Isn't the question about why he used the dependent samples t-test instead of, say, a chi-square or an independent samples test or something else.
List the statistical assumptions for this design.
There will be a correlation between positive and negative feedback and missing assignments. The variance from each treatment will be equal. Students will have less missing assignments after receiving positive feedback rather than negative feedback.
You're mixing statistical assumptions for performing the t-test with research hypotheses.
Rather, stick to the assumptions of the dependent samples t-test. And read carefully.
Maybe there's a difference between independent and dependent samples t-test, e.g.
regarding equality of variance assumption. And your use of "correlation" here might
distract you from more important topics.
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses (e.g., violations of assumptions) of this study's design.
How can 7.3 missed assignments be less than 3.5 missed assignments?
v) Provide an effect size measure, which may require part-hand calculation, and include your interpretation in your conclusion (above).
There was no significant change in students feedback from the psychologist.
This reminds me of what I have long thought an anomaly in methods. Its common to learn methods and not learn the experimental design that allows you to understand how to set up the experiment - which is commonly the most important part. So you end up with invalid results.
I took regression and ANOVA over a year ago in my graduate program (and learned the former to some extent over two decades ago). Only next semmester will I finally take experimental design. It should be the other way around.
This reminds me of what I have long thought an anomaly in methods. Its common to learn methods and not learn the experimental design that allows you to understand how to set up the experiment - which is commonly the most important part.
That might explain why so many questions here in this forum are of the kind
"I have performed an ANOVA. Now tell me something about the interpretation of
technical detail XY" , not "I am studying XY, I set up a study with design XY and
measured XYZ, my sample size is NN, and now I want to answer questiion XY..."
I don't know where the figure "10" comes from. And I do not know exactly what you mean by "the design
was not normal" and/or where you know it from that something was not normal. And a study is not useless
only because a certain statistical technique cannot be used to analyse its data.