That's what I put, some are iffy but if argued well they might go through.
Lab experiment: multiple groups/conditions where participants can be randomly assigned, manipulation of IV to see it's effect on DV (controlled setting would be better)
Purposive sampling, then opportunity. Purposive because participants had to know how to use a laptop well, speak english fluently, and could argue also of similar age (all of this could skew results). Opportunity because they were "already there" on the website or whatever.
Alternative Questionnaire (ask about study/note taking habits and their grades, then see if there is correlation). Reason efficiency because more participants very quickly and much cheaper.
Ethics that were applied or safe to assume they were: debriefing, confidentiality (not anonymity), informed consent (argued it was enough info and justified but probably slight deception would be better).
Ethics that could be additionally applied/should have been applied: protecting from psychological harm (the researchers should actively monitor students and possibly intervene if one is experiencing stress on eg. test or multitasking), right to withdraw themselves (participants might have felt that because they on the website or agreed to take part they thought they "needed" to continue even when possibly experiencing stress so researchers could remind them multiple times before/during/after that they can stop), right to withdraw data even after they "left" (researchers could remind them that and say they do not need to provide any reason for it).