On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Richard Bornat <r.bor...@mdx.ac.uk> wrote:

> That said, the original article was obviously bad science anyway. A simple
> alternative hypothesis to explain the same evidence: some people came into
> the class with more knowledge of programming, and the teacher allowed the
> others to fall further behind.
> One shouldn't jump to that conclusion.

I'm not jumping in to say my 'alternative hypothesis' is the correct one.
I'm just saying that the original experiment doesn't provide sufficient
evidence to support its conclusion over a simple alternative hypothesis.

> the effect persisted in the subgroup which claimed experience
> and was equally present in the subgroup which claimed none.

I have experience dressing myself in the morning, but that doesn't mean I
have any knowledge of (talent with, or interest in) fashion. :)

The original 'paper' was hysterically over enthusiastic, but the phenomenon
> occurred, and occurs. But perhaps not always. Both facts require
> explanation.

Yes, but we need a lot more scientific control to find these explanations.
Perhaps some forms of teaching would close the gap, while others widen it.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PPIG 
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to ppig-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to ppig-discuss@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to