Jill Binker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu:
>Even assuming the test yields a good measure of how well the students know
>the material (which should be investigated, rather than assumed), it isn't
>telling you whether students have learned more from the class itself,
>unless you assume all students started from the same place.
Good point! I was unconsciously making that very assumption, and I
thank you for reminding me that it _is_ an assumption.
I had already decided to lead off with an assessment test the first
day of class next time, for the students' benefit. (If they should
be in a more or less advanced class, the sooner they know it the
better for them.) But as you point out, that will benefit me too.
The other instructor has developed a pre-assessment test over the
past couple of years, and has offered to let me use it too, so we'll
be able to establish comparable baselines.
>As I gather is common in this field, the problem isn't statistics per se,
>but framing questions that can be answered by the kind of data you can get.
Yes, I agree. It's easy to crank the numbers; the hard part is
deciding what hypothesis to test, which test to apply, and how to
interpret the results. That's where I'm particularly grateful for
everyone's feedback.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
