Question

A college newspaper interviews a psychologist about the student ratings of the teaching of faculty members. The psychologist says "the evidence indicates that the correlation between the research productivity and teaching rating of faculty members is close to zero." The paper reports this as "Professor McDaniel said that’s good researchers tend to be poor teachers and vice versa." Do you agree with the newspaper's report? How would you interpret the psychologist's statement? In two sentences, explain your interpretation WITHOUT using the term correlation.

Answer 1

The newspaper misinterpreted the psychologist's statement, which indicated no meaningful relationship between research productivity and teaching ratings, not that good researchers are poor teachers.

Step-by-step explanation:

I disagree with the newspaper's report. The psychologist's statement indicates that there is no meaningful relationship between a faculty member's research productivity and their teaching ratings; implying that being a good researcher has little to no bearing on being a good teacher, and vice versa. This is not the same as saying good researchers tend to be poor teachers, as reported by the paper.