英语翻译The mean posttest score was 67.5% (S.D.= 21) for the EG

英语翻译
The mean posttest score was 67.5% (S.D.= 21) for the EG (considering only those 31 students who completed the program) and 46.0% (S.D.= 28) for the CG (see Table 3).The t-test indicated that these means were significantly different (t=3.75,p=0.0002).This result implied that the mastery of stoichiometry concepts exhibited by the EG who finished the program was due to the program and not to motivation or instruction provided in Chem 1A (at least so far as the underprepared students were concerned).To further test the robustness of this conclusion,three additional tests were performed utilizing Chem 1A final exam scores.
Results of these comparative tests are given in Table 3.In every case the 31 EG students performed significantly better than the comparison control group.Finally.the mean Chem 1A final exam scores on questions testing knowledge of stoichiometry (considered as a retention test for the purpose of this study) were compared.The CG student (N=58) performed significantly lower (60%) than both the entire EG (N= 54,68%,t = 2.00,p = 0.047) and the 31 EG students who completed the stoichiometry program (75% t = 2.72,p = 0.007).However,this mean (75%) was not significantly different when compared to the means of the control subgroups selected in the manner described in (1) and (2) above.This result implied that the 31 EG students who completed the special program on stoichiometry were fairly representative of the entire experimental group and that their significantly better performance on the posttest (see Table 3) did not stem from a biased motivational factor but was due to the effectiveness of the program.
These results suggest that the instructional strategies used in this study are reliable and appropriate to teach concepts of stoichiometry and,in particular,the limiting-reactant problem.

平均前后评分为67.5%（标准差=21）为例如（只考虑那些31学生谁完成了计划）和46%（标准差=28）的协商小组（见表3）.t检验表明,这些手段有显着不同（=3.75,磷=0.0002）.这一结果意味着掌握计量概念所表现的如谁完成计划是由于计划不动机或指令提供化学（至少到目前为止,为准备不足的学生而言）.为了进一步检验这一结论的可靠性,三个额外的测试进行了利用化学期末考试成绩. 结果,这些试验对比见表3.在每一个案件31例如学生表现明显优于对照组比较.最后.平均化学期末考试分数的知识测试计量问题（被认为是一个保留测试,本研究的目的是比较）.的学生（不适用=58）进行显着降低（60%）比整个如（不适用=54,68%,吨=2,磷=0.047）和31例谁完成了化学计量学程序（75% =2.72,磷=0.007）.然而,这意味着（75%）无显着差异时,比较的手段控制分组选择所述的方式（1）和（2）以上.这一结果表明,31例如学生谁完成了特别程序的化学计量学是相当代表整个实验组和他们的显着更好的性能的前后（见表3）不干从一个有偏见的激励因素但由于该计划的有效性. 这些结果表明,教学策略研究中使用的是可靠的和适当的教育概念的化学计量学和,特别的问题,limiting-reactant.