Statistics
- Submitted by: cherylcai
- Views: 701
- Category: Science
- Date Submitted: 09/25/2010 07:02 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
Outline of Stats Report
Step 1 :
Combination : Case Study (Kiran Ghuman and Alex Molloy) & Use of secondary data (IDAC, OFFA, HESA) which employ non-random sampling (Concentrating on poor population)
Step 2 :
7 critical components :
1. Source of research and of the funding : Source = Poor students who apply for bursaries / Government funding – to make better funding policy decisions.
2. The researchers who had contact with the participants – Students Loan Company & agencies within the article
3. The individuals or objects studied and how they were selected - selected by postal code (poor population)
4. The exact nature of the measurements made or questions asked – What is your definition of poor / marginalized – based on family income “most deprived English postcodes” – probably based on tax data / exact nature of measurements to be found on website
5. The setting in which the measurements were taken – within 2006 – 2008 / climate of the economy affects education
6. Differences in the groups being compared, in addition to the factor of interest – “rich” compared to poor eg. Poorer students missing out on bursaries – factor of interest applies to people in poor postcode areas : who’re getting into university and who’re getting the bursaries
7. The extent or size of any claimed effects or differences – N/A
Step 3 :
Chapter 4 – Slide 33
Difficulties :
(a) Not reaching the individuals selected because they were unresponsive (one in five failed to claim their entitlements in 2006-7) low response rate compared to 97% the previous year
Assumption : only those who were reached were entitled to bursaries
(b) 12,000 students – but if they don’t tick the option allowing information to be shared, they do not qualify as one of the participants – hindered response rate
(c) Change the format of the application form format – to opt out instead of opt in this increased the number of participants (refer to...
Step 1 :
Combination : Case Study (Kiran Ghuman and Alex Molloy) & Use of secondary data (IDAC, OFFA, HESA) which employ non-random sampling (Concentrating on poor population)
Step 2 :
7 critical components :
1. Source of research and of the funding : Source = Poor students who apply for bursaries / Government funding – to make better funding policy decisions.
2. The researchers who had contact with the participants – Students Loan Company & agencies within the article
3. The individuals or objects studied and how they were selected - selected by postal code (poor population)
4. The exact nature of the measurements made or questions asked – What is your definition of poor / marginalized – based on family income “most deprived English postcodes” – probably based on tax data / exact nature of measurements to be found on website
5. The setting in which the measurements were taken – within 2006 – 2008 / climate of the economy affects education
6. Differences in the groups being compared, in addition to the factor of interest – “rich” compared to poor eg. Poorer students missing out on bursaries – factor of interest applies to people in poor postcode areas : who’re getting into university and who’re getting the bursaries
7. The extent or size of any claimed effects or differences – N/A
Step 3 :
Chapter 4 – Slide 33
Difficulties :
(a) Not reaching the individuals selected because they were unresponsive (one in five failed to claim their entitlements in 2006-7) low response rate compared to 97% the previous year
Assumption : only those who were reached were entitled to bursaries
(b) 12,000 students – but if they don’t tick the option allowing information to be shared, they do not qualify as one of the participants – hindered response rate
(c) Change the format of the application form format – to opt out instead of opt in this increased the number of participants (refer to...