RM>PS>Yet, the project revealed no statisical significance in learning growth
RM>PS>between girls and boys.
 
RM>How is the "learning growth" being assessed, and may we
RM>assume that this is not the same as LEVEL of learning?
 
Okay, what was measured was a two year growth of math computation
abilities - as measured on the Iowa Basic Skills Test.  Each student was
his own control, and the tool of measurement was the improved
Standardize Score.
 
 
RM>PS>This data is really weird,
RM>So far I haven't seen anything weird?
 
        According to the literature studied( where talking over 30
sources  - so I won't quote them on this thread, but if you really
insist, I could mail you the list of works cited ) girls should have
done better than boys( because their generally more mature ), minorities
should not have done as well ( because the majority of our minorities
are Eskimo, who don't value school as much as whites), remedial students
should have not done as well ( due to learning disabilities ), and the
lower socioeconomic class should not have done as well ( due to the many
problems that poor families have ).  With those groups there was no
significance in growth.
        What I find remarkable is to be wrong four out of five cases,
with the only case to be correct is behavior.  This is highly
inconsistant with the data.
 
        The literature is based on other studies - usually more that one
study.  So, basically, many studies would indicate the above to be true.
 
        Why isn't that weird?
 
Keep your stick on the Ice,
Paul
 
 * SLMR 2.1a * All wiyht.  Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
--- TriDog 6.1
---------------