Hello! I am just wondering how I do the following questions for my assignment. I want to check them with my answers and ensure that I am on the right track. If someone could explain how that would be wonderful!
Lab Assignment 4 Questions 4.]. The sponsors of the workshop, with the help of a researcher, decided to compare the results on the initial knowledge test for each of the four program groups of educators with those of the population of educators who attended similar workshops and who wrote the initial knowledge test (from Lab 3, #34: p = 66.52 and a = 12.27). Is there evidence that any of the four program area groups differ on average from the population on the initial knowledge test that they took in the workshop? Stated another way, Does it matter with respect to the initial knowledge test which of the four program areas the educators represent? To answer this, conduct hypothesis tests comparing the mean on the initial knowledge test for each of the four groups of educators in the workshop to that for the population. (Computation is best done using a calculator. Use the unit normal table to determine if the zstatistic is signicant. One test is done for you as an example: comparing the mean of a random sample of educators from one program area with that of the population.) (3 marks) Although this particular type of hypothesis test is not that common in educational research, it serves to illustrate the process. It is called a ztest (see Chapter 8 in Gravetter and Wallnau (2014), and uses the standard error of the mean, but also the unitnormal table, which should be familiar to you from earlier lahs. SPSS readily produces the descriptive statistics for each of the four groups, which you should have done for Lab 3 (#33). The process of statistical hypothesis testing is much the same for most statistical tests (such as 2 t and Ftests). You should view the Hypothesis Testing: Step_byStep Process page which uses one of the groups of educators to illustrate the process. 4.2. The researcher who assisted with the workshop (and with other workshops) decided to test if there was a difference in knowledge and performance between educators in the "humanities\" program (English and French program areas) and those in the \"sciences\" program (Biology and Physics program areas). 1Was there a difference on the initial test mark means between these two groups in the workshop? 1Was there a difference in composite performance indicator score means between these two groups? (Conduct statistical tests to determine if the differences are signicant. State hypotheses, critical values for the tstatistic, and decision roles for the statistical tests, and make sure to make meaningful concluding statements.) (6 marks) 4.3. To conduct tests of signicance (such as ttests and Ftests) several assumptions are made about the distribution of scores: that they are reasonably normal, and that the variances of the groups are homogeneous. Check the distributions for normality (you may wish to include the notion of skewness) and test homogeneity of variances for the two groups for both variables (for the two signicance tests in 4.2). This involves checking the scores for each group to determine if they are reasonably normally distributed: are means and medians similar? are the data skewed? does the distribution look similar to one that is normal? The second part is to check the homogeneity of variance. This can be done using the Fmax test [see Gravetter SzWallnau, 2014) or the Levene's test which SPSS provides. [4 marks} The above questions use only the data presented in Lab 3 ; subsequent questions use additional information for the educators in the workshop. New Lab Data is included in the data le emailed earlier in the semester Lab 2_6. FURTHER TO \"INFORMA'I'ION-BASED TECHNOLOGIES\" WORKSHOP A researcher was hired to help set up the workshop that was originally attended by the educators. As noted in the description for Lab #2, marks were obtained on workshop participants (the educators) for the initial knowledge test and on the composite performance indicator. The research er thought that there might be a change in how educators scored on this rknowledge\" test from the beginning to the end of the workshop. The researcher also thought that there might be a change in educators' composite performance indicator scores from the end of the workshop to what they would do a month later. The researcher asked that the knowledge test be administered again to the educators after the workshop was completed (including eld experiences): called posttest knowledge. The researcher also obtained performance indicators on the educators alter they had returned to their teaching setting for one month (although this was difcult and time consuming, the researcher managed to get the data for most educators who attended the workshop}: called long-rem] performance. The new Lab 4 data for educators' scores at the workshop on the posttest knowledge given at the end of the workshop, and for the long-term composite performance indicator given a month later are located in your Lab 3 le. I'UKIHtH IU "INI'UHMRIIUN-HA5I:U ItUHNULUL-illz" WUKKSHUI" A researcher was hired to help set up the workshop that was originally attended by the educators. As noted in the description for Lab #2, marks were obtained on workshop participants (the educators) for the initial knowledge test and on the composite performance indicator. The researcher thought that there might be a change in how educators scored on this n'lcnowledge" test from the beginning to the end of the workshop. The researcher also thought that there might be a change in educators' composite performance indicator scores from the end of the workshop to what they would do a month later. The researcher asked that the knowledge test be administered again to the educators alter the workshop was completed (including eld experiences): called posttest knowledge. The researcher also obtained performance indicators on the educators after they had returned to their teaching setting for one month (although this was difcult and time consu ming, the researcher managed to get the data for most educators who attended the workshop}: called longterm performance. The new Lab 4 data for educators' scores at the workshop on the posttest knowledge given at the end of the workshop, and for the long-term composite performance indicator given a month later are located in your Lab 3 le. 4.4. The researcher was interested in determining what effects the workshop might have on knowledge at the end of the workshop, and on performance at a later date. (4 marks) It was possible to compare the knowledge test marks that the educators obtained prior to the workshop with the marks that they obtained at the end of the workshop. In particular, was there evidence of improvement from the initial knowledge test marks to those obtained at the end of the workshop on the posttest? Further, was there evidence of change on the composite performance indicator scores that educators obtained at the end of the workshop to what they obtained once they were back in their teaching settings for a month (longterm)? You can assume that the mean is a good measure of central tendency, and therefore is a good representation of possible change in scores. So this question requires a signicance test for a comparison of means for paired groups (hypothesis tests with related samples). \"Marks for questions are given in parentheses: total for Lab #4 is 17
