Group 17
Group 17 "The Overseer Experiment"
DAY 5 (11-12-18)
Our group has the basic premise of our experiment. At first we were thinking about utilizing the space of the PAC. Early concepts sprung up with trying to manipulate subjects' fears while having them perform tasks. Eventually this pivoted towards ideas of observation and social inhibition, and something clicked.
The idea is that we have subjects complete either an obstacle course or skill based test in two rounds. Round 1 is our control, where we tell the subject to simply complete it as fast as possible. For Round 2 we'd tell the subjects to complete the task again, this time under observation by researchers. They would indicate their presence, and the second round would start. From there we would see the impact of an "overseer" as an independent variable, and determine if subjects are prone to social inhibition or facilitation based on their presence.
DAY 6 (11-13-18)
Continued effort in finding similar studies to our experiment. Nothing else of note.
DAY 7 (11-14-18)
Similar studies secured, with concept of the experiment solidifying as a series of skill-based tests. Work on rough drafts and hypotheses continues.
DAY 8 (11-15-18)
Materials list consolidated. At least 3 tests were decided upon, requiring Nerf guns, cups, and other stuff. Tests will adjust to the space available.
DAY 9 (11-16-18)
Work on the rough draft continues. All other documents have been completed. The next step is acquiring materials & activities. Changes in the test have resulted in the altering of the sharpshooter trial, leaving only the basketball hoop as part of the test.
DAY 11 (11-19-18)
Work proceeds as the week begins with efforts on all fronts. All work on the poster board, gathering material and other objectives will continue during the break.
The Day Before the Fair (11-27-18)
Our project is ready for the fair. We'll have to adapt to the amount of students we can have complete the test due to the fact that it's late start. The plan for the experiment is set, and our poster-board is complete. We've confirmed how each part of the test will work. The first trial will be recorded remotely, with the subjects indicating that they've completed their test. After that researchers will enter the room alongside the subject with one left at the booth, starting the next round. By the end of the test, subjects will be rewarded and sent on their way.
After the Fair (11-29-18)
So... it went well? The first couple of minutes were kind of hectic, with a lot of preparation and changes being made before the fair began. A problem that we tried to address from the start is the short completion time. I believed it was tougher to get conclusive results with most tests ending in ten seconds or less. Any revisions to the course were made to make a harder and longer course. This didn't change much in the end though. The nature of the test was to determine either social inhibition or facilitation. Because of the experiment's simplistic design, it's harder to weed out whether one was positively affected by onlookers; this may have come about only through the ease of the task. But despite this, the test went on and we manged to get a fair amount of participants.
Despite our successes, our mistakes definitely came to light during the fair. The hardest thing to manage throughout the day was quite simple: people. People are infinitely unpredictable and made the test harder to interpret. We tried to stop incoming participants from watching the test, as that could affect the outcome. At one point, around 5th period, students just started loitering in the stairwell, completely changing the dynamic of the test and forcing our hand. Also bothering us and the participants certainly isn't a win. As much as we wanted to, we couldn't prepare for people.
However, there were few points during the day where we received very little data. Since it was late start, we were expecting around 60 students to gain data from. Due to the very short completion times of the experiment, we were able to gather information from 73 students over the course of the fair. From these students we recorded the times of both trials, the average completion time of each student, and the difference between each time.
DAY 5 (11-12-18)
Our group has the basic premise of our experiment. At first we were thinking about utilizing the space of the PAC. Early concepts sprung up with trying to manipulate subjects' fears while having them perform tasks. Eventually this pivoted towards ideas of observation and social inhibition, and something clicked.
The idea is that we have subjects complete either an obstacle course or skill based test in two rounds. Round 1 is our control, where we tell the subject to simply complete it as fast as possible. For Round 2 we'd tell the subjects to complete the task again, this time under observation by researchers. They would indicate their presence, and the second round would start. From there we would see the impact of an "overseer" as an independent variable, and determine if subjects are prone to social inhibition or facilitation based on their presence.
DAY 6 (11-13-18)
Continued effort in finding similar studies to our experiment. Nothing else of note.
DAY 7 (11-14-18)
Similar studies secured, with concept of the experiment solidifying as a series of skill-based tests. Work on rough drafts and hypotheses continues.
DAY 8 (11-15-18)
Materials list consolidated. At least 3 tests were decided upon, requiring Nerf guns, cups, and other stuff. Tests will adjust to the space available.
DAY 9 (11-16-18)
Work on the rough draft continues. All other documents have been completed. The next step is acquiring materials & activities. Changes in the test have resulted in the altering of the sharpshooter trial, leaving only the basketball hoop as part of the test.
DAY 11 (11-19-18)
Work proceeds as the week begins with efforts on all fronts. All work on the poster board, gathering material and other objectives will continue during the break.
The Day Before the Fair (11-27-18)
Our project is ready for the fair. We'll have to adapt to the amount of students we can have complete the test due to the fact that it's late start. The plan for the experiment is set, and our poster-board is complete. We've confirmed how each part of the test will work. The first trial will be recorded remotely, with the subjects indicating that they've completed their test. After that researchers will enter the room alongside the subject with one left at the booth, starting the next round. By the end of the test, subjects will be rewarded and sent on their way.
After the Fair (11-29-18)
So... it went well? The first couple of minutes were kind of hectic, with a lot of preparation and changes being made before the fair began. A problem that we tried to address from the start is the short completion time. I believed it was tougher to get conclusive results with most tests ending in ten seconds or less. Any revisions to the course were made to make a harder and longer course. This didn't change much in the end though. The nature of the test was to determine either social inhibition or facilitation. Because of the experiment's simplistic design, it's harder to weed out whether one was positively affected by onlookers; this may have come about only through the ease of the task. But despite this, the test went on and we manged to get a fair amount of participants.
Despite our successes, our mistakes definitely came to light during the fair. The hardest thing to manage throughout the day was quite simple: people. People are infinitely unpredictable and made the test harder to interpret. We tried to stop incoming participants from watching the test, as that could affect the outcome. At one point, around 5th period, students just started loitering in the stairwell, completely changing the dynamic of the test and forcing our hand. Also bothering us and the participants certainly isn't a win. As much as we wanted to, we couldn't prepare for people.
However, there were few points during the day where we received very little data. Since it was late start, we were expecting around 60 students to gain data from. Due to the very short completion times of the experiment, we were able to gather information from 73 students over the course of the fair. From these students we recorded the times of both trials, the average completion time of each student, and the difference between each time.
Comments
Post a Comment