专家们是如何看待统计学的?加强本科生和研究生培养的几点建议

S. L. Choy, T. Wilson
{"title":"专家们是如何看待统计学的?加强本科生和研究生培养的几点建议","authors":"S. L. Choy, T. Wilson","doi":"10.52041/srap.09403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experts are increasingly being called upon to quantify their knowledge, particularly in situations where data is not yet available or of limited relevance. In many cases this involves asking experts to estimate probabilities. For example experts, in ecology or related fields, might be called upon to estimate probabilities of incidence or abundance of species, and how they relate to environmental factors. Although many ecologists undergo some training in statistics at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, this does not necessarily focus on interpretations of probabilities. More accurate elicitation can be obtained by training experts prior to elicitation, and if necessary tailoring elicitation to address the expert’s strengths and weaknesses. Here we address the first step of diagnosing conceptual understanding of probabilities. We refer to the psychological literature which identifies several common biases or fallacies that arise during elicitation. These form the basis for developing a diagnostic questionnaire, as a tool for supporting accurate elicitation, particularly when several experts or elicitors are involved. We report on a qualitative assessment of results from a pilot of this questionnaire. These results raise several implications for training experts, not only prior to elicitation, but more strategically by targeting them whilst still undergraduate or postgraduate students.","PeriodicalId":170012,"journal":{"name":"Next Steps in Statistics Education Precedings IASE Satellite Conference","volume":"213 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do experts think about statistics? Hints for improving undergraduate and postgraduate training\",\"authors\":\"S. L. Choy, T. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.52041/srap.09403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experts are increasingly being called upon to quantify their knowledge, particularly in situations where data is not yet available or of limited relevance. In many cases this involves asking experts to estimate probabilities. For example experts, in ecology or related fields, might be called upon to estimate probabilities of incidence or abundance of species, and how they relate to environmental factors. Although many ecologists undergo some training in statistics at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, this does not necessarily focus on interpretations of probabilities. More accurate elicitation can be obtained by training experts prior to elicitation, and if necessary tailoring elicitation to address the expert’s strengths and weaknesses. Here we address the first step of diagnosing conceptual understanding of probabilities. We refer to the psychological literature which identifies several common biases or fallacies that arise during elicitation. These form the basis for developing a diagnostic questionnaire, as a tool for supporting accurate elicitation, particularly when several experts or elicitors are involved. We report on a qualitative assessment of results from a pilot of this questionnaire. These results raise several implications for training experts, not only prior to elicitation, but more strategically by targeting them whilst still undergraduate or postgraduate students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Next Steps in Statistics Education Precedings IASE Satellite Conference\",\"volume\":\"213 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Next Steps in Statistics Education Precedings IASE Satellite Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52041/srap.09403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Next Steps in Statistics Education Precedings IASE Satellite Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52041/srap.09403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

越来越多的专家被要求量化他们的知识,特别是在还没有数据或相关性有限的情况下。在许多情况下,这涉及到请专家估计概率。例如,可能要求生态学或有关领域的专家估计物种的发生率或丰度,以及它们与环境因素的关系。尽管许多生态学家在本科和研究生阶段接受过统计学方面的培训,但这并不一定侧重于对概率的解释。更准确的启发可以通过在启发之前对专家进行培训来获得,如果必要的话,还可以针对专家的长处和短处进行剪裁。在这里,我们讨论诊断概率概念理解的第一步。我们参考了心理学文献,其中确定了在启发过程中出现的几种常见偏见或谬论。这些构成了制定诊断问卷的基础,作为支持准确引出的工具,特别是在涉及几位专家或引出者时。我们报告了对该问卷试点结果的定性评估。这些结果对培训专家提出了一些启示,不仅在启发之前,而且在本科生或研究生期间更有策略地针对他们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do experts think about statistics? Hints for improving undergraduate and postgraduate training
Experts are increasingly being called upon to quantify their knowledge, particularly in situations where data is not yet available or of limited relevance. In many cases this involves asking experts to estimate probabilities. For example experts, in ecology or related fields, might be called upon to estimate probabilities of incidence or abundance of species, and how they relate to environmental factors. Although many ecologists undergo some training in statistics at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, this does not necessarily focus on interpretations of probabilities. More accurate elicitation can be obtained by training experts prior to elicitation, and if necessary tailoring elicitation to address the expert’s strengths and weaknesses. Here we address the first step of diagnosing conceptual understanding of probabilities. We refer to the psychological literature which identifies several common biases or fallacies that arise during elicitation. These form the basis for developing a diagnostic questionnaire, as a tool for supporting accurate elicitation, particularly when several experts or elicitors are involved. We report on a qualitative assessment of results from a pilot of this questionnaire. These results raise several implications for training experts, not only prior to elicitation, but more strategically by targeting them whilst still undergraduate or postgraduate students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信