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, they
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 itself,
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 people prefer
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 a summary of the results:
Section A: n=20, mean=56.1, median=52.5, standard dev=20.1
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 classes
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
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, standard
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.
The
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 it's of any valid I can
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 it's
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
