You may be right, and I'll sure be more attentive to this kind of thing the next time I review a textbook.
On the other hand, if this is really the culprit, it'd be about the only thing that my students learned in that kind of detail from their textbooks. <grin> Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee On 4/12/06, Ken Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if part of the problem is due to the way experiments are often > described in courses other than research methods. Here is a slightly > exaggerated description of an experiment that I hear people use, > > "So Smith and Steele were interested in the question of whether caffeine > improves memory. The IV was caffeine and the DV was number of trials to > learn a list of words to a 90% criterion. The experimental group > received 300 mg of caffeine. The results showed that the experimental > group learned the list in significantly fewer trails." > > Notice how much emphasis there is on the treatment of interest and how > little is said about the role of the control group or the point that it > is the difference between the groups that we are evaluating. > > This tendency to focus on the experimental treatment in our descriptions > may contribute to the confusion of an IV with a specific condition. > > Ken > > > > > Paul Smith > > Alverno College > > Milwaukee > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > --- > To make changes to your subscription go to: > http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english > > --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
