A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Paragraph or letter | Problem | Solution | Institution | Last Name | First Name | ||||||||||||||

2 | Winter 2024 | |||||||||||||||||||

3 | 1.2 after (l) | bad page break in some versions | ||||||||||||||||||

4 | PP 1.4B | behavioral cue vs. communicative cue | probably switch to communicative cues (7 of 8); solutions show both for now. Also interchange order of questions a and b | |||||||||||||||||

5 | Discussion after m in 4.7 | Missing period after “transformed parameter” | ||||||||||||||||||

6 | Inv 4.8 intro | mu_nusic | mu_music | Design vs. study design in 4.8 | 4.3(h) missing space | |||||||||||||||

7 | Inv 4.10 R code | missing parentheses | to use "with" function | |||||||||||||||||

8 | Example 4.2 | same R output repeats | update 2nd R output to new df | |||||||||||||||||

9 | Ch. 4 summary | t-produces | t-procedures | |||||||||||||||||

10 | 2/2/2024 | Inv. 1.4 Technology Detour (Minitab) | Hypothesized proportion shown in screen shot of Minitab window doesn't match what is happening in the investigation | Change to 0.15, to match the investigation | Central College | Mark | Mills | |||||||||||||

11 | p. 187 R/JMP version | extra blank lines at top of page | ||||||||||||||||||

12 | Inv 3.7 | switches to 90% but still includes zero | might as well keep at 95% | |||||||||||||||||

13 | 3/18/2024 | Inv. 3.7(d) | Random variable X is not defined | Maybe you can/should define X in (d), just for clarity to know how to determine n, M, and N | Central College | Mark | Mills | |||||||||||||

14 | ||||||||||||||||||||

15 | Fall 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||

16 | Inv 3.6r | Explain you reasoning | ||||||||||||||||||

17 | Inv 3.9 | bad page breaks, (c) mis numbered | more space in j, (c) to (g) | |||||||||||||||||

18 | very end of discussion of 4.2 prob detour | should really be comparing the distribution of the standardized statistic to the t-distribuiton | use sampling distribution for t-statistic instead of difference in means | |||||||||||||||||

19 | 12/20 | PP 2.5C | observe mean | observed mean | ||||||||||||||||

20 | 12/21 | example 3.2 | definition of Black households | extra ( | ||||||||||||||||

21 | ch 3 summary R commands | missing ) | ||||||||||||||||||

22 | inv 2.7 | the10% | needs space | |||||||||||||||||

23 | 8/10 | Inv 1.4(m) | May not have enough space | Cal Poly | ||||||||||||||||

24 | 8/8 | Inv 1.6, paragraph before (g) | We will consider pi_0 a plausible for pi | We will consider pi_0 a plausible value for pi | Cal Poly | Palmer | ||||||||||||||

25 | 8/11 | Inv 1.10 summary box | z* in wald and adjusted wald formulas | more of a superscript | ||||||||||||||||

26 | 8/14 | PP 1.16C | extra ( | [Hint | ||||||||||||||||

27 | inv 1.14 summary box | z* and extra ) | ||||||||||||||||||

28 | 8/14 | Example 1.2 solution | (e) approximate; (f) We | approximation; we can enter | ||||||||||||||||

29 | 9/26 | PP 1.9A | The problem needs to have a stem to introduce the situation before having students do part (a). | Central College | Mills | Mark | ||||||||||||||

30 | 12/12/23 | Inv A | Still two ppm uses (including in graph) | Change to ppb | ||||||||||||||||

31 | 12/13/23 | Inv 2.7 | Definition of systematic sample "takes selects" | replace with "selects" | ||||||||||||||||

32 | 12/15/23 | Example 2.1 | subjects | subject's | ||||||||||||||||

33 | new PP 2.5C | can impact inv 2.6 (j) spacing | ||||||||||||||||||

34 | case 1 | total sample size squished | ||||||||||||||||||

35 | Example 3.1 | missing graph | ||||||||||||||||||

36 | R version - Rel risk summary | |||||||||||||||||||

37 | Winter 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||

38 | 1/13 | Inv 1.3 (k) | Not enough space for answer in JMP/R version | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | ||||||||||||||

39 | 1/24 | Inv 1.8 (k) | subscriptions should not be plural? | or do the subscripts | ||||||||||||||||

40 | 1/27 | Inv 1.8 | Technology Detour One Proportion z-test R instructions | arguments for iscamonepropztest are observed, n, hypothesized, alternative, conf.level). See Summary box. | ||||||||||||||||

41 | PP 1.9A | Interchanged questions a and b but then the context isn't introduced before a | ||||||||||||||||||

42 | 2/2 | Inv 1.17 (b) | What symbols would you use | They are only asked about the percentage and don't want to encourage them to say phat = 25.4% | ||||||||||||||||

43 | 2/2 | Inv 1.17 (g) | With the updated data, the p-value is .03 so most don't like "very strong evidence" | Ask instead about "strong evidence"? | ||||||||||||||||

44 | 2/6 | Inv 2.1 | Awkward page break in JMP/R version (p. 124) | |||||||||||||||||

45 | 2/8 | iscamaddnorm | stray value appeared in output | removed the stray value, removed the grid, added options for adding x-label and/or title (myxlab and mytitle) | ||||||||||||||||

46 | 2/9 | iscamdotplot | couldn't add a main title | now can add a main title (mytitle) | ||||||||||||||||

47 | 3/1 | Inv 4.2 | Probability exploration | Spacing is awkward in several places | ||||||||||||||||

48 | 3/9 | PP4.5 | Shouldn't have skipped (a). Make sure the question about how they can use summary statistics/context to recognize the skewed nature of the distributions. | |||||||||||||||||

49 | 3/20 | Inv. 2.1 | I can't find anywhere in this investigation where it says that "birthweight" is in grams | Maybe add this as a parenthetical note in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Discussion" section? | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

50 | ||||||||||||||||||||

51 | ||||||||||||||||||||

52 | Fall 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||

53 | 9/13 | PP 1.3B | Incorrect data for Yukon | "6 of 8", not "7 of 8" | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

54 | 9/13 | PP 1.4B | Incorrect data for Yukon | "6 of 8", not "7 of 8" | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

55 | 9/13 | PP 1.4A (c) | Typo - "null and appropriate" | "null and alternative" | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

56 | 10/5 | PP 1.9A | Incorrect reference to PP 1.7B | Should reference PP 1.8B | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

57 | 10/5 | PP 1.9A(c) | It would be nice if the problem specifically asked students to calculate the margin of error for a 99% CI | Central College | Mills | Mark | ||||||||||||||

58 | 10/5 | PP 1.9A(a and b) | The order of these questions seems wrong. I always teach that students check the validity conditions first and then calculate an interval or run a test after they know the z-procedures are valid. (I tell them they should "look before they leap".) | Maybe just interchange (a) and (b)? | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

59 | 10/5 | Inv. 1.9(l) | The instructions for this part just references "these intervals" | It might be clearer to say "the intervals in (k)" | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

60 | 10/5 | PP 1.6(a) | Students don't seem to understand that the "trial and error" method they're supposed to use is what they just did in Inv. 1.6 | Maybe add the parenthetical "(like you did in Investigation 1.6)" after "trial and error" in the instructions | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

61 | 10/23 | Inv. 2.1 between (b) and (c) | Wrong number of rows | 305,536 | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

62 | 10/23 | Inv. 2.1(f) | 2016 is cited instead of 2020 | Central College | Mills | Mark | ||||||||||||||

63 | 10/23 | Inv. 2.1(m) | It might be good to specify that students use a histrogram of the birthweight data for overlaying the normal model. | Central College | Mills | Mark | ||||||||||||||

64 | 10/23 | Inv. 2.1 (n) | Wrong column in Calc > Calculator command | Should be C6, not C2 | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

65 | ||||||||||||||||||||

66 | Winter 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||

67 | 1/14 | Inv 1.7(j) | manger | manager | Cal Poly | Sabbag | Anelise | |||||||||||||

68 | 1/17 | Inv 1.8 | references phat but hasn't really been defined | Can define phat here or in Inv 1.5 | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

69 | 1/18 | Inv 1.8 after (s) | paragraph references Investigation 1.2 | Should reference Investigation 1.3 | Cal Poly | Sabbag | Anelise | |||||||||||||

70 | 1/31 | Inv 1.11 (e) | References second pull-down menu | Should be third pull-down menu | Cal Poly | Sabbag | Anelise | |||||||||||||

71 | 2/11 | Inv 3.1 (s) | missing period in question | Add period after distribution | Cal Poly | Sabbag | Anelise | |||||||||||||

72 | 2/15 | Inv 3.5 after l | applet instructions suggested selecting the Plot option | Should probably leave as the cards option | Cal Poly | Sabbag | Anelise | |||||||||||||

73 | 3/7 | PP 3.1B | No direction is given for Ha, reference is unclear | Reference PP 1.1B and consider specifying a direction (or allow either with justification) | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

74 | 3/18 | Inv. 2.1 (n) | Typo in Minitab calculator expression. | Second "std" should be "stdev" | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

75 | 3/18 | Inv. 2.1 (p) | Incorrect Minitab directions | I think "Single" should now be "Simple" (at least in my cloud version of Minitab) | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

76 | 4/8 | Inv. 4.5 (d) and (h) | Subscripts | Maybe use same subcripts (unrestricted, deprived) for x-bars and s as what is used in Inv. 4.4, since this is a place where the scenario from Inv. 4.4 is being used again. | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

77 | 4/8 | Inv. 4.5 (h) | Lack of specificity | It seems like you should say the given interval is a 95% confidence interval for mu_unrestricted - mu_deprived, otherwise, it may not be clear what parameter is being estimated with the interval. | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

78 | 4/12 | Inv. 4.9 (Speed It Up) | The graph of the differences has the differences taken in the reverse order from what is happening in the rest of the investigation (no music - music) | Central College | Mills | Mark | ||||||||||||||

79 | 4/28 | Invs. 5.1, 5.1A, 5.2 | Validity conds. for chi-square test are inconsistent | In this Invs. 5.1 and 5.2, you say "80% of expected cell counts exceed 5", but in Inv. 5.1A you say "80% of expected cell counts at least 5". | Central College | Mills | Mark | |||||||||||||

80 | ||||||||||||||||||||

81 | Fall 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||

82 | 9/28 | Prac Prob 1.4A | suggests testing that probability is below .10 | should test above .10? solutions should refer to above 15 ppb | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | |||||||||||||

83 | 10/3 | Prac Prob 1.12 B | Talks about quantitative data (average) but the inv no longer looks at means, only proportions | Replace question? | Central College | Linton | Tom | |||||||||||||

84 | 10/5 | Inv 1.15 after (f) | Key Result is missing the word "of" | not 20 times the size of the sample | Central College | Linton | Tom | |||||||||||||

85 | 11/15 | Inv 3.2 | Alignment of text in diagrams is off | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | ||||||||||||||

86 | 11/11 | Inv 4.2 key result box between j and k | The symbols (4 of them) for mu did not print | Include the symbols for mu | Central College | Linton | Tom | |||||||||||||

87 | 11/15 | NBA data | Sampling from Two Populations applet assumes data is sorted by groups | data is now in pull down menu but make sure nba data lists all eastern than all western conference players (also clarify if it's 2020/21 season or 2021/22 season) | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | |||||||||||||

88 | Winter 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||

89 | 1/4/21 | Inv A | Still several ppm uses | Change to ppb | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | |||||||||||||

90 | 1/7/21 | Inv A Study conclusions | mean is much larger than the mean | mean is much larger than the median | Central | Goodman | Russell | |||||||||||||

91 | 4/7/21 | Chapter 2 exercises | applets names are inconsistent | One Variable vs. Sampling Finite population | Central | Goodman | Russell | |||||||||||||

92 | 2/8/21 | Inv 3.1 after (l) | (2928 + 177) | (2928+1771) | Cal Poly | Chance | Beth | |||||||||||||

93 | Also watch consistency of subscripts used | |||||||||||||||||||

94 | 3/3/21 | Inv 4.4 (w) | 2456 | is actually 2533 (exact p-value .00718) | ||||||||||||||||

95 | 3/3/21 | Inv 4.5 (f) | exact p-value for t-statistic | 0.00733 | ||||||||||||||||

96 | 3/3/21 | Inv 4.6 | part (c) in JMP/R version | needs more spacing for answer | ||||||||||||||||

97 | 3/8/21 | Inv 4.10 | JMP/R version at least part (c) and (d) | No space to write answer for (c) | ||||||||||||||||

98 | ||||||||||||||||||||

99 | Fall 2020 | |||||||||||||||||||

100 |