And is there a significant relationship

Significance of correlation coefficient

and is there a significant relationship

In other words, if the amount of learning produced by different media is similar, then each of those media are equally valuable for learning. As long as the. N Y State J Med. Nov;54(22) Is there a significant relationship between hyperinsulinism and multiple sclerosis? WAINERDI HR. There is a significant relationship between males and females in the interest and familiarity with online dating services and I know this because the Pearson.

After finding a significant relationship, it is important to evaluate its strength. Significant relationships can be strong or weak. Significant differences can be large or small. It just depends on your sample size. Many researchers use the word "significant" to describe a finding that may have decision-making utility to a client.

From a statistician's viewpoint, this is an incorrect use of the word. However, the word "significant" has virtually universal meaning to the public. Thus, many researchers use the word "significant" to describe a difference or relationship that may be strategically important to a client regardless of any statistical tests. In these situations, the word "significant" is used to advise a client to take note of a particular difference or relationship because it may be relevant to the company's strategic plan.

Statistical Significance

The word "significant" is not the exclusive domain of statisticians and either use is correct in the business world. Thus, for the statistician, it may be wise to adopt a policy of always referring to "statistical significance" rather than simply "significance" when communicating with the public. One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Significance Tests One important concept in significance testing is whether you use a one-tailed or two-tailed test of significance. The answer is that it depends on your hypothesis.

When your research hypothesis states the direction of the difference or relationship, then you use a one-tailed probability. For example, a one-tailed test would be used to test these null hypotheses: Females will not score significantly higher than males on an IQ test. Blue collar workers are will not buy significantly more product than white collar workers.

Superman is not significantly stronger than the average person. In each case, the null hypothesis indirectly predicts the direction of the difference. A two-tailed test would be used to test these null hypotheses: There will be no significant difference in IQ scores between males and females.

There will be no significant difference in the amount of product purchased between blue collar and white collar workers. There is no significant difference in strength between Superman and the average person. The one-tailed probability is exactly half the value of the two-tailed probability.

No Significant Difference - Presented by WCET

There is a raging controversy for about the last hundred years on whether or not it is ever appropriate to use a one-tailed test. The rationale is that if you already know the direction of the difference, why bother doing any statistical tests. While it is generally safest to use a two-tailed tests, there are situations where a one-tailed test seems more appropriate. The bottom line is that it is the choice of the researcher whether to use one-tailed or two-tailed research questions.

Procedure Used to Test for Significance Whenever we perform a significance test, it involves comparing a test value that we have calculated to some critical value for the statistic.

It doesn't matter what type of statistic we are calculating e. To isolate the effects of a single variable, researchers try to control the other variables in the experiment. In MCS, some variables other than delivery mode that affect student outcomes might include curriculum materials, instructional method, and student learning preferences.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

Thus, some important considerations for MCS include the following: Were the two courses being compared truly comparable? That is, were the two courses taught using the same course materials, teaching methods, faculty? The effects resulting from changes in any of these variables between two "comparable" courses could very well outweigh effects of delivery mode.

Did the faculty who taught the distance courses have facility with the media used to deliver the course? A faculty's lack of facility with the chosen distance technology, whether it be video, television, or internet, can seriously affect the quality of a distance-delivered course, thereby affecting study results.

Were the two student populations in the study truly comparable? If students in one delivery mode tended to be generally better prepared, more motivated, or more interested in the subject matter than those experiencing the course in the alternate delivery mode, study results would be affected to favor those students. One of the common criticisms of MCS is that they fail to control some, if not all, of these external variables. Although this is troubling, it is also a general problem across educational research - we are, after all, working with real students in the real world, not controlled experimental conditions in a laboratory.

However, we must remember to use caution when generalizing across MCS results. While the NSD finding may be prevalent enough across a large enough pool of MCS research results to be considered a fair conclusion despite the lack of controlled variables, other findings limited to certain studies may not be as widely applicable.

Therefore, a good practice in performing meta-analyses studies which summarize the results of several prior research studies into a single estimate of their combined result of the MCS research might be to first sort for collections of MCS that control for similar sets of variables, and then analyze the findings from those collections.

What do the "no significant difference" findings mean for distance education? Quoting Richard Clark from the introduction to the fifth edition of Thomas Russell's book, "The NSD media finding in studies where adequate learning occurs can be interpreted to mean that compared treatments are equal in their impact on learning.

As long as the message remains the same, it doesn't matter what media are used to deliver that message - the effect for learning will also remain the same. The "no significant difference" literature in media in education can be further interpreted in two ways.

First, the NSD findings demonstrate that delivering education at a distance does no harm. That is, students who opt for distance delivery are not immediately put into a compromised position simply because they are not receiving their education in a "face to face" format.

Second, the NSD findings indicate that simply converting a face to face course into a technology-mediated distance delivery course does not help improve student outcomes.

and is there a significant relationship

To achieve gains in student outcomes, we must do more than just deliver the course through a different medium. Russell from the introduction to his book, "These studies tell me that there is nothing inherent in the technologies that elicits improvements in learning.

Having said that, let me reassure you that difference in outcomes can be made more positive by adapting the content to the technology. That is, in going through the process of redesigning a course to adapt the content to the technology, it can be improved.

Over the last 50 years, the question for media comparison studies MCS has evolved from, "Can students learn at a distance? As we accept that it is not the technology itself, but the application of technology, that has the potential to affect learning, it is our hope that future research will strive to identify the instructional methods that best utilize technology attributes to improve student outcomes. Some articles show a "significant difference".

What is the best way to interpret these articles relative to the "no significant difference" phenomenon? Russell's book are meant to provide a historical perspective on media comparison study MCS research. By amassing MCS research studies from the early 's onward, these resources provide us with a picture of how MCS research evolved over time.

In the early days of correspondence courses, the original question addressed in MCS research was "Does delivering courses at a distance hurt student outcomes? Russell's book and website, it appeared that different modes of delivery for the same materials actually did not hurt, so the great majority of these early studies show "no significant difference" NSD between student outcomes in face-to-face courses versus those delivered at a distance. Researchers began asking, "Can we improve learning by using technology tools in education?

In these studies, the null hypothesis became "Use of technology tools in education does not improve student outcomes. MCS research studies showing "significant differences" SD in student outcomes started appearing in the literature, and most showed improvement with technology; that is, they tended not to support the null hypothesis. In many of these studies, courses were redesigned to take advantage of the unique aspects afforded by technology - asynchronous discussions, archives, links to resources.

Russell suggests that by this very effort, tech-mediated distance courses were improved.

Is there a significant relationship between hyperinsulinism and multiple sclerosis?

In the great majority of studies compiled for this website, the "significant difference" articles show greater achievement in technology-mediated instruction. However, it is also important to note that in most of these cases, courses were adapted to the technology being utilized for mediated delivery.

It is likely that this very adaptation created a course that allowed students to achieve higher outcomes, rather than the technology itself resulting in the higher outcome. Russell from the introduction to his book, "These NSD studies tell me that there is nothing inherent in the technologies that elicits improvements in learning.

and is there a significant relationship

In Junethe U. Department of Education released the report: After reviewing more than 1, empirical studies of online learning, the report states: A Comparative Research Annotated Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education"IDECC, fifth editionis a fully indexed, comprehensive research bibliography of research reports, summaries and papers that document no significant difference in student outcomes based on the mode of education delivery face to face or at a distance.

The book also includes a foreword by Dr. Clark, one of world's most cited researchers in the area of media research design. The primary purpose of the NSD website is to expand on the offerings from the book by providing access to appropriate studies published or discovered after the release of the book. In addition to studies that document no significant difference NSDthe website includes studies which do document significant differences in student outcomes based on the mode of education delivery.

The significant difference SD entries on the website are further classified into three categories: