Jamovi HW8

Jamovi Homework 8 23 points Mathematics word problems can be particularly difficult, especially for primary-grade children. A recent study investigated a combination of techniques for teaching students to master these problems (Fuchs, Fuchs, Craddock, Hollenbeck, Hamlett, & Schatschneider, 2008). The study investigated the effectiveness of instruction type, where traditional math instruction was compared to a new technique called hot math that teaches students to recognize types or categories of problems so they can generalize skills from one problem to another (1 = traditional, 2 = hot math). They also offered this instruction either in private tutoring sessions to half of the students or in a classic classroom setting to the other half of students (1 = untutored, 2 = tutored). The following data were obtained. The dependent variable is a math test score for each student after 16 weeks in the study. Check your data entry carefully! It is easy to lose almost all the points on this homework assignment if you mistype a number – as many subsequent statistics and analyses will be incorrect! Output (7 points) 1) Conduct the appropriate statistical test, and then paste the following output: (4 points) Help Untutor ed Tutor ed Instructi on Traditio nal 2 6 5 3 5 7 1 5 0 7 4 5 5 1 5 7 1 5 Hot Math 4 8 4 4 7 8 9 11 7 6 7 5 5 7 4 7 8 8

2) Paste three appropriate graphs from jamovi displaying how the overall means of each level of instruction compare, how the overall means of each level of help compare, and a graph displaying the interaction effect (3 points)

There is no interaction between teaching method and being helped or not helped. We reject the null hypothesis A that there is no main effect on the use of Hot Math or Traditional Math. We chose to reject because p < .001. We also reject the null hypothesis B that there is no effect on tutoring or non-tutoring, we rejected the null because p < . 05. We retain the null C that there is no interaction between teaching method and whether or not one was helped. We retain because p > .05.

The null hypothesis A) There is no main effect on the use of Hot Math or Traditional math. B) There is no main effect on whether or not one got tutoring or non-tutoring. C) There is no interaction between teaching method and being helped or not helped. We reject the null hypothesis A that there is no main effect on the use of Hot Math or Traditional Math. We chose to reject because p < .001. We also reject the null hypothesis B that there is no effect on tutoring or non-tutoring, we rejected the null because p < .

being helped or not helped. We reject the null hypothesis A that there is no main effect on the use of Hot Math or Traditional Math. We chose to reject because p < .001. We also reject the null hypothesis B that there is no effect on tutoring or non-tutoring, we rejected the null because p < . 05. We retain the null C that there is no interaction between teaching method and whether or not one was helped. We retain because p > .05. APA portion (11.5 points) 4) Write an APA style report of your findings. Your report should include each of the following, with no errors of APA style or formatting. Round all statistics to two decimals (except p -values, which are reported to three decimal places).

A Two (instruction type: traditional or hot math) by two (help: tutored or non-tutored) ANOVA tested for effects of instruction type, help and the interaction between instruction and help on test performance. The Main effect of using hot math instruction was significant when compared to test performance using traditional instruction, F(1,32)= 13.89, p < . 001, np^2 = .30. A Tukey post- hoc test indicated that students who learned hot math earned significantly higher test scores

student received instruction using hot math compared to traditional math A Two (instruction type: traditional or hot math) by two (help: tutored or non-tutored) ANOVA tested for effects of instruction type, help and the interaction between instruction and help on test performance. The Main effect of using hot math instruction was significant when compared to test performance using traditional instruction, F‬(1,32)= 13.89, p < .001, np^2 = .30. A Tukey post-hoc test indicated that students who learned hot math earned significantly higher test scores than those who were given the traditional instruction method, p <.001. The main effect involving help was significant, F‬(1,32) = 5.002, p=.032, np^2= .135, with a Tukey post- hoc significance test indicating that the tutored students received significantly higher scores than non-tutored students, p= .032. Considering the two together the two factors did not have a significant interaction, F‬(1,32) = .556, p = .461, np^2 = 0.017. This shows that the effect of help was not different for if a student received instruction using hot math compared to traditional math.