Good points on some of the flaws with the original study. It was clear that some of the kids were trying to be funny with their responses (ex. Cat with whiskers).
A better study would have a set of criteria that demonstrates students understood the text and then pay them based on how much they understood.
Also, it would've probably helped if they explicitly told people they could re-read the text multiple times because reading ahead usualy provides context for things that are unfamiliar in the beginning.
Yeah, it wasn't clear from the study whether there was any direct compensation. But the issue with variable compensation is that IRB will usually not allow it as inequitable. It can also create perverse incentives which make the sample less representative.
Good points on some of the flaws with the original study. It was clear that some of the kids were trying to be funny with their responses (ex. Cat with whiskers).
A better study would have a set of criteria that demonstrates students understood the text and then pay them based on how much they understood.
Also, it would've probably helped if they explicitly told people they could re-read the text multiple times because reading ahead usualy provides context for things that are unfamiliar in the beginning.
Yeah, it wasn't clear from the study whether there was any direct compensation. But the issue with variable compensation is that IRB will usually not allow it as inequitable. It can also create perverse incentives which make the sample less representative.
A well done quibble. BTW, Bleak House is one of my favorite Dickens books, even though I have not re-read it YET.