<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=16660456&amp;blogName=The+Fischbowl&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&amp;navbarType=BLUE&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;searchRoot=http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/search&amp;blogLocale=en_US&amp;homepageUrl=http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/&amp;vt=-6046363915374505262" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" allowtransparency="true" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Freakish Final Four?

(Cross-posted on my Algebra class blog, but thought I'd share here as well.)

ESPN had over 5.9 million entries to its Tournament Challenge. Only two of them have the final four correct (here's one of the two, the one currently leading the overall challenge).



Given what you know about college basketball, the NCAA Tournament, and probability, are you surprised there are two that are correct? Or would you have expected there to be more that were correct? Or less?

If you answer, make sure you justify your answer.

Labels: , ,

Add this post to Del.icio.us

8 Comments:

Blogger SarahM said...

Well, before doing any calculations, 2 out of almost 6 million seems rather small. I would expect there to be more.

I estimated there should be about 90 correct final four guesses: For each division, someone has a 1 in 16 chance of choosing correctly. That's a one in 65,536 chance of getting all 4 correct.

1 out of 65536 is roughly 90 out of 5.9 million.

I don't know much about NCAA basketball, but maybe 2 correct guesses is reasonable, considering an 11-seed and an 8-seed made it through to the final four.

3/27/11 8:57 PM  
Blogger Frank Jones said...

At first glance I too would have expected there to be more correct. However, after doing some math I think there should have been 2 correct given a pool of 5.9 million.

Simply focusing on the final four, complete random chance should yield 1 out of ~3.8 million correct. There are 64 possible choices for the first slot, 63 for the second, 62 for the third, and 61 for the fourth (64*63*62*61 = 15,249,024). Because the order of these four teams does not matter, the probability of guessing correctly is greatly increased. Instead of there being one in 15249024 correct, there are four in 15,249,024 (1 in 3,812,256). Based on 5.9 million entries, pure random chance would yield 1 or 2 correct (5.9 / 3.8 = 1.5).

3/28/11 7:06 AM  
Blogger Bailey Abston said...

At first glance I thought there should be more but I agree that 2 is about correct, I do not know much about NCAA basketball but calculations show that 2 would be correct.

3/28/11 1:03 PM  
Blogger Avery said...

Grrr...I just wrote a really long comment that got lost to the Gods of the Interweb. In short, if every possibly matchup were equally likely, you would expect 90 correct final 4 picks (it's not going to be 64*63*62*61 because there has to be 1 team from each region). That said, I'm sure lots of people picked all 4 #1 teams.

So I instead went and looked at the vegas odds (they are, after all, in the business of getting the odds correct). My poor Ohio State Buckeye's had the best odds of making the final four at just oder 50%. Kentucky had the best chance of the remaining teams (13.9%) while VCU's odds were .03%. That's right, play the tournament more than 3,000 times and they are expected to make it once. Together, the chances of all 4 of these teams making it is minuscule (.00000030024%). Put another way, you would expect for 1 in 33 million people to pick this bracket. So from that perspective, yes, it's surprising that there are even 2 correct brackets.

On the other hand, if you pick all 4 #1 seeds to advance, whoop-dee-doo. You pick VCU, Butler, UConn, and Kentucky? Bragging rights for the rest of your life (and possibly some money too).

3/28/11 6:39 PM  
Blogger Ryan &amp; Sarah said...

Avery's use of Vegas odds to predict the number of correct brackets is spot-on.

I thought the more interesting question would be: what is the mathematical probability of a final four containing Butler, VCU, Connecticut, and Kentucky? For that question, I used the Log 5 analysis of this year's tournament, whose algorithm was invented by the king of sabermetrics Bill James

According to the log 5 analysis: a final four containing Butler(1.0%), VCU(.03%), UConn(7.2%), and Kentucky(13.9%) will happen 1 in 33,306,700 times.

The mathematical odds match up with the vegas odds almost exactly.

3/29/11 12:44 AM  
Blogger Avery said...

Warning: self promotion to follow.

This post inspired me to expand on my earlier comment on my own blog. If you're curious for more, check out Without Geometry, Life is Pointless

3/29/11 8:06 PM  
Blogger John said...

Well, I do know a lot about this tournament, but never did I expect that a number 8 and a number 11 seed would be playing the National Championship Game. However, I on the other hand don't fully follow this sport as much as Hockey or Baseball, I had picked these two teams (Butler & UConn) to play, with UConn coming out as the Nat'l Champion.

However, I must agree with everyone on here about using different math skills as well as using the vegas odds, which I am sure a lot of people used during this tournament. But as much as I am sure about this, I am sure that some people just used common knowledge.

4/5/11 6:42 AM  
Blogger TomM2014 said...

I read, Freakish Final Four, by Carl Fisch. In this very short article, Fisch said that of the nearly 6 million entries for the Final Four results, only 2 were correct. At the end of the article, he asked whether the reader thought this number should have been higher or lower. My answer to this is that I have absolutely no idea. Though I know Mrs. Smith prefers that we pick a side on controversial topics, I really don’t know if this outcome is odd or completely normal. By the way, I know this is not a very controversial topic. But if I had to choose one side, I would honestly imagine that this number would be at least a little bit larger. I find it odd that even though there are probably millions of different possible outcomes for this famous competition due to the fact that 64 different teams compete, that even with the use of logical deduction due to what teams have proven superior in the past only two people guessed correctly. I think this number should be higher by at least 4 charts.

5/15/11 10:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Friday, March 11, 2011

Archive of School Board Social Media Discussion

Here's the archive of the LPS School Board's discussion surrounding social media.

The Prezi that our CIO used:



Ustream archive (very out of focus video, but the audio is good):



Video streaming by Ustream

CoverItLive Archive:

Labels:

Add this post to Del.icio.us

2 Comments:

Blogger Brittni said...

Hey Mr. Fisch,

My name is Brittni Sasser and I am a student at the University of South Alabama. I am in Dr. Strange's EDM310 class and was assigned to your blog this week!

The first slide show by Prezi was awesome! I enjoyed looking at each category and the examples that went along. I look forward to bringing Social Media into my classroom because it offers a great way to communicate, to gain information, and to stay connected with one another and technology. I am glad I got the chance to read your post this week. If you would like to check out my blog, click here!

3/23/11 4:13 PM  
Blogger Joe R said...

I've read this discussion very closely. As a student affected by these topics, I have to say that the district is too paranoid of the new technology that is social media. School should prepare us for the real world, because there is no other "safe" world we can go to.

If I can watch a man get shot in the head in Vietnam in my US History class, why can't I post a thought online? Censorship is a bad idea. The reason we are shown these images in school is to show us how the real world operates. What's the difference?

Sheltering us from social media is a losing battle. We will use it outside of the classroom. Some of us will even use it through our 3G or 4G networks in class. All attempting to shelter us does is antagonizes the administration in the eyes of the student.

Granted, students are also kids. Many of us will misuse these media centers, sure. However, if they don't make mistakes, they will never learn from them! In the same way we write essays continually to get better at them, we should be able to interact online to get "better" at that too.

Thanks Mr. Fisch for fighting for our rights in education!

4/26/11 11:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Thursday, March 03, 2011

The Learning Studio

The School of Medicine at the University of Virginia has created a room called "The Learning Studio."


Photo Credit: Norm Shafer (original source)
[I]t coalesced into an unusual, functionally innovate design, one built around a new pedagogy.
Shades of the Collaboratory at Rutgers. You see, UVA figured something out:
Most universities continue to follow a blueprint introduced in 1910, which called for two years of in-depth study of the basic sciences followed by two years of clinical experience. A cookie-cutter approach, it means that students spend two years sitting through long lectures and regurgitating facts on tests, followed by the shock treatment in their third year of suddenly dealing with patients in a hospital ward.

“It’s become pretty clear in the last couple of decades that this is probably not the best way to learn something as complex as medicine,” says Randolph Canterbury, the medical school’s senior associate dean for education. “The idea that physicians ought to learn the facts of all these various disciplines—anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and so forth—to the depth that we once thought they should doesn’t make much sense.”

About half of all medical knowledge becomes obsolete every five years. Every 15 years, the world’s body of scientific literature doubles. The pace of change has only accelerated. “The half-life of what I learned in medical school was much longer than what it is today,” adds Canterbury, a professor of psychiatric medicine and internal medicine.
Huh. Who knew? Oh yeah.

So what happens in that Learning Studio?
. . . In teams of eight, the students debate a patient case: Walt Z., a 55-year-old chemist, comes into your clinic complaining of intermittent chest pain. As his doctor, you’ve arranged for an exercise stress test. But Walt Z. is an informed consumer of health care, and he has lots of questions about the test’s accuracy in diagnosing blockage in coronary arteries. Five large media screens hanging throughout the room delineate his medical details and a series of multiple choice questions.

Gone is the traditional 50-minute lecture. (Also gone is paper, for the most part.) The students have completed the assigned reading beforehand and, because they’ve absorbed the facts on their own, class time serves another purpose. Self-assessment tests at the start of class measure how well they understand the material. Then it’s time to do a test case, to reinforce their critical thinking and push their knowledge and skills to another level.

. . . In this “flattened classroom,” as it’s been described, the traditional top-down educational approach is reconfigured and the responsibility for learning shifts to the student.
Interesting. What about accountability?
Problem solving by teams mirrors the reality of health care today. “The traditional approach has been one patient, one doctor,” says Waggoner-Fountain. “Now, it’s one patient, one doctor and a team, in part because medicine has gotten more sophisticated and patient expectations are different.”

Studies also show that individual grades improve when working within a team. The first-year students have embraced it. Not isolated in auditorium seats bolted to the floor, they can easily move and mingle because everything is in the round.

“Working in a team reinforces what you learn in class,” says Chelsea Becker (Med ’14). “We all have different backgrounds and everyone knows something different.” Science majors don’t hold dominion; the class comprises more than 60 different majors, from astrochemistry to art.

“It allows us to teach each other,” adds Tom Jenkins (Med ’14), who estimates he’s collaborated with just about every person in the class at this point. “I think that helps with retention.”
I could go on, but it would be better if you just go read the article. Okay, just one more quote:
Every team experience was singular. “We have the sense that education should be standardized and everyone should have the same experience, but that’s not really the case for us,” says Littlewood. “The new Carnegie report talks about having standardized outcomes for individualized experiences, and I think there’s no better example than over here.”
So, let's sum up. Teaching like it's 1910 doesn't make much sense (teacher-centered, lecture-oriented, fact-recall, paper-based, standardized instruction.) Ahh, so glad all the current education reform in K-12 matches up with this vision. They have to be college-ready, ya know.

Labels: , , , ,

Add this post to Del.icio.us

10 Comments:

Blogger Miranda R Tidikis said...

I believe the Learning Studio is a great idea. Instead of lectures and written papers, the idea of giving students actual patient cases they may face and have them debate it as a team gives them the chance to see how things will work in real life. It gives the students experience with critical thinking and problem solving. It allows the students to apply what they are learning from books in real life situations. I think it is a good thing that University of Virginia is doing by stepping away from the traditional lecture class and to a more student oriented class.

3/6/11 2:38 AM  
Blogger Nevin said...

As an education student, I have been taught over the past few years that learning is more than merely digesting and regurgitating information. This "learning studio" is not a new idea; it is merely using educational methods found to be effective with younger students in which students are put in scenarios and required to make decisions. It is surprising, however, that it took so long for it to be put to use at the collegiate level.

3/9/11 1:49 PM  
Blogger Erica White said...

The Learning Studio implements many techniques that are beneficial for student learning. It is a form of cooperative learning, in which students work together to find answers. This instructional method, very different from the traditional approach places the responsibility on the students. Many times this is effective for younger students because they are able to develop autonomy, but it is also a good idea for college students. As an education major, my program consists of class lectures, but I also participate in field experience where I go into classrooms beginning the first semester of the program. This is very useful and allows me to apply what I am learning in the classroom, and I think it is good to see other areas of study implementing the same setup.

3/14/11 1:14 PM  
Blogger Brittni said...

Hi Mr. Fisch,

My name is Brittni Sasser and I am a student in Dr. Strange's EDM310 class. The Learning Studio sounds like a fantastic idea. It is a great idea to have students working together in groups because each students will bring something different, which will make the group grow in learning together. I am a Elementary Education major, so I believe in starting group work early. Students will then be more prepared for group work in the years to come. If you would like to check out my blog, click here!

3/23/11 8:01 PM  
Blogger ashirwaad-holiday-apts-goa said...

I agree too that it's good to have a learning studio

3/29/11 7:20 AM  
Blogger Brenden t 2014 said...

Dear Mr. Fisch,

I believe that more colleges should try this and also I think Highschools should also try this, mostly if it is a large Highschool. I also believe that the "Learning Studio" is a great idea because the jobs that are getting created right now usually involve team/group work and the Learning Studio helps you become better at working with other people, and gets you the education the student needs. I thank you for posting this on your blog and i hope someone will read and try it at a college or highschool so it can spread all across the nation and hopefully increase education in the U.S.

4/5/11 8:10 PM  
Blogger Justin M 2014 said...

I read Mr. Fisch's “The Learning Studio” which talked about how students have taken a different approach in college to learning medicine. Instead of being lectured by a teacher for an hour students prepare themselves before class and then rate themselves on how they understand the content. They then break up into teams and work on a patients problems in the learning studio. This way of teaching has greatly helped students learn, work as a team, and increase their grades in the class. If this is how colleges teach then how come our kindergarten through the twelfth grade don't teach like that. If we started teaching like that now in our own schools students could possibly learn more and develop needed communication skills. I think learning studios should be put in schools all over the country.

4/5/11 11:18 PM  
Blogger ConnorB2014 said...

Dear Mr. Fisch,
Your article The Learning Studio gets my attention because I feel that this is the way that students should be learning today. The methods used by the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia in “The Learning Studio” such as working with groups, not being lectured then tested and so on should be what a class room is like now and in the future. I think that these ways of learning and teaching would really benefit the students today because if students collaborate with their peers today and try to solve problems, they will learn this skill now and could use it in the future. I also agree that the lecture and testing style of teaching is not effective because I am a student and I know that when being lectured, all that the information the teacher is saying is doing is going through one ear and coming out the other. Then after not fully understanding the lecture, students cram for tests, which don’t help a student understand the material, and then they just forget about it after the test is over. This learning studio should be the classroom of students today because it would be more effective in getting kids educated and prepared for the real world.

4/17/11 10:10 PM  
Blogger JoshL2014 said...

Dear Mr. Fisch,
I liked your article The Learning Studio because I feel that this is the way that students should be learning today. The methods used by the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia in “The Learning Studio” such as working with groups, not being lectured then tested and so on should be what a class room is like now and in the future. I think that these ways of learning and teaching would really benefit the students today because if students just think with their peers today and try to solve problems, they will learn this skill now. I also agree that the lecture and testing style of teaching is not effective because I am a student and I know that when i'm being lectured, I zone out. Then after not fully understanding the lecture, students cram for tests, which don’t help a student understand the material, and then they just forget about it after the test is over. This learning studio should be the classroom of students today because it would be more effective in getting kids educated and prepared for the real world.

4/19/11 7:25 PM  
Blogger RileyC2014 said...

Dear Mr. Fisch,

Your article The Learning Studio attracts to me, because I feel that this is the way that students should be learning today. The methods used by the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia in “The Learning Studio” such as working with groups with a lot of projects in every class that you use. Also what I think is cool is not being lectured then tested directly after the lecture. I think that these ways of learning and teaching would really benefit the students today because if students work together and think as one with their peers today, they will learn this skill now and could use it in the future. I also agree that the lecture and testing style of teaching is not effective because I am a student and I know that when being lectured, all that the information the teacher is saying is doing is going through one ear and coming out the other. Then after not fully understanding the lecture, students cram for tests, which don’t help a student understand the material, and then they just forget about it after the test is over. This learning studio should be the classroom of students today because it would be more effective in getting kids educated and prepared for the real world.

5/4/11 9:46 AM  

Post a Comment