Coming To Class Is Beneficial To Students

Correlation vs causation

Dr Preleg conducted an experiment with the hypothesis that coming to class is the most effective way to learn, even with resources such as the internet and textbooks readily available. He concluded his predictions were correct through 2 experiments, and these experiments completed to follow the correlation vs causation guiding principle. For this principle to be fully satisfied, it must be made clear that the independent variable changes/causes the dependent variable, a measure without the independent variable (testing against) must be valid, as well as a control group. The independent and dependent variables were studied through details on his student’s attitude and behaviour on his class, and how this compared to their attendance. In the second experiment he had taken into account the performance differences of students who came to class and who didn’t by using a control group. Dr Preleg has valid conclusions since he has taken in X, Y, and Z factors for his hypothesis in a successful and measurable way.

Ruling Out Rival Hypotheses

Dr Preleg did not do a good job of following the guiding principle of ruling out rival hypotheses. In his first study, he found data on how his students felt about the class, and how much they felt they learned. In his second experiment, he found evidence on the correlation between class attendance and exam performance. While this data provides the overall information that students perform better when they attend class, he did not take into consideration other hypotheses, that could have better suited his research. He failed to consider rival hypotheses since his hypothesis does not consider student’s attitudes towards the class and how much they felt that they have learnt, which was half of his data. What he should have done instead, was create a hypothesis that summarized how a students attitudes as well as performance were effected by attended class. For example, “students both perform better, as well as have a better attitude towards class if they attend lectures regularly” would better suit his study.

Replicability

To validate his hypothesis, Dr Preleg conducted 2 experiments to test if going to class effects how well a student learns. This principle is followed well since, before making conclusions, he made sure that his ideas were validated more than once. In his first experiment, he came to the conclusion that students who came to class were more interested in the course content, and believe they learned more, overall creating a more positive class experience compared to those who did not attend class as often. In his second experience, he compared exam results between students who attended class and who didn’t. From this experiment, he concluded that students perform much better when they attend class. By conducting multiple experiments, and getting similar results that support his hypothesis, Dr Preleg was able to replicate his findings, therefore being successful at replicability.

Lack of Self Correction

A warning sign of pseudoscience that occurs in this study is lack of self correction, which occurs when there is evidence that goes against the hypothesis present, although no self correction or acknowledgement of it. It is not appropriate to have a lack of self correction in a study since it provides evidence against the hypothesis and can overall make the research collected appear less valid. This is present in Dr Preleg’s study when a spokesperson claims that all the information that students retain from the textbook is learned, some just have trouble expressing this knowledge on exams. Dr Preleg made no comments or corrections on this additional research published, making his hypothesis as well as conclusions questionable. If there is research claiming that students can still be successful without coming to class present, it is Preleg’s job as a researcher with a hypothesis stating otherwise to acknowledge the contrary evidence to make his finding more reliable.