Progress CheckUse this activity to assess whether you and your peers can:
Compare distributions to determine whether the primary goal of random assignment is achieved.
ContextA high school student named David Merrell did an experiment to examine if music affects the ability of rats 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 rats ran the maze three times. Merrell recorded each rat’s average time for the week.
Direct controls of potential confounding variables:
Merrell trained all of the rats to run the same maze.
He gave all rats the same amount of food and light.
All rats had the same approximate age and weights.
During the treatment phase, the rats were exposed to the treatment for the same amount of time, e.g. rats 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 rat. The X-value is the rat’s average run time for the week. (Each rat ran the maze 3 times each week.) The blue line is the mean run time for each treatment group.
Module 6 Discussion BoardUse 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 FeedbackPeer feedback should be available before final drafts are due.
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 License (Links to an external site.).
RubricPeer Review (FD Optional) (1)
Peer Review (FD Optional) (1)
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Attempt
5 ptsFull Marks
A first attempt was made on this assignment
0 ptsNo Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnswering the Prompt
3 ptsFull Credit
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.
1.5 ptsPartial Credit
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 ptsNo Marks
The “Prompt” is not addressed or the work is incorrect or missing. Or, the first draft was not a good-faith effort.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePeer Review
2 ptsFull Credit
You completed the assigned peer review. The points you assigned in the rubric for the “Addressing the Prompt” criterion are appropriate. You used the “Add a Comment:” field to submit your assignment comments. Your assignment comments relate the score you assigned in the “Addressing the Prompt” criterion of the rubric to how your peer addressed the learning objectives when responding to the “Prompt.” (Note: the learning objectives are listed in the “Progress Check” section of the assignment.) If you awarded full credit for the “Addressing the Prompt” criterion in the rubric, your comments contextually and specifically explain what your peer did to demonstrate attainment of the relevant learning objectives. If you deducted points for the “Addressing the Prompt” criterion, you clearly explained what your peer can do better to demonstrate attainment of the relevant learning objectives.
1 ptsPartial Credit
You committed a good-faith effort to provide a high-quality peer review, but necessary instructive comments are missing. Or, you provided appropriate instructive comments but did not complete the rubric.
0 ptsNo Marks
No peer review provided or the comments are not instructive. Or, you did not commit a good-faith effort on your first draft.
2 pts
Total Points: 10
