Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-16T15:57:58.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clocks, Not Dartboards: A Tale of Students, Statistics,and the Pedagogical Challenges of Randomness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2006

David C. Earnest
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University

Extract

What is the probability of students cheating?

I found myself asking this question quite literally recently, when 10of my students in an upper-level undergraduate methods course turnedin identical results for a take-home exercise. Of course, on someexercises I expect students to produce identical findings, such aswhen I ask for the mean and variance of a particular variable. Inthis case, however, I had asked students to produce a new randomvariable and to summarize its values in a frequency distribution. Myinitial reaction was to suspect the students of collaborating on theexercise (contrary to my syllabus and the assignment'sinstructions), though the number of students who produced identicalresults—10 out of a class of 30—made me skeptical that so manystudents could conspire so effectively. The very nature of thestudents made it unlikely that they collaborated together. I teachat a large public-service university, with students that represent abroad variety of backgrounds, nationalities, interests, and ages.The course also is cross-listed among disciplines, so the 10students included both political science and geography majors. Myreview of the names of the 10 students persuaded me that it washighly unlikely that they cheated. I have found, furthermore, thatmany students will not voluntarily work in groups. So how did thisdiverse group of students produce an identical “random”variable?

My investigation of this question took me well beyond issues ofstudent conduct. To answer the question to my satisfaction, I foundI had to understand how campus computer networks operate andultimately how the statistical software my students use works. Myjourney took me into the arcane world of “random” numbers incomputers, and required me to understand how statistical softwaregenerates so-called pseudo-random numbers. When I finally found ananswer to my puzzle, I learned that the problem was not with mystudents, but with the software on which we all rely for researchand, increasingly, pedagogy. Many researchers today know there is nosuch thing as a computer-generated truly random number. Althoughmany political scientists know this has profound consequences fortheir work—whether for sampling purposes or Monte Carloexperiments—to my knowledge instructors of quantitative methodscourses have given little thought to its implications in theclassroom. For one, it is easy and tempting to mistake the problemsof pseudo-random number generation for student malfeasance. Foranother, it speaks to the students' (and instructor's) conceptualgrasp of the slippery idea of “randomness.” For this reason, I offermy own experience as a cautionary tale.

Information

Type
THE TEACHER
Copyright
© 2006 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altman, Micah, and Michael P. McDonald. 2001. “Choosing Reliable Statistical Software.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (September): 681687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1995. “What Software Do Political Scientists Use?The Political Methodologist 7 (fall): 2327.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L., and E. Tonkes. 2001. “Dartboard Arrangements.” Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 8 (2). Electronic resource available online at www.combinatorics.org/Volume_8/PDF/v8i2r4.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas R., and Richard J. Stoll. 1994. “Collective Security and State Survival in the Interstate System.” International Studies Quarterly 38 (March): 3359.Google Scholar
Drury, A. Cooper. 2001. “Sanctions as Coercive Diplomacy: The U.S. President's Decision to Initiate Economic Sanctions.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (September): 485508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Andrew. 1996. “Evolutionary Models in Foreign Policy Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 40 (3). Special Issue: Evolutionary Paradigms in the Social Sciences (September): 343361.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C. 2002. “Stochastic Dependence in Competing Risks.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (January): 200217.Google Scholar
Lehmer, D. H. 1951. “Mathematical Methods in Large-scale Computing Units.” Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Large-Scale Digital Calculating Machinery, Cambridge, MA, 1949. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 141146.Google Scholar
Marchenko, Yulia. 2005. Personal emails to the author. “Re: Stata v. 8: Non-random numbers generated by uniform().” July 18.Google Scholar
Mason, Robert D., Douglas A. Lind, and William G. Marchal. 1994. Statistics: An Introduction. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
McClendon, McKee J. 2004. Statistical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D. 1998. “Assessing the Reliability of Statistical Software: Part I.” American Statistician 52 (November): 358366.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D. 1999. “Assessing the Reliability of Statistical Software: Part II.” American Statistician 53 (May): 149159.Google Scholar
Park, Stephen K., and Keith W. Miller. 1988. “Random Number Generators: Good Ones Are Hard to Find.” Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery 31 (October): 11921201.Google Scholar
Pollock, Philip H. 2003a. The Essentials of Political Analysis. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Philip H. 2003b. An SPSS Companion to Political Analysis. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, Dan, and Allan C. Stam III 1998. “Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (3). Special Issue: Opening up the Black Box of War: Politics and the Conduct of War (June): 259277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James et al. 2005. On the Cutting Edge of Globalization: An Inquiry into American Elites. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Sawitzki, G. 1985. “Another Random Number Generator Which Should Be Avoided.” Statistical Software Newsletter 11: 8182.Google Scholar
SPSS 11.0 Syntax Reference Guide. 2001. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
SPSS 14.0 Base User's Guide. 2005. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
SPSS for Windows v. 11 through v. 14 [Computer software]. 2001–2005. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Stata for Windows v. 8.1 [Computer software]. 2003. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar