Chris Olsen wrote:
> First of all, I have no clue how one would define grading on the curve.
> ...
> My preferred method is to construct tests & quizzes in a way that gives
> an approximately normal distribution, weight their z-scores, and sum
> to a result.
Sounds as though you have a pretty go
Jon Miller wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > You assume that it was my section that performed worse! (That's true,
> > but I carefully avoided saying so.)
> >
> > Section A (mine) meets at 8 am, Section B at 2 pm. Not only does the
> > time of day quite possibly have an effect, but since most peop
Stan Brown wrote:
> 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
Gus Gassmann wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > Another instructor and I gave the same exam to our sections of a
> > course. Here's a summary of the results:
> >
> > Section A: n=20, mean=56.1, median=52.5, standard dev=20.1
> > Section B: n=23 mean=73.0, median=70.0, standard dev=21.6
> >
> > Now
esday, October 2 2001Volume 2000 : Number 520
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:33:53 -0300
From: Gus Gassmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They look different; are they really?
Stan Brown wrote:
> Another instructor and I gave the same exam to our sections of a
> course. Here's
Stan Brown wrote:
> You assume that it was my section that performed worse! (That's true,
> but I carefully avoided saying so.)
>
> Section A (mine) meets at 8 am, Section B at 2 pm. Not only does the
> time of day quite possibly have an effect, but since most people prefer
> not to have 8 am cla
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Gus Gassmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> Another instructor and I gave the same exam to our sections of a
>> course. Here's a summary of the results:
>> Section A: n=20, mean=56.1, median=52.5, standard dev=20.1
>> Section B: n=23 mean=73.0, median=70.0, stand
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
Be careful of the move from data to conclusion! You say "whether one class
really is learning the subject better than the other, and by how much?"
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
were these two different sections at the same class time? that is ... 10AM
on mwf?
if not ... then there can be all kinds of reasons why means would be this
different ... nonewithstanding one or two real deviant scores in either
section ...
could also be different quality in the instruction ..
Stan Brown wrote:
> Another instructor and I gave the same exam to our sections of a
> course. Here's a summary of the results:
>
> Section A: n=20, mean=56.1, median=52.5, standard dev=20.1
> Section B: n=23 mean=73.0, median=70.0, standard dev=21.6
>
> Now, they certainly _look_ different. (If
Stan Brown wrote:
> _is_ there a valid statistical method to say whether
> one class really is learning the subject better than the other, and
> by how much?
If your question is, "Do the means disagree by more than one would
expect if the 43 individual grades were partitioned into two sets of
20
13 matches
Mail list logo
