Age differences in visual-spatial memory

Details
Sample A: Children ages 6-8
Sample B: Adults 25-60

1) Begin with an abstract.
2) Introduction (1 – 2) pages): Summarize Kearins’ research in 2-3 sentences, focus on her experimental designs. Succinctly summarize her experimental strategy. Then discuss any relevant research that specifically pertains to age differences in visual-spatial memory.C clearly spell out the hypothesis you are testing. Explain why you are choosing this hypothesis (give a rationale based on your review of the literature). Your hypothesis or prediction should follow logically from your lit review.

3) Methodology (1-2 pages): Describe how you developed your experiment. How did you go about implementing it? Who was your sample? Describe each step carefully. You need to analyze correct replacements and time taken to replace items. Include in discussion what worked logistically, what didn’t. Do NOT include any results here. Clearly define and describe your two samples (no raw data, summaries)

4) Results: Your data need to be presented in three forms:
a) Narrative description;
b) table (place in the article in the correct position, not at the end); model on table in Kearins article (but make APA style current);
c) graph model on bar graph in Kearins article (but make APA style current).

Table and graph should follow the model practiced in the table and graph assignment.
Clearly describe the results in your own words.
Results need to be based minimally on n=12 (minimally n=6 in each group). Think about the best presentation of data in table and graph.
Make sure to have tables and graphs on correct replacements as well as the time it took for participants to replace the objects.

Tables and graphs should be placed where they naturally go in the flow of the results section. Do not put your tables and graphs at the end. Use the Kearins article as model. Do not put in an appendix.

5) Conclusion (1 page): Clearly state whether your hypothesis/predictions/assumptions were supported by your results or not. Discuss the implications of the experiment by returning to the lit review in the introduction (are your results (in)consistent with the literarture?). Discuss what you would have done differently in retrospect. Contextualize your results explicitly using Kearins research. Discuss suggestions for future research.