An Air Force training institute had conducted a study in order to evaluate efficiency of

their proposed computer-assisted training method for the introductory course in

electronics. To compare the proposed and the current methods of instruction, an
entering class of 122 students was assigned randomly to one of the two groups of 61
students each using either of the methods. The completion time in hours was taken for
each student in the study. The objective is to find the difference in the population means
of the two training methods; to identify the most effective method of instruction and to
make a final decision on the training program to be used in the future.

Qns1)

Content Current-Training Time Method(Auto- Computer)

Means 75.06 74.42
Standard Error 0.50 0.32
Median 76 76
Mode 76 76
Standard Deviation 3.94 2.50
Sample Variance 15.5 6.28
Kurtosis -0.06 0.58
Skewness -0.22 -0.28
Range 19 13
Min 65 65
`Max 84 82
Total 4579 4601
Count 61 61

Qns2)

We state the null and alternate hypothesis as follows :

H0 : σ p ≤ σ c
Hα : σ p > σ c

The F-test is conducted since we are comparing the variances of the two different
methods
Content Current New
Mean 75.06 75.42
Variance 15.53 6.28
Observation 61 61
Mean - 0
Df 102
tStat -0.60
One Tail 0.27
T Critical one tail 1.65
Two Tail 0.54
T Critical two tail 1.98

Using the critical value approach we notice that the F value is greater than the F value
for α and therefore we reject the null hypothesis.

We conclude that the proposed method is better than the current method and therefore
should be implemented.

Qns3)

We state the null and alternate hypothesis as follows :

H0 : σ p ≤ σ c
Hα : σ p > σ c

The F-test is conducted since we are comparing the variances of the two different
methods

Content Current New

Mean 75.06 75.4
Variance 15.56 6.28
Observation 61 61
Df 60 60
F 2.47 2.47
One tail 0.00028 0.00028
F Crirctical tail 1.53 1.53
Standard Deviation 3.94 2.50
Using the critical value approach we notice that the F value is greater than the F value
for α and therefore we reject the null hypothesis.

We conclude that the proposed method is better than the current method and therefore
should be implemented.