Re: Error in polls, Part 2
Each state is not necessarily winner-take-all. Several states permit their electoral votes to be split. I believe either Kansas or Nebraska is one of those states. reg - Original Message - From: "Rich Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Error in polls, Part 2 > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 14:02:48 GMT, Gene Gallagher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A URL for the 1 Nov Gallup poll: > > > > http://www.gallup.com/Poll/releases/pr001101c.asp > > > > This poll has Bush over Gore 48% to 43% with margin of error of 2%. > > Wolfgang's post and the thread below indicates that this +/- 2% is the > > 95% CI, which makes sense given the sample size. With the 2% 95% CI, we > > can conclude that these estimates are significantly different at the > > 0.05 level, can we not? > > Basically, yep, that difference would be "reliable." Thanks for the > URL. That article was more informative than the usual -- it gives > results for three different totals per survey, and reports consistency > of results over time. > > Yesterday's NY Times had an interesting article which explicitly > converted its own "3%" size of the +/- error, to the same confidence > in a 6 point difference. > > The article went on to describe various differences, where the state > by state polls are (it seems) guiding the candidates in spending their > last-minute millions in TV advertising. Both candidates will ignore > the states with an 8-point margin. Too big, and too late to matter. > > The results in the NY Times article showed a lead for Bush of about > 3%, nationally, "among likely voters," at the same time that Bush > could lose in the ultimate Elector College tabulation. Based on those > chances, I guess, TV reporting has started trying to re-teach us all > this distinction -- each state is winner-take-all for its lump of > votes (ranging from 3 to about 50: however many California has), so > winning a national, popular majority does not ensure victory. > > Do I mis-remember, or did Zogby have results, this week, that showed a > Gore lead nationally? I can believe that the two polls would differ, > because the "error" claimed by each does not include "differences in > method." The claimed error describes how their own sampling should > reproduce itself, and not whether it under-represents, say, Latinos > among the people who will vote this year; > > > What is the correct formula for the confidence interval for the > > difference in proportions from the same poll? Is the 5% difference > > different at the 0.05 level? > > Assuming multinomial, the "difference" in proportions has to take into > account the strong covariance between large counts. When there are > only two cells, then the total adds to 100%, the covariance is 100%, > and it takes twice as many points as the claimed accuracy to describe > the accuracy of the "difference." Question: Does the Nader vote > "covary" especially with the Gore vote? Does the Nader run > especially hurt Gore? > > Differences between two polls? - Yes, you do need to account for > "sampling" in each, and the size of the CI would increase by that > fraction: > > > < snip, some >For similar sample sizes and proportions not > > too different, tt would be roughly equivalent to multiplying the 95% CI > > for one poll times sqrt(2) to get the 95% CI for the difference. > < snip, some more > > > > I may not be the only one confused on what these confidence intervals > > mean. In the above press release, the Gallup organization provides this > > description of what their +/- 2% means: > > > > "For results based on the total sample of likely voters, one can say > > with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is +/- 2 > > percentage points." > > Those guys are supposed to be professionals, and they should have > been polishing their syntax for 50 years, but my first reaction to > that statement was "UGH." > > Is that what you are pointing to? > > I think that I want to say, with 100% confidence, that I have computed > certain results. Beyond that, I am not sure how to describe them to > the public. > "The 95% CI is +/- 2 points" -- seems too technical. > "The 95% margin of sampling error... "? > > The public has to have trouble with the "95%," but I haven't yet > accepted the solution quoted above. In addition, that phrase, "margin > of sampling error," annoys me. (But, I am closer to accepting it > today, than I was yesterday.) > > Is this just me? Or, what should they be saying? > > > -- > Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = >
Electoral College
Here is some additional info from the MSNBC website. Thought you might be interested: " Q. How are each state’s electoral votes allocated to presidential candidates? A. In 48 states, and in the District of Columbia, it is a winner-take-all system: The winner of the popular vote in a given state receives all of that state’s electoral votes. For instance, if Republican candidate George W. Bush – or more precisely, the slate of electors pledged to Bush — receives even one vote more than his Democratic rival, Al Gore, in the state of Ohio, Bush gets all 21 of Ohio’s electoral votes. This can result in an outcome that might seem undemocratic. In 1992, Arizona’s eight electoral votes were awarded to President George Bush, since he had received the most popular votes in the state’s balloting. But 61 percent of Arizona’s voters had cast their ballots for candidates other than Bush, i.e., for Bill Clinton or Ross Perot. Q. The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide how to allocate electoral votes, and two states do not use the winner-take-all system. Which ones are they? A. In Nebraska and Maine, two of each state’s electors are chosen by a statewide popular vote and the rest are chosen by the popular vote within each congressional district. It is conceivable that this year Gore could win statewide in Maine, but Bush could win the most votes in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. If that were to happen, Gore would get three of Maine’s electoral votes and Bush would get one of them."
Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes
With all due respect, So what!? (1) The ballot was mailed in advance of the election to all registered voters and to officials of all parties listed on the ballot. There were NO protests from anyone concerning possible confusion in the use of the ballot. (2) Assistance was available AT THE POLLING SITE for those who had any questions. (3) I haven't heard of any Republicans complaining that they didn't understand the proper way to use the ballot. Did it cost Gore votes? Doesn't matter. Incompetence is not a defense. "Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." -- Mark Twain reg - Original Message - From: "Juan Zuluaga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:43 AM Subject: Stats on Palm Beach votes > -- Forwarded Message -- > Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:57 PM -0500 > From: Greg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: important: election results > > As you probably all know, Bush has 1700 more votes in Florida over Gore. > However, folks in Palm Beach were complaining that their ballots were > confusing, and many people voted for Buchanan when they thought they were > voting for Gore. With the help of my wife Chris, I analyzed the county by > county presidential results for Florida. The results are clear: the ballot > for Palm Beach cost Gore approximately 2200 votes. A simple regression of > Buchanan's vote on Bush's vote shows that Buchanan should have only gotten > 800 votes, not 3400. > > Don't believe me? Look for yourself: It's not even close! Palm Beach is > an outlier beyond all belief!!! > > http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/palm-beach.pdf > > I need help getting these results out to the world. If you have media > contacts or now how to tip them, please have them contact me asap. Thanks. > > > -- End Forwarded Message -- > > > > - > David Krackhardt, Professor of Organizations > Academic homepage (address, etc.): http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~krack/academic/ > > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes
Well, let's look at that. In the '96 election, 14,000 or so ballots were discarded as "spoiled" because of precisely the same problem. Given the voter turnout in that election, 19,000 discards in this election is really not different than that of '96. As I said earlier, these ballots were designed and approved by Democrats, distributed to and approved by each Party, distributed by mail to each registered voter, and posted at each polling place. Assistance was available at each polling place for voters with questions. What more can you do? And yes, the 19,000 who punched two holes are in my opinion, incompetent. reg - Original Message - From: "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Reg Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes > At 03:51 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Reg Jordan wrote: > > >Did it cost Gore votes? Doesn't matter. Incompetence is not a defense. > > on what basis can you conclude that the 19,000 invalidated ballots were due > to incompetence ... this seems to be your supposition ... > > what if you saw a table that showed that the percentage of invalidated > ballots in palm beach county was so much higher than any other county ... > to be clearly an outlier ... would you then think that it was just the > stupidity of the voters ... or, some ELSE was going on that mushroomed this > problem? > > these are the data i want to see ... > > county votes cast ... invalidated ballots ... % of total invalidated > > > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes
These 19,000 "spoiled" ballots account for about 0.3% of the vote count. Doesn't seem too high to me. reg - Original Message - From: "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes > the people claim that since it had been publicized in the newspaper trial > printing of the ballot ... that it was assumed that al gore, who IS listed > second on the left ... that his vote would be the second hole ... so, it > seems like many just like automatons ... punched the second hole ... which > was for buchannan ... but, the ballot is clear enough ... the arrow next to > gore is clearly >> this way to the right hole ... > > but, i want to know why there has not be as much fervor over the 19,000 > invalidated ballots (primarily for double voting for TWO PRESIDENTIAL > CANDIDATES) and WHY that is the case? sure, they say that it was 15,000 > last time (and then no one presses further on this issue) but ... this > seems real high to me ... > > i would like to see some county listings ... with total votes and % > invalidated for double voting and see if what palm beach is within the > typical range or, really an outlier ... IF it is an outlier ... then how > come? is it because the voters there are SO stupid as to vote for two > presidential candidates??? i seriously doubt it ... however, if that is not > a plausible alternative, then .. what about the layout of the ballot > compared to what was publicized in the local media?? > > no one has really pressed this issue ... which seems crucial to me > > now, i am totally against REVOTES ... since, folks now know the results and > could alter their votes accordingly ... so that is not fair ... but, there > has to be some ways to attempt to recreate from the invalidated ballots ... > what happened and to try to recount those in relation to what appears to be > a read ballot design fiasco ... > > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election
By the way, Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) was quoted today in USAToday as saying that the only way to have confidence in the outcome is to recount the votes (I assume he means in FL, not the country) 50-100 times, then use the average. reg - Original Message - From: "Alan Zaslavsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:03 AM Subject: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election > The following might be interest for those following press coverage of the > possible role of statistics in this dispute. (The printed version in the > edition I receive contained additional comments by David Freedman, also > downplaying the potential of statistics in this highly charged situation. > I would not follow Persi very far on the analogy to census undercount > adjustment, since anything that would be done now on the elections would > be post hoc and supported by little research ... that's another argument!) > -- > IN RESEARCH, RECOUNTS ARE NORM > http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/10/politics/10MATH.html > > November 10, 2000 > THE SCIENCE OF COUNTING > By GINA KOLATA > > First George W. Bush led Al Gore by 1,784 votes in Florida. Then, an > unofficial count by The Associated Press suggested his lead was slashed > to less than half that. So, which number is right mathematically? > > Statisticians chuckled at the idea. > > "There's always going to be an error," said Howard Wainer, a statistician > at the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J. "Every time you > count them, you're going to get a different answer." > > In research, said Diana C. Mutz, a professor of political science at Ohio > State University, scientists will repeat a process multiple times and > choose a number somewhere in the middle of their data as most likely to > reflect the truth. But, she and others said, multiple recounts are > probably not desirable in the presidential election because they would > add to the delay and uncertainty, not to say the bickering. Whoever was > losing could argue for one more recount. > > Even if it were just a research question, Professor Mutz was not sure how > many counts would be needed to make her confident the Florida vote was as > accurate as it could be. How many times she would count it "depends on > how many graduate students I have," she joked. > > Then there is the problem of Palm Beach County, Fla., where residents > said confusion over the ballot led more than 19,000 voters in a heavily > Democratic area to mark two candidates instead of one for president. > Their ballots were discarded as invalid. And, adding to the confusion, > Patrick J. Buchanan won more than 3,000 votes in Palm Beach. Some > Democrats said many people accidentally voted for Mr. Buchanan when they > meant to vote for Mr. Gore. Isn't there a way to fix that? A statistical > adjustment, perhaps? > > Sorry, say the statisticians. Any adjustment would only make matters > worse. Persi Diaconis, a statistician at Stanford University, said the > situation reminded him of attempts to adjust the census to correct for > the undercount, the people who were missed. The census recount turned out > to be a nightmare, he said, with new errors introduced and even more > squabbling. > > "The process really degenerates," Professor Diaconis said. "It's not at > all simple." > > Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Palm Beach Stats
As I understand it, it was the same screwy arrangement in '96 -- except for the complaints from the Democrats.The distribution of the double votes might be statistically interesting ( I can sense that grant applications are being completed as we speak), but the question remains: How can anyone think that he can vote for more than one candidate for President?None of these issues (double punching, voting for wrong candidate) were raised at the polling place at the time of voting. How do you associate any ballot with ANY voter claiming that he misvoted?And you're 100% correct, there cannot be a revote. Not with prior knowledge of the outcomes in the rest of the country.It's interesting that no Republicans have claimed that the ballot was misleading -- all the complaints seem to come from Democrats. Wouldn't the "misleading, confusing" nature of the ballot apply equally across the voting spectrum?reg - Original Message -From: "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Reg Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:23 PMSubject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes> At 11:45 AM 11/10/00 -0500, you wrote:> >Well, let's look at that. In the '96 election, 14,000 or so ballots were> >discarded as "spoiled" because of precisely the same problem. Given the> >voter turnout in that election, 19,000 discards in this election isreally> >not different than that of '96.>> did they have the same kind of screwy ballot arrangement in 1996?>> whether they did or not ... is this volume of spoiled ballots typical> across the other 66 counties?>> there is a way to see if it were just general incompetence ... by, seeing> what the double punches were ... now, if these spoiled ballots tended to> distribute their two punches all around say, told to vote for oneonly> (for some local races) but, voted for two ... then, one would not suggest> that ballot confusion led to the vote count problems ...>> but, if the two were for two presidential candidates ... buchanan and gore> for example ... i think it is much harder to wisk this spoil away due to> dumb voters>>
Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes
This principle (that every eligible citizen has a right to have their opinion heard and choice recorded) is missing something. First of all, it is the obligation of each eligible citizen to acquaint himself with the positions of each office-seeker, then exercise that right by voting on the prescribed day in the prescribed manner. Some of those that exercised that right are now screaming after the election is over that they MAY have voted for the wrong candidate, because NOW they claim that the ballot was confusing. This MAY have happened. My point is that the election is over. If the ballot was confusing, the time to fix the confusion was at the time of voting. Statistically, there may well be anomalies in the Palm Beach County data. But so what? reg - Original Message - From: "Eric Scharin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Reg Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:34 PM Subject: RE: Stats on Palm Beach votes > This is starting to seem relevant to the thread of a few weeks back > regarding the difference between statistical & practical significance. It > may be that the 96 Palm Beach bad ballot numbers were statistically > significant, but not practically so (wouldn't have had an impact on the > outcome either way). The 00 results are definitely practically significant > (otherwise there wouldn't be this debate), and could well be the difference > between electing Bush or Gore. > > Again, I heard that the real difference in disqualified votes between 96 & > 00 is around 15,000 vs. 30,000, when you compare apples to apples. > > And I'd also like to enter a contrarian opinion on the incompetence of the > voters. Incompetence or ignorance (even if that is the root cause of the > misvotes) is currently not a disqualifier for involvement in the democratic > process. If that were the case, they wouldn't provide assistance for > illiterate voters (which they do) and (IMHO) they wouldn't allow 90% of the > candidates to run for office. > > The discussions I've heard during the media coverage of this all have a > disconcertingly political tinge to them. There seems to be a lack of debate > based on principle. The principle I'm referring to the right of every > eligible citizen to have their opinion heard and choice recorded. If the > voting system in place in Palm Beach hampered this fair process, then it > needs to be investigated in an even-handed way, considering all of the data > available. > > - Eric > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Reg Jordan > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dennis roberts > Subject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes > > > These 19,000 "spoiled" ballots account for about 0.3% of the vote count. > Doesn't seem too high to me. > > reg > - Original Message - > From: "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:02 AM > Subject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes > > > > the people claim that since it had been publicized in the newspaper trial > > printing of the ballot ... that it was assumed that al gore, who IS listed > > second on the left ... that his vote would be the second hole ... so, it > > seems like many just like automatons ... punched the second hole ... which > > was for buchannan ... but, the ballot is clear enough ... the arrow next > to > > gore is clearly >>>>>> this way to the right hole ... > > > > but, i want to know why there has not be as much fervor over the 19,000 > > invalidated ballots (primarily for double voting for TWO PRESIDENTIAL > > CANDIDATES) and WHY that is the case? sure, they say that it was 15,000 > > last time (and then no one presses further on this issue) but ... this > > seems real high to me ... > > > > i would like to see some county listings ... with total votes and % > > invalidated for double voting and see if what palm beach is within the > > typical range or, really an outlier ... IF it is an outlier ... then how > > come? is it because the voters there are SO stupid as to vote for two > > presidential candidates??? i seriously doubt it ... however, if that is > not > > a plausible alternative, then .. what about the layout of the ballot > > compared to what was publicized in the local media?? > > > > no one has really pressed this issue ... which seems crucial to me > > > > now, i am totally against REVOTES ... since, folks now know the results > and >
Re: Palm Beach Stats
Yes, that's correct. You had to FOLLOW the arrow to the hole to punch, just as stated in the instructions. reg - Original Message - From: "Paul Bernhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Edstat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Palm Beach Stats > Reg Jordan wrote on 11/10/00 10:51 AM: > > >It's interesting that no Republicans have claimed that the ballot was > >misleading -- all the complaints seem to come from Democrats. Wouldn't the > >"misleading, confusing" nature of the ballot apply equally across the > >voting spectrum? > > Bush was listed first on the ballot, and the hole to punch for him was > also the first hole. So, no confusion if you wanted to vote for Bush. If > you wanted to vote for Gore, the second name on the ballot, you had to > punch the *third* hole on the ballot, the second hole being for Buchanan. > Given the unexpectedly high number of votes for Buchanan in that county > (3000 of about 400,000 votes cast) as in the next largest Buchanan county > (Pinnelas (Tampa-Clearwater area), Buchanan got 1000 of the 400,000 votes > cast). You have to argue that Palm Beach county has more conservatives > than Pinnelas. If that's the case you would expect Bush to have done > better in Palm Beach than Pinnelas. But, the oposite is the case. Palm > Beach went decisively for Gore, while Pinnelas was very close to evenly > split, with Gore leading only slightly. > > Paul > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: No vote option
Drake Bradley wrote: > The point of having the voter select "No vote" is so that such decisions can > be distinguished from ones in which a hole *is* punched, but the machine > failes to detect it (due to the chad sticking, etc.). Assuming that the "No Vote" hole is punched out, right?! Of course, if it isn't there's always the pregnant chad, hanging chad, drooling chad, tumescent chad ... uh, wait a second :>) reg - Original Message - From: "Drake Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:46 PM Subject: Re: No vote option > > > dennis roberts wrote: > > > why should a no vote option cause a ballot to be rejected? is there a law > > that says IF you vote, you have to vote for each and every category on the > > ballot? > > I didn't suggest that. If the voter selects "No vote" that is just fine -- no > vote is tallied for that office, but the rest of the votes (for other > candidate running for other offices) are tallied as usual. > > The point of having the voter select "No vote" is so that such decisions can > be distinguished from ones in which a hole *is* punched, but the machine > failes to detect it (due to the chad sticking, etc.). > > People have the right not to vote for certain offices if they wish -- we just > want to make sure that is what they are doing, and not that they tried to > vote but it didn't register electronically for some reason. > > Drake Bradley > > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Measuring student learning?
Instructional technologists and designers will tell you that you cannot measure *understanding*. Understanding, at least your sense of it, should be laid out in the course syllabus in the section on goals and objectives, and should be stated in terms of some form of expected student performance. reg - Original Message - From: "Robert Lundquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:23 AM Subject: Measuring student learning? > In one of our course in statistics for engineers, we have began using a > course web where one of the key elements is a series of quizzes. Students > like the approach, especially since the emphasis is on the opportunity for > repetition and prompt feed-back rather than using the system for assessment > and grading. However, compared to full solutions in written exams, the quiz > responses don't tell us whether students *really* understand what we want > them to learn. Quiz responses are simply too limited. > > My problem now is how I could "measure" understanding. I would like to take > a sample of students, ask them about their understanding *without* making > use of actual problems in order to see how they solve these. So here I am, > not knowing what *understanding* in statistics really mean, and of course > without a way to formulate questions which are supposed to capture such > understanding. Anyone who could help me out? > > Robert > *** > Robert Lundquist > Div of Quality Technology & Statistics > Luleå University of Technology > > tel +46-920-91078 > fax +46-920-72160 > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Measuring student learning?
Not to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but if understanding is not "...so difficult to define ...," then define it. We don't do that directly. What we do is to finesse it by writing assessment criteria which comes close to what we think understanding is. What must a student do to demonstrate an understanding of, say, probability? Or, better yet (if you like the affective domain), how does one assess, as understanding, an appreciation of music? We write assessment items which demonstrate facets of understanding, and that's as close as we get. reg - Original Message - From: "dennis roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Reg Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Measuring student learning? > At 02:50 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Reg Jordan wrote: > >Instructional technologists and designers will tell you that you cannot > >measure *understanding*. Understanding, at least your sense of it, should be > >laid out in the course syllabus in the section on goals and objectives, and > >should be stated in terms of some form of expected student performance. > > i don't think educational psychologists would be so pessimistic ... what > does it mean to understand something? i don't think this is so difficult to > define ... and, given that, i don't think it would be that hard to assess > it either ... > > for example, using the current election mess ... what would it mean to > "understand" what error means in the context of votes cast and whether or > not the figures given by election officials are "accurate" or not? > > i think we could enumerate various conditions of this and then create test > items (of a variety of item formats) that would tap this "understanding" > == > dennis roberts, penn state university > educational psychology, 8148632401 > http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Help for DL students in doing assignments
Well, OK. But one of the conditions of this pathetically drawn out pissing match was "...for any prime greater than 2..." Perhaps this thread can now be put mercifully to rest. reg - Original Message - From: "Ronny Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Nomen Nescio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 5:02 PM Subject: Re: Help for DL students in doing assignments > At 10:40 PM 10/15/01 +0200, you wrote: > >### Dear Mr. Dawson, please send me at least ONE even prime > >### and i shall give you $1,000,000. > > > Well, I am not Mr. Dawson but two (2) is both prime and even. You can send > the check to the address below. > > > Dr. Ronny Richardson > Associate Professor of Management > Southern Polytechnic State University > Management Program > 1100 South Marietta Parkway > Marietta, GA 30060-2896 > > Phone: (770) 528-5542 > Fax:(770) 528-4967 > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: used books
This is one of the BEST sources for used books: http://www.powells.com/ Hope this helps. reg - Original Message - From: IPEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:51 PM Subject: used books > Do you know any online used bookstore other than Amazon? I need to find some > old stat and OR books. > > > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
RE: shrimp statistics
Title: Message Well, if this had happened in my house, and my wife observed what I was doing, the statistic to look at would be spousal homicide in North Carolina, 2002. reg -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Karl L. WuenschSent: Friday, February 08, 2002 6:25 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: shrimp statistics I just ate a bowl full of shrimp. I took out two at a time, shelled them, dipped the larger one in horseradish and ate it, reserving the smaller one for my spouse. If I had the weight of each shrimp in the bowl, what simple statistic would be a good estimate of the mean difference between the weight of the shrimp I ate and the weight of the shrimp reserved for my spouse? Karl L. Wuensch, Department of Psychology,East Carolina University, Greenville NC 27858-4353Voice: 252-328-4102 Fax: 252-328-6283[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
