Question

Suppose you devised a training program to raise student scores on a standardized test, such as ACT, or AIMS (like in Arizona). You first administer the test to a random sample of students, record their scores, administer the training to these students, and then administer the test a second time to each of the same students. For each student you record their score for the second test. (I am deliberately leaving out additional parameters, as you will see why in item b)
a. What would the null and alternate hypothesis be?
b. Assuming there was an increase in scores, do you think that only the training method was responsible? What other factors could explain the changes?

Answer 1

If you really want an expert to help you, be sure to follow directions and type your <u>subject</u> in the <b>School Subject</b> box. Any other words, <u>including obscure abbreviations</u>, are likely to delay responses from a teacher who knows that subject well.