I am usually not surprised by students' common inability to distinguish between IVs and DVs and to misinterpret the nature of interactions as well as to misuse and overapply the concept of "correlation".
I find that the misconceptions almost always occur when students are trying to "label" the work of others or to describe someone else's design. Conversely, I find that they have rare conceptual problems when they are trying to understand and explain data that they have generated. I believe there is no substitute for direct lab work that is designed by the students. As well, I believe that the fact that I have a Ph.D. does little to help them achieve this, it is usually their own actions. And, of course, I could be wrong. Bill Scott >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/06 7:25 PM >>> Well, just wait until you get to the 2 x 2 design and they have to understand that not only do you use the same DV for all levels of one of the variables, you have to use it for all levels of BOTH variables. WOW! what a concept. And then the REAL fun is when you have multiple DVs. Let the games begin :) Annette Quoting Ken Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Smith wrote: >> 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> >> > > I wish that was the only cause. Right now I am trying to convince my > students to the best of my abilities that one should use the same > dependent measure in the experimental and control conditions. > > At the moment, I am utterly unconvincing. > > Ken > > >> 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 > > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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
