University Of Maryland University College Concerns
University Of Maryland University College Is Concerned That Out Of Sta
University of Maryland University College is concerned that out-of-state students may be receiving lower grades than Maryland students. Two independent random samples have been selected: 165 observations from population 1 (out-of-state students) and 177 from population 2 (Maryland students). The sample means obtained are X1(bar)=86 and X2(bar)=87. It is known from previous studies that the population variances are 8.1 and 7.3 respectively. Using a level of significance of 0.01, is there evidence that the out-of-state students may be receiving lower grades? Fully explain your answer.
Paper For Above instruction
The concern raised by the University of Maryland University College pertains to whether out-of-state students are receiving lower academic grades compared to in-state Maryland students. To evaluate this, a hypothesis test for the difference between two population means with known variances is appropriate. The key objective is to determine if the data provide sufficient evidence at the 0.01 significance level to support the claim that out-of-state students have lower mean grades.
Formulating the Hypotheses
Given the context, the hypotheses are set as follows:
- Null hypothesis (H0): The mean grades of out-of-state students are equal to or greater than those of Maryland students, i.e., μ1 ≥ μ2.
- Alternative hypothesis (H1): The mean grades of out-of-state students are lower, i.e., μ1
Expressed mathematically:
\[ H_0: \mu_1 \geq \mu_2 \]
\[ H_1: \mu_1
This is a one-tailed test focusing on detecting if out-of-state students' grades are significantly lower.
Sample Data and Parameters
- Sample size for out-of-state students: n1 = 165
- Sample mean for out-of-state students: X1̄ = 86
- Population variance for out-of-state students: σ1² = 8.1
- Sample size for Maryland students: n2 = 177
- Sample mean for Maryland students: X2̄ = 87
- Population variance for Maryland students: σ2² = 7.3
From these, the known population standard deviations are:
\[ \sigma_1 = \sqrt{8.1} \approx 2.847 \]
\[ \sigma_2 = \sqrt{7.3} \approx 2.703 \]
Methodology
Given the known population variances, a z-test for the difference between two means is suitable. The test statistic is calculated as:
\[ Z = \frac{(X_1̄ - X_2̄)}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_1^2}{n_1} + \frac{\sigma_2^2}{n_2}}} \]
Substituting the known values:
\[ Z = \frac{(86 - 87)}{\sqrt{\frac{8.1}{165} + \frac{7.3}{177}}} \]
Calculating the denominator:
\[ \frac{8.1}{165} \approx 0.0491 \]
\[ \frac{7.3}{177} \approx 0.0412 \]
\[ \text{Sum} = 0.0903 \]
\[ \sqrt{0.0903} \approx 0.3005 \]
Calculating the numerator:
\[ 86 - 87 = -1 \]
Thus, the test statistic:
\[ Z = \frac{-1}{0.3005} \approx -3.33 \]
Decision Rule
For a significance level of α = 0.01, the critical value for a one-tailed z-test is approximately -2.33 (from standard normal distribution tables). Since the calculated Z-value (-3.33) is less than -2.33, it falls into the rejection region.
Conclusion
Because the test statistic exceeds the critical value in the negative direction, we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is statistically significant evidence at the 1% level to support the claim that out-of-state students are receiving lower grades than Maryland students.
Implications
The findings suggest that out-of-state students’ academic performance, as measured by grades, is significantly lower than that of Maryland students. This could prompt the university to investigate underlying factors contributing to this disparity and consider targeted interventions to support out-of-state students.
Limitations and Further Considerations
While the statistical evidence indicates a difference, it is essential to consider the practical significance and investigate other potential variables influencing grades. Additionally, cross-sectional data may not capture longitudinal trends or individual demographic factors, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of the result.
References
- Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
- Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference (2nd ed.). Duxbury Press.
- Hogg, R. V., & Tanis, E. A. (2009). Probability and statistical inference (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
- Lehmann, E. L., & Romano, J. P. (2005). Testing statistical hypotheses. Springer.
- Newcombe, R. G. (1998). Two-sided confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions. The American Statistician, 52(2), 127-132.
- Rouse, C. E. (2007). Economic concepts and tools: Evidence from education research. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 227-248.
- Wasserman, L. (2004). All of Statistics. Springer.
- Williams, R. (2015). Statistics for the social sciences. Sage Publications.
- Zhang, J., & Lu, H. (2015). Statistical methods in education research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(3), 210–230.
- Zorn, C. J., & Gross, K. (2001). Statistical methods for comparing means. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 371-388.