IB Psychology HL 4.3.4 Hl Technology and Cognition Questions

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more research methods used to study the interaction between technology and cognitive processes.

Although the discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant research methods may include, but are not limited to:
- experimental methods
- correlational studies
- case studies
- meta-analyses
- surveys

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Mueller and Oppenheimer's (2014) experiment on the use of laptops versus paper in note-taking by college students
- Sparrow et al.'s (2011) experiments on transactive memory and digital amnesia.
- Rosen et al.'s (2013) true experiment on the influence of induced multi-tasking on cognitive processes
- Rosser et al.'s (2007) correlational study on video games and visual attention.
- Hirst et al.'s (2009) correlational study on media coverage and accuracy of memory
- Uttal et al.'s (2013) meta-analysis on technology and spatial reasoning skills
- Chou and Edges's (2012) use of a survey in the study of the availability heuristic in thinking.

Evaluation of the research method(s) may include, but is not limited to:
- issues of validity (internal, ecological, population, construct) and credibility
- reliability
- sampling technique
- generalizability/transferability of findings
- demand characteristics
- extraneous and confounding variables
- the appropriateness of the methods for the aim.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

Candidates may evaluate one research method to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate more than one research method to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.