1. What is your research question?*Did students who turned in their papers to be reviewed by Becca receive significantly better grades?
2. What is your research hypothesis? *Students who had their papers reviewed by Becca on average reviecved significantly better scores
5. What is your statistical null hypothesis? No significant difference exists between the average paper grades recieved with or without review by Becca.
Results: P-Value: = 0.005752
*I accept my statisical hypothesis based on the analysis of this data.
Answer: In this class students who had their papers reviewed by Becca revieved an average mean score of 86.53333333, while students who did have their results reviewed by Becca recieved an average mean score of 68.8, therefore students who had their papers reviwed by Becca did on average recieve significantly higher scores.
Nucella Lamellosa Part.
*Research hypothesis: Over the course of the experiment the snails that are knocked off the barnacles one time each day will not exhibit any significant difference in their end date tissue growth weights than the control group.
*Statistical null hypothesis: Over the course of the experiment the snails that are knocked off the barnacles one time each day will exhibit significantly different end date tissue growth weights than the control group.
P value = 0.290431
*Research Hypothesis Rejected: Based on my statistical findings for the Nucella Lamellosa data represented in the images below, I must reject my research hypothesis due to the high p values and the clear significance this represents for the control groups greater mean tissue weight growth of 0.324, as compared to the mean tissue weight growth of 0.234 for the experimental group.
Statistical Null Hypothesis Accepted: Over the course of this experiment the snails that were knocked off the barnacles one time each day did exhibit a significant lesser difference in end date tissue growth weights than the control group, therefore the statistical null hypothesis is accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment