WK3 APUS Around The Web with Cognitive Psychology Paper

WK3 APUS Around The Web with Cognitive Psychology Paper

Assignment Instructions

Week 3 Around the Web with Cognitive Psychology

150 Possible Points

This assignment is intended to enhance your ability to make connections between the course readings and “real-life” situations and the everyday occurrence of cognitive processes as depicted in popular media and professional research sources. This is your opportunity to express your thoughts succinctly and coherently. Be creative, but ensure that the reader is to able to discern that you can critique the article/media source in a scholarly way as related to course material. This is a great launching point as you begin brainstorming for the Week 7 Creative Project.

Assignment Instructions

For this assignment, you are tasked with identifying a research article or reliable, popular media source (news segment, blog article, etc.) that focuses on a topic related to cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, of a specific process or function of these area have addressed in the first three weeks of the course.

Upon identifying your select media option, you will draft a 5 to 6-page reflection paper, summarizing the media sources’ topic, and its relevance to our understanding of cognition and learning. Any topic discussed in our readings is fair game, but needs to be clearly depicted in the source you chose.

In your submission, please be sure to clearly address the following topics:

• Briefly describe the article/media source you selected (e.g. its plot, characters, themes, etc.).
  • This description does not need to be lengthy (the entire plot or process explained does not need to be explained; hit the high points).
  • Rather, the summary should be sufficient to demonstrate that you reviewed the article/media source and can convey the most relevant aspects as they relate to cognitive psychology.
• Describe the cognitive psychology concept.
  • What does it mean in relation to your article/media source?
  • How you see it displayed in the article/media source you chose?
• What new information have you learned about cognitive psychology and how it is portrayed in the public eye?
  • Does the information portrayed in the article have broader implications for the field of cognitive psychology as it is presented?
  • Why or why not, and what might the effects be with changes or remaining the same?
• Close your work with a brief, but succinct summary of the major take away points from your exploration around the web with cognitive psychology.

Include a minimum 5 to 6 pages, not including the required APA formatted required title and reference pages; submit APA style in-text citations throughout the work as well.

The basic parts of a paper should also be included; these are the opening, introduction section, with a precise thesis statement, the body of the paper with clear, discernable headings where appropriate, and a conclusion that restates the thesis and summarizes the major points of the entire paper.

The APUS Library provides APA formatting resources at Writing@APUS. You may also see Purdue’s OWL https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ for general APA formatting information and for formatting help on many topics.

All submissions are due by the end of Week 3, Sunday at 11:55 pm ET.

See the Grading Rubric Below

Criterion	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Improvement	Unsatisfactory	Points Earned
Relevance of article/media source 40 Points Possible	Student clearly presents the concept studied and the concept is clearly contained within the article/media source chosen.	Student provides a mostly accurate description of a concept discussed. At times, description lacks coherence.	Student provides a marginal description of a concept discussed. Sufficient details and supporting evidence are lacking.	Does not clearly describe a concept studied.
Description of concept 40 Points Possible	Student provides an accurate description of the concept observed in the article/media source. Description is thorough and gives examples.	Student provides a mostly accurate description of the concept observed in the article/media source. At times, description lacks coherence.	Student provides a marginal description of the concept observed in the article/media source. Inaccuracies are present. Sufficient details and supporting evidence are lacking.	Does not describe the concept observed in the article/media source or the description is mostly inaccurate.
Description of the article/media source 20 Points Possible	Student provides an accurate, thorough, and rich description of the article/media source.	Student provides a mostly accurate description of the article/media source. At times, description lacks coherence or may be vague.	Student provides a marginal description of the article/media source. Inaccuracies are present. Sufficient details and supporting evidence are lacking.	Does not describe the article/media source in enough detail to indicate that the student has actually seen the film or read the entire book.
Connections between the source and the concept 30 Points Possible	Student provides an accurate, thorough analysis of the connection between the article/media source and the chosen concept.	Student provides a mostly accurate analysis of the connection between the article/media source and the chosen social psychology concept. At times description lacks coherence.	Student provides a marginal analysis of the connection between the article/media source and the chosen social psychology concept. Sufficient details and supporting evidence are lacking.	Does not analyze the connection between the article/media source and the chosen social psychology concept.
Overall Presentation of material (Flow, Clarity, APA Format, Use of Proper Grammar/Spelling to convey thoughts) 20 points possible	Submission is clear and coherent, flows well, and has a professional appearance. Few if any errors in grammar/spelling are made for written entries or in spoken English for video entries.	Submission is understandable, but flow may be stilted or meaning unclear in spots. Some written or spoken grammatical errors are evident. Submission appears “amateurish” in spots.	Submission seems choppy or difficult to understand. Submission appears mostly amateurish or unprofessional. Many errors in grammar/spelling in evident.	Submission appears largely unprofessional, messy, and contains numerous grammar/spelling errors.
Summary Comments: