Who knows what's going on with this phenomena, but I think it's interesting.
Doesn't seem too mysterious: the male students are either consciously or subconsciously less willing to admit the need for further corrections to a young and attractive female teacher, because they hope to impress her more than (or at least as much as) they crave her approval. Solution: become old and matronly as quickly as possible.
this is a crazy gender discrepancy!
Nah, not really. Sample size is too small to run a reliable chi-squared test.
3: Big enough sample for Fisher's Exact test. As of Monday, female students were significantly more likely to submit corrections (two-tailed, p = .002). At the test (i.e. after two male students submitted corrections), the difference was weaker but still significant (p = .015).
I've read that when math classes are taught by women, the top students tend to be female, and vice versa.
I wonder how much the homework correction has to do with this, though. Do you think more males would submit corrections if they had a male teacher? The way it has played out fits so well with the stereotype of dilligent female students.
I'd like to point out that 6 indicates just how dilligent this male student is. Or would if I weren't ignoring what I should be doing to write stuff like 6.
Every time somebody says the word 'phenomena' (or phenomenon, it doesn't matter) I get Mahna Mahna stuck in my head for days.
Thanks a lot, Heebie and Blandings.
re: 9
Arrrrgh. And now me. It's a serious earwurm that tune. I sometimes use it to defeat other more insidious ones.
Every time somebody says the word 'phenomena' (or phenomenon, it doesn't matter) I get Mahna Mahna stuck in my head for days.
Oh, it matters if they use "phenomena" as the singular. It matters like hell.
9, 10: In a high school chemistry class, the teacher was talking about nanometers. One friend of mine looked at the other and they broke into that song, except saying "nanometer."
I meant it still gets the song stuck in my head, either way.
9: So glad I'm not the only one. Do doo be-do-do
"Pajamas on" is the popular bedtime version in my home.
I meant it still gets the song stuck in my head, either way.
Oh, you were saying something about a song? The 19th-century-pedant voices in my head tend to take over when I merely imagine misuse of Greek plurals.
I think the standard explanation works fine here. Female students are people-pleasers and you're a pleasant person to please.
I think the male students would be reluctant to turn in corrections no matter who the teacher was. No matter what, the task requires admitting you were wrong in order to satisfy an authority figure. Only the most defeated beta-males would do that.
Oh, and me and Moby. But that's just because we're hot for teacher and want to take the apple-polishing route to her heart.
One friend of mine looked at the other and they broke into that song, except saying "nanometer."
Huh. I always thought it was NANN ometer. Not nan OM eter.
"Manometer" would work. And back in the 90s I knew people who couldn't watch a Liverpool match without breaking into "doo doo be doo doo, MCMANAMAN".
6: ah, but how many other classes has heebie taught where this hasn't happened? Selection effect.
18: You had to be there. Even the teacher laughed for five minutes as they kept singing.
Huh. I always thought it was NANN ometer. Not nan OM eter.
Nan-OM-eters measure grandmothers.
Huh. I always thought it was NANN ometer. Not nan OM eter.
If you're saying something is 500 nanometers in width, it's NANN ometer. Apparently there is also some device, called a nan OM eter?
Do you think more males would submit corrections if they had a male teacher? The way it has played out fits so well with the stereotype of dilligent female students.
True. It might be that female teachers establish classroom grading schemes in a way that plays into strengths of being gendered female.
22: Apparently I was thinking of a manometer but I didn't know it until I went to Wikipedia.
I've been to Wikipedia,
But I've never been to me.
Millimeters detect the use of lip-synching.
6: awfully low power. You'd want at least 20 per group to get a beta of 0.2 for those significance levels.
Did the male students do well enough to basically pass on the proofs? Because I can't imagine turning in a correction to anything unless I really had to.
Ditto to 28. That marking/assessment scheme does strike me as gendered, yeah. It's a cliche that continuous assessment slants slightly female and a more exam based format slants slightly male* and that system strikes me as continuous with knobs on.
* cliche but maybe someone with more up to date knowledge of the pedagogical research might say whether it really holds up?
27: You might want to look at the difference between a priori and post hoc power analysis. If you are seriously suggesting that you need 40 cases to run Fisher's, that would be very novel.
Haven't looked at the exams yet. The problem is that none of them start this class with any ear for how to phrase a proof whatsoever. It's the type of situation where re-drafting will help tremendously, though.
Re 31
Yeah. I experimented a bit with getting people rewrite essays when I still taught philosophy for the same reason. People hated doing it though.
30: no, I'm not. I'm just saying that you'd ideally want a bigger sample.
Plus, I don't think we're going to cover post-hoc power analysis.
34: It's kind of the same thing. In a priori, you are usually calculating sample size you'd need for beta = .8 and alpha = .05 at an estimated effect size. Except if you knew the effect size, why bother to do the study. So you figure out the sample you can afford and then play with the effect size until it works. Post-hoc is more useful because you've already got the data and the sample size and the effect size. You can cleanly calculate beta to see how likely a non-significant finding is actually just an artifact of your sample size.
35: you just said the exact opposite thing that wikipedia says! And I have a feeling that in my field post-hoc calculations of beta are frowned upon.
Also, the stupid calculator I used online asked for an estimated effect size even for a priori calculations, so there you go.
Wikipedia says post-hoc is less useful or wikipedia says post-hoc is used to estimate sample size?
37: wikipedia says post-hoc is less useful.
38: Probably just some whiner who does experimental design exclusively.
A disproportionate percentage of the people talking about statistical analysis on this thread are male. I assume this has to do with gender, and not with the courses those two happen to be enrolled in.
40: Men are more fascinated by their p-values.
41: If it were possible to do so without getting yelled at, I would so steal that for use at work.