Air Force Training Program
The following report is in regards to an Air Force introductory course in electronics. This report will aim to identify how the current text based method of training compares to the proposed computer-assisted method of training.
The data for this report has been collected from a new entering class of 122 students, of which, half were assigned to the current, and half the proposed computer-assisted method of instruction. The students’ completion time for the course was then recorded in hours.
The table below summarizes the data collected.
From this data we can note that the two methods have a very comparable completion time as the means of both are just above 75 hours. We can also note that the variance is less for the proposed method.
To test the difference between the two population means we conducted the following hypothesis test.
Ho:u_1-u_2=0
Ha:u_1-u_2≠0
With this hypothesis test established, using the information summarized earlier, and a level of significance of alpha 0.05, the p-value for the two-tailed test was determined to be 0.55, because this is greater than our level of significance, we cannot reject our null hypothesis and can conclude with 95% level of confidence that the two methods do not differ in completion times.
To test the population variances we also conducted a hypothesis test about the equality of the two variances.
Ho: σ_1^2=σ_2^2
Ha:σ_1^2≠σ_2^2
This test was also done with a level of significance of alpha 0.05, our two-tailed p-value was found to be 0.00, because this is less than our level of significance we can reject our null hypothesis and conclude that our variances do differ. For more information if we look at the test from a upper tailed perspective we obtain a p value of 0.00 again, this is less than our level of significance allowing us to conclude that the variance for the proposed method is lower than the variance of the current method.
Upon conducting these tests the two methods appear
The data for this report has been collected from a new entering class of 122 students, of which, half were assigned to the current, and half the proposed computer-assisted method of instruction. The students’ completion time for the course was then recorded in hours.
The table below summarizes the data collected.
From this data we can note that the two methods have a very comparable completion time as the means of both are just above 75 hours. We can also note that the variance is less for the proposed method.
To test the difference between the two population means we conducted the following hypothesis test.
Ho:u_1-u_2=0
Ha:u_1-u_2≠0
With this hypothesis test established, using the information summarized earlier, and a level of significance of alpha 0.05, the p-value for the two-tailed test was determined to be 0.55, because this is greater than our level of significance, we cannot reject our null hypothesis and can conclude with 95% level of confidence that the two methods do not differ in completion times.
To test the population variances we also conducted a hypothesis test about the equality of the two variances.
Ho: σ_1^2=σ_2^2
Ha:σ_1^2≠σ_2^2
This test was also done with a level of significance of alpha 0.05, our two-tailed p-value was found to be 0.00, because this is less than our level of significance we can reject our null hypothesis and conclude that our variances do differ. For more information if we look at the test from a upper tailed perspective we obtain a p value of 0.00 again, this is less than our level of significance allowing us to conclude that the variance for the proposed method is lower than the variance of the current method.
Upon conducting these tests the two methods appear