MDM4U

MDM4UCulminating ProjectPart 5: Developing Statistical ArgumentsTo provide a focus for your culminating project, you must develop a hypothesis statement. For example, you might propose one of the following hypothesis statements. Professional sports teams with the highest payrolls are the most successful. In Canada, men receive better medical treatment than women. Alcohol addiction is a greater problem to society than drug addiction.

Next, you must develop several statistical arguments that will prove (or disprove) your hypothesis. In this exercise you will examine the following hypothesis: The gap between the rich and the poor in Canada is widening. Then, in groups, you will explore this hypothesis from the point of view of different statistical arguments. (Your teacher will assign each group a different argument.)

Step 1 Develop an Argument (Day 1 class)Using data from Statistics Canada develop your argument to either support or reject the hypothesis. Use measures of central tendency, measures of spread, or regression to make your point and be sure to define rich and poor in terms of your data. Table 202-0401 is a good place to begin. You may also wish to look at other tables in the same section (up to 202-0411) or throughout the database. Be prepared to justify your point of view with appropriate Excel charts and remember to bring your Excel data on a disk to class for the next step.

Step 2 Present your Argument (Day 2 first half)Allow each person in your group to present his/her findings along with appropriate Excel charts. As a group select two analyses for presentation to the rest of the class.

Step 3 Presentation (Day 2 second half)Present your groups argument to the class along with the Excel charts used to back up your groups reasoning. The teacher and the class will critique your analysis.

Step 4 Work on Your Own (Day 2 homework)Develop a working hypothesis for your topic along with THREE potential arguments that you could explore. Locate but do not analyze one source of supporting data.

Step 5 Peer Critique (Day 3)In groups of three, take turns presenting your HYPOTHESIS along with your THREE potential arguments (one with data). For each member in your group, complete the provided feedback form. The quality of your feedback will be evaluated.

Step 6 Culminating Project Start Up - Due ________________________________

See culminating project handout on Moodle.Teacher Notes: Students need to be able to answer the following questions:

1. What are the indicators of wealth and how do we measure them? a. assets: savings or property ownershipb. income: salary or investmentsc. debt: mortgage; credit card balanced. savings: bank deposits; short term investments (treasury bills)2. How do we define rich and poor in terms of these indicators?a. assets: poor (0); rich (>500,000) b. income: poor (100,000)c. debt: poor (?); rich (0)d. savings: poor (0); rich ($lots)3. What kind of analysis makes sense? a. measures of central tendency & spreadb. regression (time series or two variable) 4. How do we interpret the analysis?

Potential statistical arguments:

1. The rich are paying more income tax than they used to so they must be earning more money.

2. Income for the rich is growing at a faster rate than it is for the poor.

3. The number of rich people is increasing and the number of poor people is decreasing.

4. The gap between mean and median incomes is widening.

5. The number of poor single parent families is increasing while the number of rich single parent families is decreasing.

6. The unemployment rate for less educated (poor) people is increasing while it is decreasing for better educated (rich) people.

7. Rich people are saving more (RRSPs, housing, etc) than they used to.

8. The poor are spending more on basics (food, shelter, clothing, etc) than they used to while the rich are spending less.

MDM4U Part 5 Developing Statistical Arguments: PEER CRITIQUE ACTIVITY

Step 1 (Presenter)Briefly describe your working hypothesis along with the data that you have examined so far. Describe the four arguments that you think might be used to support or reject this hypothesis. Include a description of the data you would need for each argument and describe how you might interpret this data. Demonstrate how the data that you located might be used to prove (disprove) one of your arguments. You will not be evaluated on the strength of your hypothesis or your arguments.

Step 2 (Reviewer)Complete the attached Hypothesis Critique form, recording the following for each of the two students in your group. You will be evaluated on your responses.

1. the presenters name along with your own name;2. the presenters hypothesis;3. a brief description of the presenters arguments along with a description of what data the presenter would require to prove (or disprove) his/her hypothesis.4. a critique of the presenters logic that answers the following questions:a. Was the hypothesis clearly stated? Explain your reasoning. b. Did each of the arguments relate to the hypothesis in a way that could logically prove (or disprove) the hypothesis. Briefly explain the strengths and the weakness of each argument.

MDM4U Part 5 Developing Statistical Arguments: PEER CRITIQUE ACTIVITY

Step 1 (Presenter)Briefly describe your working hypothesis along with the data that you have examined so far. Describe the four arguments that you think might be used to support or reject this hypothesis. Include a description of the data you would need for each argument and describe how you might interpret this data. Demonstrate how the data that you located might be used to prove (disprove) one of your arguments. You will not be evaluated on the strength of your hypothesis or your arguments.

Step 2 (Reviewer)Complete the attached Hypothesis Critique form, recording the following for each of the two students in your group. You will be evaluated on your responses.

1. the presenters name along with your own name;2. the presenters hypothesis;3. a brief description of the presenters arguments along with a description of what data the presenter would require to prove (or disprove) his/her hypothesis.4. a critique of the presenters logic that answers the following questions:a. Was the hypothesis clearly stated? Explain your reasoning. b. Did each of the arguments relate to the hypothesis in a way that could logically prove (or disprove) the hypothesis. Briefly explain the strengths and the weakness of each argument.

MDM4U Part 5 Developing Statistical ArgumentsMDM4U Part 5 Developing Statistical ArgumentsPresenter:Critiqued by:Presenter:Critiqued by:

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Argument 1

Argument 1

Argument 2

Argument 2

Argument 3

Argument 3

Description of Data presented to support argument.

RubricLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4

Feedback is of poor quality with very little descriptive feedback Feedback is of average quality with some descriptive feedback Feedback is of good quality with lots descriptive feedback Feedback is of excellent quality with insightful and descriptive feedback