5 ms·

> I realize my experience is anecdotal FWIW I'm not totally convinced that the paper isn't also anecdotal. They selected for people who would agree to have the

> I realize my experience is anecdotal FWIW I'm not totally convinced that the paper isn't also anecdotal. They selected for people who would agree to have their internet activity spied on in exchange for extra credit, and then from that group selected only for people using the internet -- not their computers, but the internet! -- in more than half the lectures. And did all of this in a large enrollment undergraduate gen ed intro course with lectures that lasted two hours.

gambogi 9y ago
is there really any reason to expect the students who didn't take free points in exchange for privacy to outperform the observed group? Sure, the results pertain more to excluding the internet from the classroom, but really that's just splitting hairs imo
- ACow_Adonis 9y ago
  That could depend on a two part hypothesis that I just came up with off the top of my head: 1) people who are more informed care more about privacy 2) you become more informed by being the type of person who seeks out and successfully obtains information and not being distracted If 2) and 1) hold, your methodology will be biased to those liable to undertake distracting activities or be distracted. Furthermore, perhaps some would not even partake in the study because it's a distraction relative to why they're in the class in the first place. Not saying that is demonstrable or true. Don't downvote the hypothetical messenger and all :p
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Is there any reason we should be guessing at this when the experimenters could've chosen some other incentive (or none at all)? And yes, I'd expect weaker students to be the more likely to spend their time / privacy on extra points.
steveo3387 9y ago
The paper is entirely anecdotal. It's a small, self-selected group who also selected when they would be tracked. I do believe that the group's worse performance was related to their laptop usage, though. So a third variable, perhaps a quality of the students, caused them to do the observed behavior (have a laptop, sign up, log into the process and then) and do worse in their courses. Finally, doing slightly worse on two hour gen eds is also not the same thing as doing worse in general. Those classes are ones students are forced to take, often with professors who are forced to teach them. I know my gen eds were lower quality classes, with more people, less participation, worse teaching, and worse assignments.
anonymfus 9y ago
These processes are called a self-selection bias and a sampling bias. Please don't use the word "anecdotal" in such contexts.
- krath94 9y ago
  Please don't tell someone what words they are allowed to use in what contexts.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    1. "Please don't" is hardly offensive or authoritative. 2. If you disagree, you were laughably hypocritical in your post.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Please don't define what phrases are "offensive" or "authoritative" in a conversation, especially after those phrases have been used. Context will have already defined them for you.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  The use of "anecdotal" here is a rhetorical device, mirroring parent's language to emphasize that strongly biased data isn't necessarily any more valuable than mere anecdote. This is a conversation, not a peer review.

gambogi 9y ago

is there really any reason to expect the students who didn't take free points in exchange for privacy to outperform the observed group? Sure, the results pertain more to excluding the internet from the classroom, but really that's just splitting hairs imo

ACow_Adonis 9y ago
That could depend on a two part hypothesis that I just came up with off the top of my head: 1) people who are more informed care more about privacy 2) you become more informed by being the type of person who seeks out and successfully obtains information and not being distracted If 2) and 1) hold, your methodology will be biased to those liable to undertake distracting activities or be distracted. Furthermore, perhaps some would not even partake in the study because it's a distraction relative to why they're in the class in the first place. Not saying that is demonstrable or true. Don't downvote the hypothetical messenger and all :p
throwawayjava 9y ago
Is there any reason we should be guessing at this when the experimenters could've chosen some other incentive (or none at all)? And yes, I'd expect weaker students to be the more likely to spend their time / privacy on extra points.

steveo3387 9y ago

The paper is entirely anecdotal. It's a small, self-selected group who also selected when they would be tracked. I do believe that the group's worse performance was related to their laptop usage, though. So a third variable, perhaps a quality of the students, caused them to do the observed behavior (have a laptop, sign up, log into the process and then) and do worse in their courses. Finally, doing slightly worse on two hour gen eds is also not the same thing as doing worse in general. Those classes are ones students are forced to take, often with professors who are forced to teach them. I know my gen eds were lower quality classes, with more people, less participation, worse teaching, and worse assignments.

anonymfus 9y ago

These processes are called a self-selection bias and a sampling bias. Please don't use the word "anecdotal" in such contexts.

krath94 9y ago
Please don't tell someone what words they are allowed to use in what contexts.
- bllguo 9y ago
  1. "Please don't" is hardly offensive or authoritative. 2. If you disagree, you were laughably hypocritical in your post.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Please don't define what phrases are "offensive" or "authoritative" in a conversation, especially after those phrases have been used. Context will have already defined them for you.
throwawayjava 9y ago
The use of "anecdotal" here is a rhetorical device, mirroring parent's language to emphasize that strongly biased data isn't necessarily any more valuable than mere anecdote. This is a conversation, not a peer review.