LEANDRO R. REMOJO JR.

MAEd- Science and Technology

Educ200-Advance Statistics

1. Given: n=39 students 𝑥̅ = 16.69 ℎ𝑟𝑠 μ=15 hrs σ=7.61hrs

a. H0: The average time of students who works on part-time job is equal to 15hrs (CLAIM)
(μ = 15 hrs)
Ha: The average time of students who works on part-time jobs is not equal to 15hrs
(μ ≠ 15 hrs)
b. z-test (two-tailed test)
α = 0.01
zα = ±2.58
𝑥̅ −𝜇 16.69−15
c. 𝑧= 𝜎 = 7.61 = 1.3869
√𝑛 √39
d. Decision: Since the computed z-value which is 1.3869 is less than the zα which is 2.58,
we fail to reject the null hypothesis at 0.01% level of significance.

Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the average time of students
who works on part-time jobs is not equal to 15hrs.

2. Given: n=7 surgical faculty 𝑥̅ = 70 ℎ𝑟𝑠 μ=60 hrs s=12.5hrs

a. H0: The average number of hours worked per week by surgical faculty who teach at an
academic institution is at most 60 hrs.
(μ ≤ 60hrs)
Ha: The average number of hours worked per week by surgical faculty who teach at an
academic institution is more than 60 hrs. (CLAIM)
(μ > 60hrs)
b. t-test (right-tailed test)
α = 0.05 df= 6
tα = 1.943
𝑥̅ −𝜇 70−60
c. 𝑡= 𝑠 = 12.5 = 2.1166
√𝑛 √7
d. Decision Since the computed t which is 2.1166 is greater than the tα which is 1.943, the
null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 level of significance.

Conclusion: There is enough evidence to support the claim that the average number of
hours worked per week by the surgical faculty who teach at an academic institution is
more than 60 hrs.
3.
a. H0: The two training program methods are the same.
(μ1 = μ2)
Ha: The training program method 1 is significantly less than training program method 2.
(CLAIM)
(μ1 < μ2)
b. t-test (one-tailed test)
α = 0.05
c.
Mean SD t-value p-value
Method 1 19.1 4.82 -1.8055 0.0439
Method 2 23.3 5.56
d. Decision: The mean number of minutes in method 1 (M=19.1 , SD=4.82) is less than the
mean number of minutes in method 2 (M=23.3 , SD=5.56), so we reject the null
hypothesis , t(18)=-1.8055 , p=0.0439

Conclusion: The training program method 2 is significantly better/effective than the

training program method 1.

4.
a. H0: There is no significant difference between the SAT scores.
(μ1 = μ2)
Ha: There is a significant difference between the SAT scores.
 (μ1 < μ2)
b. t-test (one-tailed test)
α = 0.01
c.
Mean SD t-value p-value
FIRST SCORE 385.6 62.28 -7.0599 2.9607
SECOND SCORE 445.5 70.30
d. Decision: The mean Score in first (M=385.6 , SD=62.28) and second (M=445.5 ,
SD=70.30) of critical reading SAT score is statistically the same, so we fail to reject the
null hypothesis , t(9)=-7.0599, p=2.9607.

Conclusion: The course taken by the students before the second SAT is not so effective
to improve their critical reading SAT scores.