View Single Post
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2014, 22:39
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,081
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Looking Back: 3 Day Robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadandcookies View Post
I'm just looking for larger scale or aggregate data-- ideally in a statistically valid form. I don't really expect anyone (either for or against Ri3D/BB) to bring in data, but I think that's the only way to move beyond rhetoric (where the conversation is now).

As for metrics, there are a couple of higher level ways (that don't require new data) to look at-- all of which have their own problems-- rookie retention/overall retention versus prior years (problem: is affected by other factors like quality of game and uncontrollable factors), lower quartile scoring ability (doesn't necessarily mention inspiration or thinking, just competitiveness).

I'd be curious if anyone has an idea of how to analyze the problem while moving away from rhetoric and into more objective analysis (which I realize is difficult and unlikely to actually happen).
The big issue is isolating the variables.

We could pull retention data but that would be tainted by various grants coming and going last year as well as changes in focus. And it's impossible to say with any real certainty if a team would have continued without success. (or define success for that matter)

We could pull times the game objective was achieved and compare that to similar years. 2012 work pretty well from a quick glance but has some serious problems at a deeper one. Perhaps 2006 is a good data point? Too old? Idk

Or maybe we could divide teams into historical tiers and see if they've had a pair of better years the last two compared to their traditional performance. But then how do we factor in that event performance IS a zero sum game, someone has to lose for you to win after all...

Sorry bro, don't think I can give you the data you want. Don't think anyone can. Objectively measuring the impact of Ri3D and its ilk is simply not possible. Subjectively we all have to determine if we should encourage our students to investigate these challenges. But I think that'll be a student by student question for me. Why do we have to have a definitive answer anyway?
__________________




.
Reply With Quote