and my understanding grew I realized the enormity of the topic and hope to be able to further explore the topic in the future as part of my chosen career in medicine.
As attested through my outcome, a formal report, empathy is a function of the brain which can be enhanced. Consequently, my findings have become important in justifying the importance of immersion learning in society. For this reason, my outcome can be considered to be valuable for schools who might explore how to provide opportunities for students to improve their empathy over time.
Planning Development Synthesis Evaluation
P2 Thorough planning of research processes that are highly appropriate to the research question. D1 Thorough and highly resourceful development of the research.
D2 In-depth analysis of information and exploration of ideas to develop the research.
D3 Highly effective development of knowledge and skills specific to the research question.
D4 Thorough and informed understanding and development of one or more capabilities. S1 Insightful synthesis of knowledge, skills, and ideas to produce a resolution to the research question.
S2 Insightful and thorough substantiation of key findings relevant to the research outcome.
S3 Clear and coherent expression of ideas. E1 Insightful evaluation of the research processes used, specific to the research question.
E2 Critical evaluation of decisions made in response to challenges and/or opportunities specific to the research processes used.
E3 Insightful evaluation of the quality of the research outcome
B P1 Consideration and some refinement of a research question.
P2 Considered planning of research processes that are appropriate to the research question. D1 Considered and mostly resourceful development of the research.
D2 Some complexity in analysis of information and exploration of ideas to develop the research.
D3 Effective development of knowledge and skills specific to the research question.
D4 Informed understanding and development of one or more capabilities. S1 Considered synthesis of knowledge, skills, and ideas to produce a resolution to the research question.
S2 Substantiation of most key findings relevant to the research outcome.
S3 Mostly clear and coherent expression of ideas. E1 Considered evaluation of the research processes used, specific to the research question.
E2 Some complexity in evaluation of decisions made in response to challenges and/or opportunities specific to the research processes used.
E3 Considered evaluation of the quality of the research outcome
C P1 Some consideration of a research question, but little evidence of refinement.
P2 Satisfactory planning of research processes that are appropriate to the research question. D1 Satisfactory development of the research.
D2 Satisfactory analysis of information and exploration of ideas to develop the research.
D3 Satisfactory development of knowledge and skills specific to the research question.
D4 Satisfactory understanding and development of one or more capabilities. S1 Satisfactory synthesis of knowledge, skills, and ideas to produce a resolution to the research question.
S2 Substantiation of some key findings relevant to the research outcome.
S3 Generally clear expression of ideas. E1 Recount with some evaluation of the research processes used.
E2 Some evaluation, with mostly description of decisions made in response to challenges and/or opportunities specific to the research processes used.
E3 Satisfactory evaluation of the quality of the research outcome
D P1 Basic consideration and identification of a broad research question.
P2 Partial planning of research processes that may be appropriate to the research question. D1 Development of some aspects of the research.
D2 Collection rather than analysis of information, with some superficial description of an idea to develop the research.
D3 Superficial development of some knowledge and skills specific to the research question.
D4 Basic understanding and development of one or more capabilities S1 Basic use of information and ideas to produce a resolution to the research question.
S2 Basic explanation of ideas related to the research outcome.
S3 Basic expression of ideas. E1 Superficial description of the research processes used.
E2 Basic description of decisions made in response to challenges and/or opportunities specific to the research processes used.
E3 Superficial evaluation of the quality of the research outcome
E P1 Attempted consideration and identification of an area for research.
P2 Attempted planning of an aspect of the research process. D1 Attempted development of an aspect of the research.
D2 Attempted collection of basic information, with some partial description of an idea.
D3 Attempted development of one or more skills that may be related to the research question.
D4 Attempted understanding and development of one or more capabilities. S1 Attempted use of an idea to produce a resolution to the research question.
S2 Limited explanation of an idea or an aspect of the research outcome.
S3 Attempted expression of ideas. E1 Attempted description of the research process used.
E2 Attempted description of decisions made in response to a challenge and/or opportunity specific to the research processes used.
E3 Attempted evaluation of the quality of the research outcome
Evaluation: Written Summary
• Research processes – identification of main activities
• Chosen capability – brief description/explanation
• Research Outcome – brief description/explanation
Students:
• evaluate the research processes used
• reflect on the chosen capability and its relevance to themselves and their research project
• reflect on the research outcome and its value to themselves and, where applicable, to others.
• a 150 word written summary of the research project, research processes used, and research outcome (the summary provides background information for the assessors and forms part of the evaluation)
• an evaluation in written form; it can include visual material such as photographs and diagrams integrated into the written text
• a written assessment of a maximum of 1500 words (excluding the written summary).
• The evaluation is against four performance standards and is given a mark out of 30, SACE assessors examine your teacher’s grading of your work and confirm (leave it alone)/change this based on the level of work produced and the grade assigned to it (to ensure adherence to standards)
• E1 is given a mark out of 15, and E2,E3 and S3 are combined to give a mark out of 15 for a total of 30
• First and Third person can be used throughout both the outcome and the evaluation
• This piece of work should be a critical evaluation of the research and its processes, not a narrative/list of what you did – these responses can only achieve at the C grade level.
• It is best to structure your work into subheadings (provided A+ exemplar is a good reference for this)
• They are looking for analysis of sources – they want to know about reliability, credibility and bias and expect some evidence of thought about how and why you made decisions about your research and its processes
The purpose of the written summary (150 words) is to provide background information about the topic and nature of the Research Project for the external assessors.
Suggested contents:
• Research topic – title and reasons for choice
• Research processes – identification of main activities
• Chosen capability – brief description/explanation
• Research Outcome – brief description/explanation
Research Topic: Produce a design and work plan suitable for a mural outside the local swimming pool.
I really like murals and am interested in how they are both designed and commissioned. I wanted to put a proposal to the council about putting a mural at the front entrance of the new swimming pool.
I researched murals and kept records about their similarities and differences; location, themes, size, materials, colour, artist’s name etc. I also read a number of magazines and articles and talked to my art teacher about design techniques and materials. I interviewed three people who had completed commissions to produce murals in Australia, talked to quite a few councils who had supplied the money for public art and talked to the manager of the local swimming pool.
My chosen capability was personal development and I demonstrated my initiative, creative abilities and understanding of notion/construction of identity. All of these things, combined with a growth in self-confidence and planning/problem-solving skills, have emerged as relevant aspects of my capability during my research project.
My Research Outcome consists of a work plan which includes a design, together with suggested materials, construction details, and costs.
Markers drew attention to issues regarding word count. Teachers are reminded that in addition to the 150 word written summary, there is a 1500 word maximum for the evaluation. The majority of students wrote between 1400 and 1500 words and included an appropriate summary. However, at times word count was difficult to judge, especially if the work was over the word limit and a word count for the summary was not provided. It would be helpful for a word count to be included after the written summary, or if students provided two separate word counts — one for the written summary and one for the evaluation. Some students did not provide a
150 word summary, or it was indistinguishable from the body of the evaluation. For others, it was unclear whether the word count on the cover sheet included the summary. Markers commented that a great number of students spent an overly large proportion (up to two-thirds) of the evaluation addressing specific feature E1, one-third addressing E2, and very little or nothing on addressing E3. This reduced their opportunities to achieve at the highest level.
Evaluation of the research processes used, specific to the research question (E1)
In 2014 there was a minor change to this specific feature, which required students to evaluate their research processes in the context of their specific research question. Students then needed to tailor their evaluation of a particular process to the specific question they had formulated, rather than resorting to generic judgments about the research processes.
Markers observed that in the most successful responses, students:
• gave a general overview of a process and then talked specifically about a source, providing concrete examples of reliability, credibility, and bias
• used a range of qualifiers to differentiate between the levels of usefulness
• used and named specific research sources and provided balanced judgments comprising both strengths and limitations of the usefulness, value, and reliability of the process, particularly in relation to their research question. In doing so, they showed understanding of how the usefulness of a process may vary, according to what question it is being employed to help answer
• provided reasons as to why a process was valid, reliable, or credible
• made clear links between the research process and its value to the research (valuable and credible information) and how it contributed to the increase in the student’s knowledge and/or the quality of the outcome
• clearly distinguished between the terms credible and reliable and did not use them together as though they were one word.
Less effective responses:
• demonstrated a misunderstanding of what is meant by research processes. Many students still used examples such as mind maps, visits to the library, journals, how they referenced, and how they used pens to highlight important information. As this has been a recurring issue in this subject, teachers are encouraged to provide explicit definitions of research processes that are more helpful; for example, that research processes are the activities undertaken that provide a student with evidence or data for their research
• provided very little about the validity of site or author, and made simplistic judgments about how findings were valid because they came from an expert, rather than linking this process to answering their research question
• made brief references to how useful the research processes were for them without explaining how or why
• named the research process, but focussed on what the student did, rather than how useful the process was to the research or what evidence or data the process provided
• relied on recount and diary-like discussion, often reflecting on how enjoyable it was for them, and how it helped them with their other subjects, rather than actual evaluation
• discussed why they did not choose a certain process — for example, a survey — rather than discussing the processes they had used.
This specific feature was new in 2014. It invites students to engage in a complex level of thought, forming judgments about the decisions they made in response to challenges and/or opportunities they faced. This proved to be very challenging for most students.
Markers observed that successful responses:
• identified a problem that arose, but mostly focused on the decision they made regarding the problem/challenge and based their judgment around the consequences of the decision in light of how well they progressed in their research as a result
• focused their evaluation primarily on the decisions made and their consequences, rather than just describing the problem or challenge
• critically weighed up the consequences of the decisions made and how these impacted on their research outcome; for example, whether the decision had a negative or positive impact on their research
• evaluated rather than recounted their challenges, and recognised the fact that when something goes wrong it can open up other (often better) avenues
• did not consider ‘time management’ as a challenge, unless time limitations particularly impacted on the research process
• focused on only a few challenges and decisions in detail
• used specific evidence to support assertions.
On the other hand, markers noted that the least effective responses:
• described or listed problems but ignored the decisions they made
• identified challenges and described what they did as a result, without identifying the ‘decision’ they made or weighing up whether it was good or bad
• discussed what went wrong or not to plan, often relating to time management or lack of motivation with no link to the decisions made
• contained lots of ‘could have, should have, and would have’ statements
• made judgments but did not provide reasons as to why these decisions/opportunities/challenges were useful/limiting to the research
• restricted their ‘challenges’ to issues such as poor time management, lack of motivation, wasting time, not doing homework outside of class, lack of responses to emails requesting information, losing USBs, catching up on missed lessons
• named the problem and then stated what they could have done, rather than showing the link between the decision and how this impacted on the outcome or led to another challenge
• for the most part did not even mention the words ‘decisions’, ‘challenges’, or ‘opportunities’. At best, they suggested other things they could have done, without examining consequences or implications
• stated that ‘this went wrong, this went right’, but made no explicit judgments about why and how this affected their research and outcome
• provided explanatory lists of what could not be done, usually in terms of lack of time or personal organisation
• shifted the blame, by complaining that requests for information or interviews were ignored or tardy.
Evaluation of the quality of the research outcome (E3)
This specific feature was changed to an evaluation of the quality of the research outcome, rather than a reflection on its value to the student and/or others, as in previous years. This required a shift in focus to the quality of the research outcome. When the research outcome was defined as the resolution to the student’s research question, this led to far greater insight and recognition of the student’s research in the context of the field of knowledge. However, when students focused on the quality of the mode — for example, the PowerPoint presentation or their spelling and grammar if written — their evaluation tended to be superficial and generic rather than providing an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and understanding about research as an intellectual activity.
In general, markers noted that in successful responses, students:
• provided a realistic rather than an exaggerated evaluation of the quality of the outcome
• made it clear how the question was answered and how well, discussing strengths/weaknesses/limitations etc.
• provided several reasons for their judgments about the outcome’s quality, including its value to self and others. They then made balanced comments on the value of outcome to self but did not overestimate its importance to others, showing awareness that their research is not the greatest work on that subject ever undertaken
• provided specific discussion of how quality could be improved, linking this to processes rather than time management
• discussed how a range of sources backed up their key findings or discussed how some credible sources conflicted, therefore showing different views on the question
• based their judgment about the overall quality of the outcome after assessing the success in meeting the set objective/goal and critically evaluated the usefulness of the outcome
• gave a balanced view as to the quality of the outcome, including evidence produced, conclusions reached, and if they were able to produce new evidence.
Conversely, markers noted that the less effective responses tended to:
• exaggerate the work’s quality and impact, making claims such as ‘the world will benefit from my research’
• describe what form their outcome had taken
• make reference to the Research Project as a whole rather than the particular outcome, generically discussing how they benefited from completing the whole Research Project
• talk about how the outcome was written, what it looked like, and give general terms such as ‘it was great’ rather than a balanced assessment of strengths and limitations
• make little or no mention of the word quality; rather, many talked about how enjoyable it all was
• focus on the format rather than the findings; some research questions did not indicate the chosen format but then decided to evaluate the format — for example, a brochure
• make general statements about what they learned or repeat some of the issues already covered in specific feature E1.
Expression of ideas (S3)
This specific feature assesses students’ ability to express their ideas.
Generally this has been very well done over the years. Markers noted that students were most successful in this area when they:
• provided a generally sophisticated, coherently written document that tried to target the criteria holistically rather than in specific chunks; however, the use of subheadings worked well for some as well as key words
• were set out in a clear logical manner and clearly structured according to the three specific features
• made good use of vocabulary specific to the question, research processes, and outcome; also appropriately used terminology such as credibility, reliability, validity, and accuracy
• were logical, and had an easy-to-follow paragraph and sentence structure
• used headings that related to the current subject outline.
Features of the least effective evidence included:
• failing to separate the summary from the rest of the evaluation
• failing to use section headings, correct terminology, or new paragraphs to discuss a new point
• repeating information to reach the word count
• exhibiting poor organisation, repetition of material, lack of paragraphs, poor proof-reading, spelling errors, and excessively long and poorly constructed sentences
• using informal language with no clear structure or logical order
• revealing poor flow which made the meaning difficult to ascertain
• using incorrect words and expressions, suggesting poor understanding of some concepts such as validity
• applying incorrect headings or not using them at all
• utilising inconsistent syntax and sentence structure
• missing paragraphs
• repeating work — either retelling or explaining what was done rather than evaluating
• providing a very low word count.
