## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

James Li

Egan McComb

Edmund Xu

Sherry Zhang

10 December, 2010

Abstract In this report, we analyze the expectations of strategic behavior among students at Los Altos High School, speciﬁcally through the use of game theory puzzles. Using a survey and various methods of statistical analysis, we obtain both holistic and stratiﬁed results. We ﬁnd that while students are attuned to the behavior of the majority, they cannot eﬀectively eschew this behavior themselves to avoid the fallacy of composition. Furthermore, we ﬁnd that the correct minority response is the same as the majority response on an equivalent but antithetical question. Lastly, we determine an answer to the classic “2/3 of the average” game theory puzzle in a real world environment which reproduces independent results.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following teachers for their co¨peration: o Lisa Bonanno Teresa Dunlap Carol Evans Susan Friedeberg Susana Herrera Laraine Ignacio Michael Moul Perla Pasallo Michael Richardson Katherine Robertson Galen Rosenberg Michael Smith Gabriel Stewart Judy Strauss Betty Yamasaki

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 2 Procedure 2.1 Survey Design . 2.2 Sample Design 2.3 Administration 2.4 Data Handling 3 Data Summary 4 Results for Unstratiﬁed Data 4.1 Analysis of Responses to Questions 1–4 . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 1 4.1.2 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 2 4.1.3 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 3 4.1.4 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 4 4.2 Holistic Analysis of Response to Question 5 . . . . . 4.3 Analysis of Responses to Questions 6 & 7 . . . . . . 4.3.1 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 6 4.3.2 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 7 1 2 2 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 16 17 18 18 19 21 26 27 29 35 35 36 37 37 38 39 40

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

5 Results for Stratiﬁed Data 5.1 1–4 Stratiﬁed by Response to Related Question . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Response to Question 4 vs. Response to 1 . . . . . . 5.1.2 Response to Question 3 vs. Response to 2 . . . . . . 5.2 Response to 5 Stratiﬁed In Various Manners . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Response to Question 5 vs. Response to 7 . . . . . . 5.2.2 Response to Question 5 vs. Inferred Comprehension 6 Conclusion 6.1 Problems with the Sample . . . . 6.2 Problems with the Survey . . . . 6.3 Other Sources of Response Bias . 6.3.1 Contamination . . . . . . 6.3.2 Sincerity . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Further Possibilities for Analysis 6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

i

List of Figures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 1 . . . . . . . . Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 2 . . . . . . . . Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 3 . . . . . . . . Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 4 . . . . . . . . Unstratiﬁed Frequencies — 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstratiﬁed Boxplot — 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 4 vs. A on 1 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 4 vs. B on 1 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. A on 2 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. B on 2 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. C on 2 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. D on 2 . . . . . . . . . Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. E on 2 . . . . . . . . . Frequencies — 5 Given Knowledge of Game Theory Boxplot — 5 Given Knowledge of Game Theory . . . Frequencies — 5 Given Reasonability of Response . Boxplot — 5 Given Reasonability of Response . . . . Frequencies — 5 Juxtaposing Previous Strata . . . . Boxplot — 5 Juxtaposing Previous Strata . . . . . . Frequencies — 5 Another Juxtaposition of Strata . . Boxplot — 5 Another Juxtaposition of Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

ii

List of Tables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Raw Data — Bonanno . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Dunlap . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Friedeberg . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Herrera . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Ignacio . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Moul . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Richardson . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Robertson . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Rosenberg . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Strauss . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data — Yamsaki . . . . . . . . . . . Master Schedule — English Courses . . . Master Schedule — Mathematics Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

iii

1

INTRODUCTION

1

1

Introduction

Game theory, a branch of applied mathematics, is the study of behavior in strategic games wherein an individual’s favorable course of action is dependent on those of the other equally rational players. Many such interactions involve the unintuitive manifestation of the fallacy of composition, in which the seemingly most advantageous course of action is disadvantageous for that exact reason. For example, in the classic game of the prisoner’s dilemma, two criminals want to minimize their jail time. Separated, they are oﬀered the opportunity to walk by defecting and betraying their accomplice since the police have insuﬃcient evidence to prosecute either of them for anything other than a minor charge. Although it seems logical to defect and thereby minimize jail time, it is actually highly undesirable because if each does so, the police have suﬃcient evidence to prosecute them both. If neither defects then the police have no choice but to charge them with nothing other than the minor oﬀense. The only win-win situation is to remain silent, but each has to trust that the other will not betray him for a win-lose situation, and in the real world players will usually gravitate towards the lose-lose situation due to their suspicions of the other player. Though often applied to social sciences like economics or politics, routine life is abounding in such interactions, where the individual’s choice has an eﬀect on the eﬃcacy thereof, or where the individual must pre¨mpt external e behavior. In this report, we will attempt to analyze the behavior of teenagers at Los Altos High School when confronted with these situations through a survey, speciﬁcally using non-co¨perative, simultaneous n-person games, i.e. o games wherein players cannot form agreements, all the moves happen at once, and there are an arbitrary, ﬁnite number of players. Whether or not individuals in our sample will fall prey to the fallacy of composition is of particular interest. For this reason, we will pose unembellished questions both concerning the straightforward and the complex: the individual’s expectations of the group’s strategy, and the individual’s evasive strategy considering their expectations of those of the group. To measure our population’s aptitude for predicting the behavior of each other without the complication of the fallacy of composition, we will inquire about their expectations of the majority response to the respective question. To measure the cunning of our population at avoiding the behavior of each other, we will inquire about their expectations of minority response to the respective question. Lastly, we hope to obtain an answer to the “2/3 of the average” puzzle in a real world environment.

2

PROCEDURE

2

2

2.1

Procedure

Survey Design

Designing surveys is particularly problematic due to the ineﬃcacy of human language when communicating with a diverse population. Firstly, the survey questions must be communicated succinctly and precisely. The survey writer must pose the question in such a way that the respondent can understand precisely what is being asked, yet with no extraneous information that may bias or confuse him. This is a diﬃcult task indeed, for the imprecision of natural language may impart a multitude of minutia or nuances that are regarded diﬀerently from one individual to another. Unfortunately, even the best possibly phrased questions can be ineﬀective because even if no ambiguities exist, the response is still subject to the comprehension of the respondent. In diverse populations, the survey writer can never be sure of the literacy or acumen of her respondents. Thus a compromise in communication must be found at the expense of the precision and succinctness of thereof, maximizing public comprehensibility, unambiguity, and coverage of contingency. This is the reason documents intended for use across large populations are often verbose, repetitious, or insipid. With our survey, we gather both primary data for analysis and secondary data to be used as heuristics. The ﬁrst four questions are multiple choice, asking the respondents their expectations of the other respondents’ responses to each respective question. The survey is prefaced with some simple instructions outlining how and where to write their responses as well as some less important information regarding the structure of the survey and the rules surrounding it, where the latter are enforced by the instructor, outlined in their instructions.1 For formatting, font weights are modulated to indicate emphasis. Of course, to be cordial the survey also includes a statement of gratitude, even if it has little or no eﬀect on the quality of the responses. Questions 1 and 4 inquire about expectations of the majority response, and questions 2 and 3 do just the opposite, i.e. expectations of the minority response. Perhaps unusual questions, they are phrased to be as clear as possible that they refer to themselves and not to some external set of choices. The names of the possible responses are letters, with the ﬁrst response named ‘A’ and further responses named in alphabetical sequence. These responses are not unique across questions because it is unknown what biases respondents may have towards certain letters, and the responses were not described in any way for the same reason. Each question is communicated

1

See 2.3 (p6) for more information on the administration of the survey.

2

PROCEDURE

3

identically but for the qualifying nouns “most” or “least” in order to minimize the eﬀect of linguistic nuance. The ﬁfth question is free response, likewise asking the respondents their expectations of the other respondents’ responses. A much more technical question, and as such more diﬃcult to communicate, question 5 asks the classic “2/3 of the average” game theory puzzle. It is problematic due to the use of mathematical terms that individual respondents may not understand. We pose the question in a parallel manner as the other four primary questions but unfortunately due to its nature we are forced to use precise but perhaps esoteric terms such as “real number” and “mean” to avoid ambiguity. Additionally, being a free response question the collection of this data will be slightly more troublesome than the others. Question 6, another multiple choice response, is included as a sincerity heuristic, though the insincere respondent could just as easily lie on this question as on any other; moreover the responses are highly subjective and as such cannot be considered too seriously. Question 7 poses a very straightforward, easy to communicate question, being whether or not the respondent has heard of game theory, a simple Boolean response. Lastly, question 8 attempts to assess the respondents’ conﬁdence in their answers to the ﬁve primary questions. This question is put quite plainly and formatted with less ﬁnesse than the others.2 Included on the next page is a copy of the survey administered.

2

See 6.2 (p36) for more information regarding its pitfalls.

2

PROCEDURE

4

**School-Wide Survey
**

Please number and write your responses clearly on a separate piece of paper. Each question is completely independent from the others but for the last three, which are to gauge your responses. Refrain from conferring with your classmates, and please answer all of the questions. You will have no more than ﬁve minutes.

1. Which choice of the below do you think the most people taking this survey will choose? A) B) 2. Which choice of the below do you think the most people taking this survey will choose? A) B) C) D) E) 3. Which choice of the below do you think the least people taking this survey will choose? A) B) C) D) E) 4. Which choice of the below do you think the least people taking this survey will choose? A) B) 5. Write a real number between 0 and 100 that you think will be closest to of everyone else’s response to this question. 2 the mean 3

6. How much thought did you give this survey? A) None. B) Some thought. C) Much thought. 7. Have you heard of game theory? Yes / No 8. Tell us whether you think you got each answer right: 1. Yes / No 2. Yes / No 3. Yes / No 4. Yes / No 5. Yes / No

Thank you for your response. It is greatly appreciated.

2

PROCEDURE

5

2.2

Sample Design

In order to obtain a good sample, we need to include students of all grade levels and groups. The sample needs to be diverse, not just in age, but also in academic level and background. Because we do not want respondents conferring with each other, we choose to limit the survey to one period of one day to minimize response bias. This limits the variety of classes from which we can choose, since not all types of courses are available in even proportions throughout the day. First, we choose English courses because we can be reasonably sure that these classes provide the greatest representation of our overall population since every student must take them for four years. Further, we choose mathematics courses because it adds diversity of mindset to our responses, despite being prone to under-representation. Since our survey concerns logical, analytical concepts, we suspect that students in a math class, with a quantitative mindset, will respond slightly diﬀerently than students in English class, with a qualitative mindset. Science and history courses provide the same general dichotomy, but having the constraint of maximizing the academic diversity of our sample in one period, we do not include them to avoid further convolution. Elective courses cannot be included since they over-represent a certain population and are not distributed evenly and equivalently throughout the day. With the constraints of administering the survey in one period, and to only math and English courses, we analyze the master schedule to identify the period with the most classes and the most diversity thereof.3 We determine that second period has the most classes with greatest possible variety, and thus choose to administer the survey therein. Our sample design is not without its ﬂaws, which will be analyzed in Section 6.1 (p35).

3

See Appendix B (p55).

2

PROCEDURE

6

2.3

Administration

We elect to conduct the survey on Wednesday. We hope that teachers are more likely to oblige because the longer periods provide more class time. Furthermore, the Wednesday selected was the ﬁrst after the Veterans Day four day weekend, so we can be reasonably sure that teachers do not plan to administer an examination that would preclude extraneous activities, which is common in long periods. After designing our sample and the logistics of obtaining it, we contact the instructors of the selected courses via email, inquiring whether they will be willing to present our survey to their second period class. Due to time constraints, besides communication by email, we contact each instructor in person to give them an envelope with the necessary materials. Included is a physical copy of the survey and some instructions for the teachers. Teachers administer the survey for exactly ﬁve minutes, and students are not allowed to collaborate with one another. The survey is designed to be projected by a document camera, but if teachers so request, digital copies are provided as well as class sets of physical copies in one case. For the majority of the classes, students provide their own paper to record their responses. After conducting the survey, teachers collect and deposit the responses in the provided envelope, thereon writing the number of students enrolled and the number of those present that day, so that we may count individual nonresponse that would otherwise be undetectable. We then collect the envelopes from each teacher later that day and proceed to compile and analyze our results.

2.4

Data Handling

We manually digitize the surveys into non-headed, tab-delimited, ascii plain text ﬁles for ease of data analysis. The surveys are blocked into separate ﬁles by class, whose ﬁle name is in the format teacher.class.dat. From there, the data is collated and ﬁltered by standard Unix text processing utilities. The tables included in this document are produced by shell scripts, with minimal user intervention. Data blocking and stratiﬁcation is implemented in the awk language, interpreted by gnu awk 3.1.8. Statistical analysis and data visualization are implemented in the s language, interpreted by r 2.12.0.

3

DATA SUMMARY

7

3

Data Summary

For a complete listing of the data collected, refer to Appendix A (p41). • Classes Requested: 19 • Classes Sampled:4 14 • Individuals Enrolled in Sample: 363 • Individuals Attended in Sample: 336 • Individuals Responded in Sample: 334 • Total Question Nonresponse: 86 • Total Question Nonresponse, excluding #8:5 39

4 5

Refer to 6.1 (p35) for more information regarding total nonresponse. Due to problems, #8 was thrown out. Refer to 6.2 (p36) for more information.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

8

4

Results for Unstratiﬁed Data

We will begin by analyzing the collected responses holistically before proceeding to do stratiﬁcations thereon. The responses of interest in our survey were the ﬁrst ﬁve questions, with the remaining questions intended to serve as heuristics by which to stratify the data, though at least the responses to question seven provide an interesting statistic.

4.1

Analysis of Responses to Questions 1–4

The ﬁrst four questions were multiple choice, and as such we classify responses thereto as categorical variables. Categorical variables can be displayed in various ways with various graphical representations, but we elect to show the relative frequencies6 in a bar chart. The rationale for the choice of relative frequencies is the fact that the number of observations for each question diﬀer slightly due to nonresponse, so plain frequencies would not have conveyed the results as well. Use of bar charts is advantageous because the relative magnitude of the scores can be easily ascertained qualitatively, though a representation such as a pie chart would serve the same end.

6

The relative frequency is the score divided by the total number of observations.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 1

9

4.1.1

Figure 1: Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 1

• Number of Responses: 332 • Number of Nonresponse: 2 • Correct Answer: A

Quite clearly, a signiﬁcant majority of the responses to this question was ‘A’. It seems some internalized analog of the ballot order eﬀect caused respondents to favor the ﬁrst choice, whether rationalized or not. This mechanism was obviously not completely prevalent however, as the frequency of the response ‘B’ was not vastly lower.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 2

10

4.1.2

Figure 2: Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 2

• Number of Responses: 332 • Number of Nonresponse: 2 • Correct Answer: C

The results for this question are perhaps the most intriguing held herein. Though the response ‘A’ is still quite prevalent, the overwhelming majority of responses to this question was ‘C’, being 53.31% of the observations. In this question the mantra, “when in doubt, choose C,” is quite apt. The frequency of the other responses decline as they get further away from ‘A’, though the relative frequency of ‘D’ is slightly higher than that of ‘B’.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 3

11

4.1.3

Figure 3: Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 3

• Number of Responses: 330 • Number of Nonresponse: 4 • Fallacious Answer: E • Correct Answer: C

Another intriguing result, these data clearly show the fallacy of composition. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose ‘E’, at 44.24% of the observations. In so doing, respondents ensured that it was the incorrect answer. Interestingly enough, the correct answer was ‘C’ at 8.79% of the observations, the same answer respondents chose for their answer to question 2, which is logically antithetical. This result makes sense logically, since

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

12

respondents are probably unlikely to choose the same choice for the majority as the minority.7 4.1.4 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 4

Figure 4: Unstratiﬁed Relative Frequencies — 4

• Number of Responses: 328 • Number of Nonresponse: 6 • Fallacious Answer: B • Correct Answer: A

Unlike the previous question, the fallacy of composition is much less apparent in this instance since there are fewer choices. Furthermore, the results are

7

See 5.1.2 (p21) for elaboration.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

13

much less conclusive, with the relative frequencies of each response being essentially the same. However, it is important to note that the correct answer, ‘A’, is the same as the correct answer on the antithetical question 1, though this may be coincidental.8

8

See 5.1.1 (p19) for more analysis.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

14

4.2

Holistic Analysis of Response to Question 5

The ﬁfth question was free response, and its variable a continuous, quantitative one. We elect to display plain frequencies in a histogram so as not to obscure the data. Histograms are advantageous because they show the shape of a distribution plainly, and they hide a certain amount of information that a stem and leaf plot does not, which is necessary since some responses collected are whole numbers, other decimals, and others fractions whose decimal equivalent is repeating. Additionally, we choose to display the data in a box and whisker plot to easily communicate the minimums, maximums, and quartiles visually and to complement the histogram. Figure 5: Unstratiﬁed Frequencies — 5

The data display a right skew, though there is a peak at the left end of the distribution. Responses were observed in the entire designated range, throughout 0–100, as stipulated in the question.

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

15

Figure 6: Unstratiﬁed Boxplot — 5

• Number of Responses: 314 • Number of Nonresponse: 20 • Minimum: 0 • First Quartile: 20 • Median: 37.25 • Third Quartile: 54 • Maximum: 100 • Mean:9 38.50519 • Correct Answer: 25.67012 • People Correct:10 0

It seems that owing to the complexity of the question and the faults in its communication that a large proportion of the respondents did not understand it.11 Any response higher than 66 is impossible in all cases, for only in an inﬁnite population whose individuals all irrationally choose 100 would 66 be the correct answer. Fortunately the third quartile is well within this limit, though the ﬁrst quartile is much higher than expected. Unmodiﬁed, these data are not conclusive since they are occluded by the confounding variable of comprehension. In Section 5.2 (p26) we attempt to obtain more conclusive results using various stratiﬁcations.

1 We intend the arithmetic mean throughout, i.e. x = n n xi . ¯ i=1 People whose response when rounded is equal to the rounded answer. 11 See 6.2 (p36) for elaboration on problems with the survey. 9 10

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

16

4.3

Analysis of Responses to Questions 6 & 7

For completeness, we present the results for questions 6 and 7. Like the ﬁrst four questions, we elect to display the relative frequencies of the respective responses to these questions with bar charts. 4.3.1 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 6

Figure 7: Relative Frequencies — 6

• Number of Responses: 330 • Number of Nonresponse: 4

The majority of respondents indicated that they ”gave some thought” when completing the survey. A highly subjective question, it is expected that the neutral position be the most frequent. It is also noteworthy that more

4

RESULTS FOR UNSTRATIFIED DATA

17

respondents indicated that they ”gave little thought” to the survey than ”gave much thought”.12 4.3.2 Holistic Analysis of Responses to Question 7

Figure 8: Relative Frequencies — 7

• Number of Responses: 333 • Number of Nonresponse: 1

The majority of respondents had heard of game theory, though not overwhelmingly so.

12

See 6.3 (p37) for more information on sincerity.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

18

5

Results for Stratiﬁed Data

In order to obtain more conclusive, detailed results, we will proceed to stratify the data in various ways. More speciﬁcally, we will stratify the responses to the ﬁrst four questions by the responses to other questions in the primary set, and we will attempt to unobfuscate the results to the ﬁfth question using responses to the heuristics questions as well as other metrics.

5.1

1–4 Stratiﬁed by Response to Related Question

Two types of questions comprise the ﬁrst four questions: queries regarding the expectations of majority and minority strategy respectively. Each of these types are presented twice, one wherein there are but two response choices, and one wherein there are ﬁve. We will examine these dichotomies by comparing the responses to the antithetical questions in both of the latter categories. Thus we will inspect the responses to question 4 versus those to question 1, and those to question 3 versus those to question 2. We will use the same graphical representations of the data as in the previous section.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA Response to Question 4 vs. Response to 1

19

5.1.1

Figure 9: Relative Frequencies — 4 vs. A on 1

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 189

The vast majority of individuals who chose ‘A’ on the ﬁrst question chose the opposite response on the fourth question. As proposed before, it is clear that individuals tended to choose the opposite response when diﬀerentiating between their expectations of the behavior of the majority versus that of the minority. This argument becomes more compelling when one examines the other stratiﬁcation of these data, in the next subsection.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

20

Figure 10: Relative Frequencies — 4 vs. B on 1

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 139

Like in the previous stratiﬁcation, these data indicate that the vast majority of individuals who chose ‘B’ on the ﬁrst question chose the opposite response on the fourth question. Ironically, the fact that so many individuals chose the opposite response makes it more intelligent to choose the same response in both questions, however irrational that may seem. Indeed, in both of the question regarding the minority, the correct answer is the same response as the correct answer on the antithetical question, that which regards the majority.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA Response to Question 3 vs. Response to 2

21

5.1.2

Figure 11: Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. A on 2

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 61

Quite a bit more obscured than in the dual response questions 1 & 4, this stratum does not clearly show a similar trend. It does oﬀer a few insights, however. The most frequent response was ‘E’, which happens to be the fallacious, majority answer to the question itself. More interesting is that larger proportions of individuals chose the responses ‘A’ and ‘C’ than did choose ‘B’ and ‘D’, which are quite rational choices knowing the tendencies of the sample’s expectancy of the majority response, being ‘A’ and ‘C’ respectively, and the fact that individuals may tend not to chose the same response for antithetical questions.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

22

Figure 12: Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. B on 2

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 36

Again, individuals in this stratum tended to favor the fallacious response ‘E’. It is noteworthy that so small a proportion chose ‘C’ as their response, the correct answer to the question.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

23

Figure 13: Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. C on 2

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 177

In this stratum, the largest minority response was again ‘E’. A fairly large proportion of individuals herein chose ‘A’, a thoroughly rational choice for its seeming irrationality. It is again noteworthy that the lowest frequency response was ‘C’, indicating a similar choice mechanism as seen in the stratiﬁed dual response results.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

24

Figure 14: Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. D on 2

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 36

Consisting of very few individuals, the analysis of this data should be regarded with apprehension. Unlike the previous strata, the response ‘E’ does not account for as high a proportion of the responses. Furthermore, the dearth of ‘D’ responses again corroborate the theory postulated through analysis of the dual response questions.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

25

Figure 15: Relative Frequencies — 3 vs. E on 2

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 20

Consisting of even fewer individuals than the previous stratum, statistics derived hereof are not to be considered very powerful. The proportions of each observed response are roughly equal; the largest minority was response ‘D’ and there was an absence of response ‘C’, the correct answer to the question.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

26

5.2

Response to 5 Stratiﬁed In Various Manners

Due to the complexity of the question and the obscured, inconclusive nature of the results, we will examine the data for question ﬁve stratiﬁed in various manners, including the use of the heuristics questions 6 and 7, and by “inferred comprehension.” For the heuristics questions, we will include individuals that responded ‘B’ or ‘C’ on question 6, i.e. those who gave “some” or “much” thought to their responses, and individuals that responded in the aﬃrmative to question 7, i.e. those who had heard of game theory. Our method for inferring comprehension is simplistic and imperfect. We remove all responses 66 or greater because they are impossible; only for an inﬁnite population whose individuals all irrationally choose 100 would 66 be the correct answer and anything above that is a mathematical infeasibility. Unfortunately we cannot justify removing similarly irrationally high responses on empirical grounds. Doing so without empirical grounds is eﬀectively data cherry picking, a corrupt practice.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA Response to Question 5 vs. Response to 7

27

5.2.1

Figure 16: Frequencies — 5 Given Knowledge of Game Theory

The above histogram displays the distribution of responses to question 5 given that respondents aﬃrmed knowledge of game theory in question 7. This stratiﬁcation evens out frequencies in the lower end of the distribution, and lowers frequencies in the upper. Unfortunately it does not remove all of the ludicrous responses, indicating that many individuals who had heard of game theory either did not comprehend the question or did not think suﬃciently to obtain a more rational guess.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

28

Figure 17: Boxplot — 5 Given Knowledge of Game Theory

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 170 • Minimum: 0.66 • First Quartile: 20 • Median: 33 • Third Quartile: 50 • Maximum: 88 • Mean: 36.18429 • Correct Answer: 24.12262 • People Correct: 4

As compared with the unstratiﬁed distribution, this box plot displays a clear right skew with a lower median and third quartile. Furthermore the interquartile range13 changes suﬃciently to display the response 100 as an outlier14 , which it certainly should be. The mean and thus the answer are also lower than in the unstratiﬁed data.

13 14

The interquartile range, or IQR, is the diﬀerence between the third and ﬁrst quartiles. An outlier is deﬁned to be 1.5×IQR outside the ﬁrst and third quartiles, respectively.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA Response to Question 5 vs. Inferred Comprehension

29

5.2.2

Figure 18: Frequencies — 5 Given Reasonability of Response

Removing responses greater than or equal to 66 has a very straightforward eﬀect on the distribution. The frequency of responses in the range 0–10 is relatively high, which is followed by a low proportion of responses in the range 10–20 slowly climbing to a high proportion of responses in the range 40–50, falling precipitously thereafter as responses become more far-fetched.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

30

Figure 19: Boxplot — 5 Given Reasonability of Response

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 256 • Minimum: 0 • First Quartile: 17 • Median: 33 • Third Quartile: 49 • Maximum: 65 • Mean: 30.99855 • Correct Answer: 20.66549 • People Correct: 13

The boxplot for this stratum shows the distribution is more symmetrical than that of the unstratiﬁed data. Each of the metrics that comprise the ﬁve number summary15 as well as the mean and answer are all of course lower.

15

The minimum, ﬁrst quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum of a distribution.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

31

Figure 20: Frequencies — 5 Juxtaposing Previous Strata

Juxtaposing the previous strata, i.e. the knowledge of game theory and the reasonability of response, we get the above distribution. This distribution appears strikingly Gaussian but for spikes in the ranges 0–5 and 45–50.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

32

Figure 21: Boxplot — 5 Juxtaposing Previous Strata

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 145 • Minimum: 0.66 • First Quartile: 17 • Median: 30 • Third Quartile: 44 • Maximum: 60 • Mean: 29.7264 • Correct Answer: 19.81758 • People Correct: 13

Just as in the previous stratum, the boxplot shows that the distribution is fairly symmetrical. Furthermore, the tails are drawn in, and the quartiles are slightly lower. This stratum allows the lowest mean and answer for question 5 yet.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

33

Figure 22: Frequencies — 5 Another Juxtaposition of Strata

Juxtaposing the last stratum, being the juxtaposition of knowledge of game theory and the reasonability of response, with the favorable responses to question 6 provides the above distribution. Overall, the shape is equivalent to that of the previous stratum, though the frequencies are on average lower. This shows that the sincerity of the response had little eﬀect on the magnitude thereof for this question.

5

RESULTS FOR STRATIFIED DATA

34

Figure 23: Boxplot — 5 Another Juxtaposition of Strata

• Number of Individuals in Stratum: 129 • Minimum: 0.66 • First Quartile: 17 • Median: 30 • Third Quartile: 43 • Maximum: 60 • Mean: 29.37813 • Correct Answer: 19.58542 • People Correct: 13

The boxplot indicates a distribution roughly equivalent to that of the previous stratum, though the quartiles are lower. These data provide us the lowest, least obfuscated mean and answer to question 5 of any of the stratiﬁcations thereof, at the expense of some sample size which diminishes the favorable eﬀect of the Law of Large Numbers16 .

16

As the sample gets larger, the statistics converge on the parameter of the population.

6

CONCLUSION

35

6

6.1

Conclusion

Problems with the Sample

One major problem with our sample was the preponderance of nonresponse. Of the nineteen classes in our sample, ﬁve classes did not respond in their entirety. The reasons for this were varied: Ms. Arriada declined outright, Mr. Chaﬀee forgot to administer the survey, Mr. Kanda’s class declined his request, Ms. Robertson reneged at the behest of her class, and Mr. Spiteri wasn’t able to respond to our request in time. Each class of nonresponse causes sample bias. The exclusion of classes made our sample under- or overrepresent certain groups of our population. The eﬀective sample, although diverse, did not have equal proportions of diﬀerent grades or academic levels, which may have biased our data. There were ways in which we could have improved our sample. Random selection of individuals would have been ideal, eliminating sample bias. Unfortunately, contacting and tracking down each individual would have been highly impractical and ineﬃcient. A stratiﬁed random sample would have been still better, ensuring equal proportions of representation as in the whole population. This method would have been inconvenient if not impossible because we might have been barred from obtaining a list of all students detailing what classes they were taking.

6

CONCLUSION

36

6.2

Problems with the Survey

The design of our survey had several ﬂaws that potentially biased the responses collected. To minimize the amount of paper we needed to print in administering the survey to 19 classes of about 20–30 students each, we required that students provide their own paper to complete the survey. This made data collection and the transcription from paper to computer ﬁles more diﬃcult. Although we were quite careful in transcribing the students’ responses, it is possible that responses were miswritten or misread. The fact that the survey was administered in most cases using a document camera or a digital projector was also troublesome. Because the font was a little small, some students had trouble reading the survey; Mr. Moul, whose classroom is bigger than most, noted this in his comments. Furthermore, the entire document could not ﬁt on the screen at once and thus impeded its administration since teachers had to move it as students completed their responses, thereby forcing some students to wait before moving onto later problems in order for others to complete the ones currently visible. Allowing disproportional amounts of time on each question could easily have induced bias in responses across classes. Besides administration choices, the design of the questions themselves was poor. The wording of question 5 was highly confusing to many students. It can be clearly seen from the many instances of misguided responses that the students did not understand what the question was asking. Thus their answer could be a complete guess, which taints the results of that question. Moreover, the wording and formatting of question 8 could have been much better. Many students did not comprehend how to format their responses, or to what the question referred, and as such many did not answer all ﬁve parts thereof. To ameliorate these problems, there are several changes we could make. First, to make data collection easier, we could have given personal copies to the students, or even have used machine-readable sheets in conjunction therewith to eliminate problems potentially induced by human transcription. For question 5, we could have given an example of what kind of answer we are looking for, or how to determine an answer, e.g. “If you think the average of all the responses to this question will be 33, then you should put 22 as your response.” For question 8, we could have separated the constituents and interlaced them among questions 1–5, and we could have been more explicit in asking their conﬁdence level, e.g. “Are you conﬁdent about your answer to question 1?”. Each of these changes would improve the quality of our data and eliminate some forms of bias.

6

CONCLUSION

37

6.3

6.3.1

**Other Sources of Response Bias
**

Contamination

Response bias can also be brought about by contamination, either through respondents answering questions with prior knowledge thereof, or through respondents conferring with others taking the survey. These phenomena can lead to results that do not accurately reﬂect the respondent’s true understanding of the questions at the time of the survey’s administration. We attempted to limit contamination by providing teachers with an instruction sheet that emphasized that students were not to confer with each other. We also established a universal time limit of 5 minutes, so that each respondent would have the same amount of time to consider and complete the survey. In addition, we scheduled all of the surveys to be administered on the same day during second period. We hoped that these precautions would eﬀectively reduce the possibility of contamination to zero, though contamination resulting from possible teacher negligence was still possible. Our inability to administer the survey ourselves was perhaps the biggest ﬂaw in our prevention of contamination. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know a posteriori whether the survey was administered correctly. Judging by the number of nonresponse from teachers, it is reasonable to conclude that the teachers who did administer the surveys were probably not fully engaged in ensuring that the students were not conferring amongst themselves or peeking at each others’ answers. While we did get conﬁrmation from the teachers that they did monitor the class according to the instructions given, there is still reasonable suspicion based on the results of each class that some classes may have had considerable breaches of secrecy. For example, Mr. Stewart’s Global Connections class overwhelmingly answered ‘B’ to the ﬁrst question, despite the fact that the overall trend of the data collected indicated that students favored ‘A’ instead. Additionally, most of the same answers appeared consecutively when transcribed, which suggests that the hypothetical groups who conferred with each other to produce a majority ‘B’ response likewise ﬁnished the survey at the same time and turned them in together. This is purely conjecture, for there is no assurance that the order of the responses in the collected envelopes had any relation to the order in which they was collected, and by extension to the hypothetical groups that colluded to obtain their answers. In addition to larger scale contamination, there was inevitably much micro-contamination that would be even harder to locate.

6

CONCLUSION Sincerity

38

6.3.2

Sincerity on the part of the respondents is very important, since insincerity on any level would negatively impact the eﬃcacy of our results. As shown by the responses to question 6, most respondents gave “some thought” to the survey, followed by “little thought”, and lastly “much thought”. Since respondents are often biased towards selecting answers based on their beliefs of what the questioners want, it is very likely that a large portion of the majority who chose “some thought” actually gave the survey little or no thought at all. In hindsight, this question would probably have been far more accurate had we given the respondents but two choices to choose from: “some thought”, and “no thought”, since these disparate choices would force them to reveal their sincerity with out being masked by subjectivity. One of the biggest factors supporting the suspicion that many of our respondents were indeed insincere is rooted in the demographics of our sample population, consisting entirely of teenagers, known for their general apathy. The lack of incentives, and perhaps the vapidity of the survey do nothing to help this situation. One possible improvement would again be to administer the surveys in person, since our population would be more likely to answer sincerely when confronted with peers in earnest than an austere survey forced upon them by their teacher. Unfortunately, due to logistics this was impossible.

6

CONCLUSION

39

6.4

Further Possibilities for Analysis

Because of the comprehensive nature of our data, having taken great pains to include and record diﬀerent groups of respondents either by their ethea or their responses to the survey itself, there exist plenty of further stratiﬁcations than those that we analyzed. For example, we could have examined the data stratiﬁed by class, grade, or academic level. These three aspects of the individual respondent could easily be signiﬁcant, because grade level can explain the maturity of the respondents, and academic level indicates to a certain extent their mental capability. Stratifying by class, on the other hand, would be helpful in locating the biases within, including the possibility of contamination or insincerity. We had attempted to stratify the sample population by conﬁdence through our position of question 8. Unfortunately, we had to nix this plan due to the large volume of nonresponse, which we determined was the result of poor wording and formatting on our part. If we had successfully posed the question, however, we would have been able analyze the frequency of correct answers versus the respondents’ conﬁdence thereof to see if conﬁdence had any bearing at all on the verity of the responses. Another very interesting opportunity for analysis would have been to infer the thought patterns for successive weakly-dominated strategies to question 5. For example, we could ﬁrst eliminate every guess that is 66.66 or above because of its infeasibility. If we eliminate these responses, then any guess that is 44.44 or above is weakly-dominated for every respondent. This elimination method would continue iteratively until the Nash Equilibrium is reached at a response of 0. We could then stratify the responses based on these strategy ranges to glean some important information about the respondents’ mastery of the game.

6

CONCLUSION

40

6.5

Summary

Despite various shortfalls in the administration and collection of data, there are several conclusions that can be made. First is that the response ‘A’ is popular, being the majority response when given choices of ‘A’ and ‘B’, and being the second highest frequency response when given the choices ‘A’–‘E’. Second is the intriguing verity that the response ‘C’ is the overwhelmingly most frequent response when given the choices ‘A’–‘E’. As a follow-up, it would be interesting to see if these results are reproducible in diﬀerent character ranges, and if some similar analog exists for numbers or other enumerable items. Third, most students do not realize the fallacy of composition, as shown by the fact that the response ‘E’ out of ‘A’–‘E’ was so overwhelmingly popular. We cannot discount the supposition that the individuals in our sample reasoned that ‘E’ was most likely to be the least popular answer, and thus the most likely chosen for the minority response. Knowing this, ‘E’ becomes the most likely least likely to be the minority response, and then most likely not chosen therefore, making it the most logical choice. It is much more probable however, that these individuals did not realize any of that at all, and instead answered simplistically, ignoring the fallacy of composition. Which brings us to our fourth conclusion, that individuals were unlikely to select the same answer for their expectations of the minority strategy as they did for their expectations of the majority strategy, since as we saw in both questions 3 and 4 that the correct answer ended up being the very same as that to the antithetical questions 1 and 2, respectively. Lastly, we determined an answer to the “2/3 of the average” game theory puzzle in a real world setting, though confounded by problems of comprehension or sincerity. Obtaining an answer of 19.8 after data manipulation and 25.7 without, it is interesting to note that our values are close to those obtained in other experiments, where Wharton economics majors produced 26.6, Caltech general undergraduates produced 20.0, and a public sample of 19,196 Danes for a prize of 5000kr obtained 21.6.17 18 Despite our worries that the performance of Los Altos students was poor since the answer produced was so far from the Nash Equilibrium of 0, it seems that even highly educated people fall prey to the same logical limitations.

Nagel, Rosemarie (1995). “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study,” American Economic Review 85, 1313-1326. 18 Schou, Astrid (2005). “Gæt-et-tal konkurrence afslører at vi er irrationelle,” Politiken.

17

A

Collected Data Tabulated by Class

Each table is composed of records representing one survey collected and ﬁelds representing the responses therein. The ﬁelds correspond to each respective question on the survey, and are encoded as follows: • Fractional responses to question ﬁve are converted to decimal numbers. • Boolean responses are indicated with ‘1’ or ‘0’ for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ respectively. • Responses to number eight are conglomerated. • Nonresponse on a question is indicated with a dash (‘-’).

Table 1: Raw Data — Bonanno Bonanno — Survey of Composition and Literature A A E B 0.2 B 0 00000 A E E A 47.5 A 0 11111 A C E B 60 B 0 00000 B E B A 60 B 0 11000 A A B B 25 B 0 10010 A C D B 57 B 0 00111 A C E B 37 B 0 11111 A C A B 24 A 1 11110 A C E B 66 B 1 11111 B C D A 66 A 1 11110 A C E B 34 C 0 11110 A C B A 1 A 0 11111 A C E B 10 A 0 11111 B C A A A 0 00000 A A B A 0.6 B 0 11110 A A B B B 0 00000 B C E A 60 B 0 11010

41

Table 2: Raw Data — Dunlap A A A B A B A A A B A A A A B B A A A A A A A Dunlap A A A A A D B E C E C E A E A D C E D E D E C E C C C B E D D A C C A C C E C E C E C C A B — Geometry A 50 A A 88 B B 20 C A 50 B B 65 C 33 C B 63 C B 40 A B 77 B A 72 B B 30 B A 36 C A 24 B A 20 B A 22 B A 30 C A 22 C B 88 B B 66 B B 37 A B 35 B B 15 B B 66 B Honors 0 00000 0 11101 1 11010 1 11010 0 10001 1 11000 0 11110 0 11000 0 11110 0 11110 0 10100 0 11000 0 01011 0 10101 1 00000 0 00100 0 11110 0 11010 0 10010 0 10110 1 11110 0 00000 0 10110

42

B A A A A A B B A A A A A A B A B B B B A B

Table 3: Raw Data — Evans Evans — Algebra II Honors C A A 30 B 1 10010 C E B 25 B 1 10010 D B B 44 B 1 10101 C B B 20 C 1 01101 A D B 0.66 C 1 11111 C A A 20 B 1 11111 D A A 72 B 1 10010 D A A 33 C 1 00010 C C B 5 B 1 10100 A E B 30 B 1 11000 C D B 36.1 B 1 10001 A A A 2 A 1 11110 C A B 67 B 0 10011 C E A 27 C 1 11110 C E A 15 B 1 11110 C E B 44 C 1 11111 C D A 33 B 1 11010 C E A 21 B 1 11100 D C A 20 B 1 11110 B E A 30 C 1 11111 A B B 1 B 1 11111 E D A 16 B 1 00000

43

Table 4: Raw Data — Friedeberg B A B A A B A B A B A B B A A A B A A A B A B A A Friedeberg — B C A 2 A 66 B D A 22 A E B 1 B E B 1 C E A 28 C B B 69 C E A 20 C A B 15 B E A 15 C D B 25 B E A 1 B E A 50 A C B 5 C E B 50 A C B 1 C E A 25 D E B 50 A C B C D B 33 C D A 16 C C B 7 D A B 1 C E B 50 C E B 40 Algebra B 0 C 1 C 1 B 0 C 1 B 1 B 1 B 1 B 1 B 0 B 1 C 1 B 0 B 1 B 1 B 1 B 1 C 1 B 1 B 1 B 1 B 0 B 1 B 0 C 1 II 00000 00110 11110 11110 10101 11111 11111 11010 01111 00000 11100 00100 11111 ----11111 00000 11110 11111 00000 11001 01110 00000 -1- - 01000 10110

44

Table 5: Raw Data — Herrera Herrera — World Literature Honors A C A A 13 A 0 00100 A B E B 69 A 1 00000 B C D A 4 B 0 00000 A C D B 74 B 0 11010 B D C A 42 B 0 10100 A C E B 54 C 1 11010 B C A B 17 A 0 00000 A C B B 75 B 1 11011 A B E B 22 B 1 11101 B D A A 57 C 1 10010 B C E A 3 B 1 01100 A A A A 30 B 1 11000 A C D B 30 B 0 00000 B C E A 50 B 0 00100 A C E B 57 B 1 10110 A C B B 50 B 0 10111 A C E B 75 B 1 11100 A C E B 50 B 0 10110 B D E A 75 B 1 10010 B B A A 40 C 1 11110 B C E A 14 C 1 11011 B E E B 14 B 1 00001 B A C A 43 B 1 11100 A C D B 35 B 1 10010 B A C A 72 B 1 11100 A C D B 35 B 0 10111

45

Table 6: Raw Data — Ignacio B B B A A B A B A B B A B B A A B C C C C C C E B E C C A C D A C C Ignacio — Algebra I E A 30 B 0 A A 65 C 0 A A 70 B 0 A B 66 B 0 E B 50 A 0 E A 23 A 0 E A 3 A 0 A A 50 B 0 E B 50 B 0 25 A 0 A A B 0 D A 50 B 0 C B 33 A 0 C A 50 B 1 B A 77 A 0 D B 22 B 1 D B 20 A 0 E A 69 A 1 11111 11111 11001 11010 00000 11111 00000 11001 11011 00000 11111 11110 11111 01000 11111 10010 11010 00000

46

Table 7: Raw Data — Moul Moul — Language and Composition AP A C E B 50 B 1 01101 A C D B 24 B 0 10010 A C E B 52 B 0 11010 B B B B 11 B 1 11111 B C E A 37.5 B 1 01100 A C B B 23 B 1 00001 B C A A 57 B 1 10010 B E B A 33.3 C 1 11111 A C D 50 A 1 11010 A C C B 22 B 0 11111 B D C A 8 C 0 00000 A C E B 3.6 B 1 11011 A C E B 7 B 0 00000 A A E B 0 C 0 11111 A A E B 46 A 0 00000 A C B B 66 B 0 00000 B C A A 50 B 0 00000 A B E B 50 B 1 10011 A B B B 33.3 B 1 11111 B E A A 50 B 1 11011 A A A A 50 A 1 11111 A C D B 66 B 0 11111 B C D A 28 B 1 00100 A A E B 50 B 1 11110 A C A B 50 A 1 11111 A C E B 67 B 1 10100 B C E B 9 A 0 10000 A A E B 50 A 0 01010 B C E A 50 A 1 10000 A D E B 32 B 0 11111

47

Table 8: Raw Data — Richardson Richardson — Calculus BC AP A A A A 25 B 1 11110 A A A A 100 A 1 11110 A D E B 52 B 1 11110 A C D B 77 B 1 11000 B B E A 18 B 1 11111 B D B A 10 B 1 11110 A C E A 40 B 1 11110 B C E B 1 B 1 11111 A D A A 43 B 1 10010 A B E B 20 B 1 11110 A C E B 50 B 1 10110 A C E A 33 B 1 11111 A A D B A 1 11111 A A E B 20 B 1 00000 A C D B 33 B 1 00000 B C A A 33 B 1 11010 B C A A 52 B 1 11111 B C E A 37 B 0 11110 A D E A 46 B 1 11011 B C E A 36 B 1 10110 B D A A 42 C 1 11110 A C E B 60 B 1 11010 A C E A 50 B 1 11010 B B D A 33 B 1 11100 B D E A 15 B 1 11111 A C D A 25 B 1 00000 A A C A 33 C 1 11110

48

B B A B A A B A B A A A B B B B B B A A B B B B B B B

Table 9: Raw Data — Robertson Robertson — Algebra II D E A 69 B 1 11111 B D A 69 C 1 10101 C D B 54 B 1 11011 C E A 69 B 1 11111 C E B 2 B 1 01100 C D B 32 B 1 10010 C A A 20 B 1 11111 A E B 66 A 1 11111 C A B 69 C 1 11111 C D B A 1 11111 A E B 1 A 1 00000 A D B 7 B 1 11110 D A A 50 B 1 11110 D A A 32 B 1 11001 C E A 75 B 1 11100 C E B 55.5 A 1 11111 C E A 5 A 1 00000 C E A 88 B 1 10110 C E B 50 B 1 11110 C E B 25 C 1 11110 D E A 56 A 1 11110 C A A 50 B 1 11000 C D A 35 B 1 11111 B A A 13 A 1 10101 C E A 50 B 1 10110 C A A 46 B 1 ----D A A 66 B 1 11111

49

Table 10: Raw Data — Rosenberg Rosenberg A C E B C E A E A B C E B B E A C A A C E A E D B C E B B E B C A A C E B B E B E A A A E B D A A C A B C E A B D A B E A C B A E D B C A A A A B B B B B A B C A — American B 32 B A 5 B A 69 A A 40 A A 75 B B 42 B B 35 B B 66 B A 40 B A 27 C A 7 B B 33 A A 35 C A 60 B B 35 A A 46 B B 55 A A 40 A B 7 B B 40 B B 17 B B 66 A A 40 B A 20 A B 40 B A 40 B A 34 A Literature 0 11110 1 11110 1 11111 0 10100 0 10110 1 10110 1 01100 1 11010 0 11100 1 00000 1 ----1 11111 0 10001 0 10010 0 11110 0 10101 0 ----0 10110 0 11010 0 10100 1 11110 0 10101 0 00000 1 11111 0 11111 0 11111 0 11111

50

A B A B B B A A A A B B B B B A A B A A A

Table 11: Raw Data — Smith Smith — Creative Views C A B 75 A 0 10101 C E A 74 A 0 11010 C E B 50 C 1 11110 C E A 27 B 0 11111 E A A 50 B 1 11111 B D A 60 C 1 11111 E D B 20 0 11110 A E B 75 C 0 11110 E B B 80 B 0 11001 D E B 70 B 0 11000 C E A 50 B 0 11000 C A A 75 A 0 11111 C D A 20 B 1 10011 C E A 36 B 0 11110 A E A 50 B 0 10101 C A B 75 C 0 10010 C D B 75 B 0 11110 E A A 8 B 0 10010 C E B 60 B 0 11110 E B B 3 B 1 1111C E B 60 B 1 011- -

51

Table 12: Raw Data — Stewart Stewart — Global Connections B A A E B 50 B 0 11111 B C A A 5 B 1 11110 B C A A 50 B 0 00000 B C D A 46 A 0 00000 B C E A 32 C 0 11111 B E D A 69 B 0 10101 B C E A 14 B 1 11010 B C E A 50 B 0 00000 B B A B B 1 11111 A A E B 10 B 1 11110 B B E A 69 A 0 11111 B B E A 3 B 0 11110 A C A B 48 A 0 00000 B D C B 48 B 0 00000 B C E A 6 C 0 ----B C E A A 0 10000 A C E B 22 A 0 01100 A C D B 44 B 0 11011 A A E B 10 B 1 00000 B C C B 4 C 0 11111 B E B A 10 A 0 11111 B D E A 24 B 0 11111 A A A A 0 A 0 00000 A A D B A 0 00000 B C D A 66 B 0 01011 A C E B 66 C 0 11110 A A D B 1 B 0 11110 A A E B 69 A 1 11111 A A E B B 0 10101 A A E B B 0 10011

52

Table 13: Raw Data — Strauss Strauss — Trigonometry Honors B D A A 66 B 1 10101 A A A A 0.66 B 1 11111 A B E B 42 A 1 10110 B C A A 30 B 1 11010 A C C A 40 B 0 00000 A A C B 50 C 1 00000 A C C B 19 A 1 01100 A B C B 63 B 0 11101 B C B A 44 C 1 01111 A A E B 42 B 1 11110 A C E B 41 B 1 11111 A A E B 37 B 0 11111 A B D A 36 B 0 10000 A A A A 50 A 1 00000 A A D A 10 B 0 11000 A A C B 66 B 1 10010 B C D A 66 B 0 10111 B B B A 11 B 0 0110B C A B 7 C 1 00010 A C D B 17 B 0 11111 B C A A 27 B 1 11010 A C B B 30 B 1 11111 A D E B 40 C 0 10010

53

A A A B B B A B A A A A A A A A A

Table 14: Raw Data — Yamsaki Yamsaki — Calculus A C B 10 B 1 00000 C E B 42 B 0 11110 C D B 30 B 1 11010 C E A B 1 11110 C D A A 1 11110 D E A 66 B 1 10010 C E B A 1 -1- - B E A A 1 10010 D C B 70 B 0 10011 D 1 ----D A B B 1 10110 D C B 75 A 0 00000 C D B 28.6 C 1 11011 A A A 50 A 0 00000 A - —– A E B 0 11110 C E B 1 11110 A B A 30 B 0 10110

54

B

**Master Schedule of Courses to Sampled
**

Table 15: Master Schedule — English Courses Courses Available Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Lit AP Language AP Literature Creative Views Global A Global B 55 Film Analysis Survey Comp/Lit Survey Skills World Lit World Lit H

Trigonometry H Trigonometry Math Mastery Table 16: Master Schedule — Mathematics Courses Courses Available Math Lab Geometry H Geometry Alt. Path Geometry 9 Geometry Calculus BC Calculus AB Calculus CAHSEE Math AP Statistics Algebra II H Algebra II Algebra I Enhanced Algebra I Algebra 9 Period

56

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- Research Project on Consumer Behaviour towards Electronic Durables(LOTUS)
- REV1
- Cae Sample Writings
- Employee Motivation Survey Design
- Bon
- Chapter 01 - Introduction and Descriptive Statistics
- Imt Project
- life
- s Barker 505 Request for Proposal
- Proposal for Marketing Research
- management theory ii
- MDTU Minuits30th Oct. 2009
- 246D196E
- explanation of learning project
- Lesson Plan
- External Link
- TechnicalReport eBook
- Business Research
- HamillDesigns[1]
- TOPIC 2 Types of Research and Research Designs
- ZzzzzReadMeReadMeReadMeReadMeReadMeReadMe
- 2017 State of the Industry Report
- NEAREDB Agriculture Final Report 2009
- Research 1
- Scribd
- CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE RESERVE BETWEEN LOCAL PEOPLE AND NATIONAL PARK.doc
- Research Method 1.New
- Academia Industry Linkages Gap Analysis Pakistan
- 2193-1801-3-28
- Presentation 1

Read Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading