Practice Activity 2 - Writing Integrated Task (20 mins | Discussion)
INSTRUCTIONS: Read and listen to the passages from questions 1 and 2 from the Quiz.
- While you read and listen, write your own notes.
- Then write a brief essay to discuss the relationship between the two sources.
When writing, use the essay template to help you. You have 20 minutes.
Reading Essay:
The field of psychology is in crisis due to the failure to consistently replicate research studies and findings. The replication of findings is one of the defining hallmarks of science. Scientists must be able to repeat studies and get the same results for their findings to become a part of scientific knowledge. Replication is critical because it increases confidence in results. For example, if you collect satisfaction data among homeless people living in Kolkata, India, for example, it might seem strange that they would report high satisfaction with their food, as Diener found in a 2001 study. However, if you find the exact same result, but at a different time, and with a different sample of homeless people living in Kolkata, you will feel more confident that this result is true, as Diener did in 2006.
More recently, the field of psychology is facing research turmoil. It turns out that many studies in psychology—including many highly cited studies—do not replicate. This is a serious problem. As Popper asserted in his 2005 essay, we do not even trust our own observations, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated coincidence or good fortune, but with observations that, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are reliable. Unless we can test findings and consistently get the same results, we cannot trust our research.
In an era where news is instantaneous, the failure to replicate research also raises important questions about the quality of results. If a study cannot be replicated and the same results found, we may question the quality of the research design in either study. People have the right to know if they can trust research evidence. Researchers must ensure that not only the same results are achieved, but that appropriate methods are used with precision. For example, if Diener replicated his study of the homeless in a different city or if he used different questions in his survey, we would not have the same trust in results. Only with precise methods can researchers trust findings and make recommendations that actually benefit, rather than harm, people.
Finally, non-reproducibility is disturbing because it suggests the possibility that the original research was done sloppily. Even worse is the suspicion that the research may have been falsified. In science, faking results is the most unforgivable sin; replication prevents such malpractice. All researchers must recommit to replicating studies to ensure the trustworthiness of evidence.
Listening:
Open-source: Adapted from Diener, E. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2023). The replication crisis in psychology. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/q4cvydeh; CCBY4.0.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Once done, post your essay on this discussion board. Read at least two other students’ essays. Tell each student at least one thing that is good about the essay and say why. Read at least two other students’ essays. Tell each student at least one thing that is good about the essay and say why.
Bad example: I liked your essay. Thank you my dear friend!
Though friendly, this is a weak response because the writer is vague. He did not say what he liked about the essay or why.
Good example: I like how your essay uses a wide variety of reporting vocabulary – I counted 8 different reporting verbs. Thank you for the great example by dear friend!
This is a great response because the writer shares a specific strong point in the essay and explains why. It is also friendly, which is always nice.