Understanding descriptive statistics and their variability is a fundamental aspect of statistical analysis. On their own, descriptive statistics tell
Understanding descriptive statistics and their variability is a fundamental aspect of statistical analysis. On their own, descriptive statistics tell us how frequently an observation occurs, what is considered “average”, and how far data in our sample deviate from being “average.” With descriptive statistics, we are able to provide a summary of characteristics from both large and small datasets. In addition to the valuable information they provide on their own, measures of central tendency and variability become important components in many of the statistical tests that we will cover. Therefore, we can think about central tendency and variability as the cornerstone to the quantitative structure we are building.
REFERENCES
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Leon-Guerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2020). Social statistics for a diverse society (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
· Chapter 2, “The Organization and Graphic Presentation Data” (pp. 27-74)
Wagner, III, W. E. (2020). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social science statistics (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
· Chapter 5, “Charts and Graphs”
· Chapter 11, “Editing Output”
http://waldenwritingcenter.blogspot.com/2013/02/general-guidance-on-data-displays.html
Required media
Optional
Discussion: Central Tendency and Variability
Understanding descriptive statistics and their variability is a fundamental aspect of statistical analysis. On their own, descriptive statistics tell us how frequently an observation occurs, what is considered “average”, and how far data in our sample deviate from being “average.” With descriptive statistics, we are able to provide a summary of characteristics from both large and small datasets. In addition to the valuable information they provide on their own, measures of central tendency and variability become important components in many of the statistical tests that we will cover. Therefore, we can think about central tendency and variability as the cornerstone to the quantitative structure we are building.
For this Discussion, you will examine central tendency and variability based on two separate variables. You will also explore the implications for positive social change based on the results of the data.
To prepare for this Discussion:
· Review this week’s Learning Resources and the Descriptive Statistics media program.
· For additional support, review the Skill Builder: Visual Displays for Categorical Variables and the Skill Builder: Visual Displays for Continuous Variables, which you can find by navigating back to your Blackboard Course Home Page. From there, locate the Skill Builder link in the left navigation pane.
· Review the Chapter 4 of the Wagner text and the examples in the SPSS software related to central tendency and variability.
· From the General Social Survey dataset found in this week’s Learning Resources, use the SPSS software and choose one continuous and one categorical variable Note: this dataset will be different from your Assignment dataset).
· As you review, consider the implications for positive social change based on the results of your data.
By Day 3
Post, present, and report a descriptive analysis for your variables, specifically noting the following:
For your continuous variable:
1. Report the mean, median, and mode.
2. What might be the better measure for central tendency? (i.e., mean, median, or mode) and why?
3. Report the standard deviation.
4. How variable are the data?
5. How would you describe this data?
6. What sort of research question would this variable help answer that might inform social change?
Post the following information for your categorical variable:
7. A frequency distribution.
8. An appropriate measure of variation.
9. How variable are the data?
10. How would you describe this data?
11. What sort of research question would this variable help answer that might inform social change?
Be sure to support your Main Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
By Day 5
Respond to at least one colleagues’ post with a comment on the presentation and interpretation of their analysis. In your response, address the following questions:
12. Was the presentation of results clear? If so, provide some specific comments on why. If not, provide constructive suggestions.
13. Are you able to understand how the results might relate back to positive social change? Do you think there are other aspects of positive social change related to the results?
,
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: RSCH_8210_Week3_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discussion Posting Content | Points: Points Range: 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback: |
| Peer Feedback and Interaction | Points: Points Range: 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources. Feedback: |
| Writing | Points: Points Range: 3.6 (18%) – 4 (20%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3.2 (16%) – 3.5 (17.5%) Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 2.8 (14%) – 3.1 (15.5%) Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2.7 (13.5%) ostings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting. Feedback: |
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Discussion Posting Content–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Good 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Fair 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Poor 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback:
Peer Feedback and Interaction–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Good 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Fair 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources. Poor 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources. Feedback:
Writing–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 3.6 (18%) – 4 (20%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style. Good 3.2 (16%) – 3.5 (17.5%) Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. Fair 2.8 (14%) – 3.1 (15.5%) Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. Poor 0 (0%) – 2.7 (13.5%) ostings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting. Feedback:
| Total Points: 20 |
|---|
Name: RSCH_8210_Week3_Discussion_Rubric
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
