Description
Progress Check
Use this activity to assess whether you and your peers can:
Compare distributions to determine whether the primary goal of random assignment is achieved.
Directions
Use the drop-down menu to learn about the three steps needed to complete this assignment.
Three steps to complete the assignment
Context
A high school student named David Merrell did an experiment to examine if music affects the ability of mice to run a maze. The explanatory variable was exposure to music. He had three treatment groups: one group listened to heavy metal music by the group Anthrax. A second group listened to Mozart. The third group never heard music. This last group is the control group.
The response variable was the average time (in seconds) to complete three runs. Every week the mice ran the maze three times. Merrell recorded each mouse’s average time for the week.
Direct controls of potential confounding variables:
Merrell trained all of the mice to run the same maze.
He gave all mice the same amount of food and light.
All mice had the same approximate age and weights.
During the treatment phase, the mice were exposed to the treatment for the same amount of time, e.g. mice heard music at 70 decibels for 10 hours a day for a month.
Results:
By the end of the month, the Anthrax group was much slower at running the maze. The Mozart group was much faster. The dotplots below show average run times for the first and last week of the experiment. Each dot represents one mouse. The X-value is the mouse’s average run time for the week. (Each mouse ran the maze 3 times each week.) The blue line is the mean run time for each treatment group.
If you are curious, here is a video of Merrell explaining his experiment.Merrell explaining his experiment
Prompt
Merrell claims that he randomly assigned mice to treatment groups. Does the data shown in the dotplots above support his claim? Why or why not?
Module 6 Discussion Board
Use the Module 6 discussion board (opens in a new tab) to ask questions or provide feedback about the problems in any Module 6 activity – including this peer-reviewed assignment.
Review Feedback
Instructor feedback is only available after an assignment is graded.
Use these directions (opens in a new tab) to learn how to review feedback.
Click the “Next” or > button to continue.
Content by Cuyamaca College math faculty and licensed under the Creative Commons 4.0 International LicenseLinks to an external site..
Rubric
Formative Assessments
Formative Assessments
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnswering the Prompt
10 pts
Full Credit
The first submission demonstrates a good-faith effort to address each part of the Prompt. Either in the first draft or the optional final draft, all parts of the “Prompt” are addressed and the responses demonstrate attainment of the learning objectives in the “Progress Check” section of the assignment. The answers are correct. The writing/work is clear. The explanation/work is reasonable, well-organized, and easy to follow.
8.5 pts
Mostly Correct
The first submission demonstrates a good-faith effort to address most of the Prompt. In the optional final draft all parts of the “Prompt” are addressed, and the responses demonstrate attainment of the learning objectives in the “Progress Check” section of the assignment. The answers are mostly correct. The writing/work is clear. The explanation/work is reasonable, well-organized, and easy to follow.
6 pts
One or more incorrect
The first submission demonstrates a good-faith effort to respond to a smaller portion of the Prompt. In the first draft or the optional final draft, one or more parts of the “Prompt” are not addressed or are incorrect. Or, answers do not demonstrate attainment of the learning objectives in the “Progress Check” section of the assignment. Or, answers are correct, but the writing/work is unclear, incorrect, or difficult to follow.
0 pts
No Marks
The first submission does not demonstrate a good-faith effort to address the Prompt.
10 pts
Total Points: 10
PreviousNext
