sociogram analysis class 72 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sociogram Analysis Class: 72 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sociogram Analysis Class: 72

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Sociogram Analysis Class: 72 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 118 Views
  • Uploaded on

Sociogram Analysis Class: 72. Cindy Lewis Vanessa Ricker Chad Thatcher Jinyu Xia. Who would you like to eat lunch with?. OBSERVATIONS. Stars: (33%) f=7,21,16, 13, 12 m=11, 6 26, 25 Rejected (19%) : f=14, 5, 19 m=27, 24 80.8% Have mutual choices Ghosts : 1

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sociogram Analysis Class: 72' - nemesio


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
sociogram analysis class 72

Sociogram AnalysisClass: 72

Cindy Lewis

Vanessa Ricker

Chad Thatcher

Jinyu Xia

observations
OBSERVATIONS
  • Stars: (33%) f=7,21,16, 13, 12 m=11, 6 26, 25
  • Rejected (19%): f=14, 5, 19 m=27, 24
  • 80.8% Have mutual choices
  • Ghosts: 1
  • Controversial: 4 & 26
  • Triangles: (19, 11, 6) (15, 2,25)
  • Island: Male group at top bottom of chart
  • Chains: Follow definition, several lead to “star” children
nomination chart
NOMINATION CHART
  • LOFCQ: Several stars had high locus of control (21,20,11,26)
  • Child 7 considered most popular, child 1 least popular. Both female. Observed greater complexity in female groups.
  • Anomalies
    • 4 and 26 are children I would consider to be “controversial” children. Both are male and connect the two male groups in the graph…scored high in the negative question but are stars for the lunch question. 26 low PSD—not reality. 4 high PSD, however chosen by 3 children for lunch

Moderate to high level of cohesiveness in this class

stars of the class
Stars of the class
  • Boys
      • Student 25 -5 positive nominations
        • Social attraction score: 24
        • Adjusted social distance: 2.00
      • Student 9 -5 positive nominations
        • Social attraction score: 23
        • Adjusted social distance: 2.96
stars of the class continued
Stars of the class (continued)
  • Girls
      • Student 12 -6 positive nominations
        • Social attraction score: 27
        • Adjusted social distance: 2.72
      • Student 21 -5 positive nominations
        • Social attraction score: 24
        • Adjusted social distance: 2.92
rejected students
Rejected Students
  • Student 17 -0 positive nominations
      • Social attraction score: 6
      • Adjusted social distance: 3.36
  • Student 24 -0 positive nominations
      • Social attraction score: 4
      • Adjusted social distance: 3.16
controversial student
Controversial Student
  • Student 24
      • Not being chosen
      • Personal distance score: 1
      • Adjusted social distance score of 3.16
      • Social attraction score: 4
choices
Choices
  • Mutual choice pairs: 59.2%
    • 9 and 11, 25 and 2, 27 and 4 etc.
  • Social Triangles
    • Students 8, 16, and 7
    • Students 15, 25, 2
  • Social Circles
    • Students 11, 9, 6, 22
    • Students 23, 16, 7, 8
  • Islands
    • Students 27, 4, 24
self esteem for popular and rejected students
Self esteem for popular and rejected students
  • Student 12
    • Coopersmith Inventory Score: 23
  • Student 9
    • Score: 20
  • Student 17
    • Score: 20
  • Student 24
    • Score: 12
locus of control for popular and rejected students
Locus of control for popular and rejected students
  • Student 12
    • 113.91
  • Student 9
    • 105.56
  • Student 17
    • 116.69
  • Student 24
    • 119.47
mutual choice chains
Mutual choice chains
  • Boy 9 and boy 6;
  • Boy 22 and boy 6;
  • Boy 25 and boy 15;
  • Boy 26 and boy 18;
  • Girl 7 and girl 16;
  • Girl 12 and girl 13.
chains pattern
Chains pattern
  • Boy 12, boy 11, boy 9 and boy 6;
  • Boy 25, boy 2, boy 20 and boy 15
academic popularity
Academic Popularity
  • Girl 13 picked by 7 girls;
  • Girl 7 picked by 5 girls;
  • Girls 12 picked by 5 girls;
  • Girl 16 picked by 4 girls;
  • Girl 23 picked by 4 girls;
  • Girl 3 picked by 3 girls and 1 boy;
  • Boy 6 picked by 5 boys;
  • Boy 25 picked by 4 boys.
correlation between adjusted social distance and social attraction score
Correlation Between Adjusted Social Distance And Social Attraction Score
  • Negatively, statistically correlated with each other.
ghost student
Ghost Student
  • Boy 27
  • Girl 1
  • Girl 8
negative question
Negative Question

Who do you like the least?

students worth a second look
Students Worth a Second Look
  • Student 26
  • Student 17
  • Student 18
  • Student 5
student 26
Student 26
  • Male
  • Adjusted Social Distance = 4.04
  • Personal Social Distance = 1
  • Social Attraction Score = 16
  • Locus of Control Score = 105.5
student 2631
Student 26
  • Received 15 negative nominations. More than double the next closest student.
  • Negative nominations from over 57% of the class
  • 3/5 of the negative nominations come from females (9 females). 70% females in the class picked student 26.
  • Received only 6 positive nominations, 5 of those come from students 17 & 18
student 17
Student 17
  • Male
  • Adjusted Social Distance = 3.36
  • Personal Social Distance = 1
  • Social Attraction Score = 6
  • Locus of Control Score = 116.69
student 1734
Student 17
  • Received 7 negative nominations, the second most of the class .
  • Nominations from 4 females and 3 males
  • Selected student 26 on the lunch and movie questions.
student 18
Student 18
  • Male
  • Adjusted Social Distance = 3.44
  • Personal Social Distance = 1
  • Social Attraction Score = 11
  • Locus of Control Score = NA
student 1836
Student 18
  • Received 4 negative nominations.
  • Nominations from 2 males and 2 females.
  • Selected student 26 on all three positive nominations, and all choices were mutual choices.
student 5
Student 5
  • Female
  • Adjusted Social Distance = 2.8
  • Personal Social Distance = 2
  • Social Attraction Score = 3
  • Locus of Control Score = 80.53
student 538
Student 5
  • Received no negative nominations from the class.
  • Received only 3 positive nominations from all three questions, all of them third choices.
  • “Invisible student”
gender lines
Gender lines
  • Were not crossed among 3 positive question sociograms
  • Exceptions
    • Movie: girl 8 chose boy 6
    • Academic: boy 17 chose girls 3 and 14
    • Rejection: 70% of girls chose boy 26
similarities
Similarities
  • Students 16 and 7 mutual choice
  • Students 26 and 18 mutual choice
  • Social circle with 25, 2, 15, and 20
  • Student 1- ghost
  • Similar choices with academics and 2 social questions
differences
Differences
  • Gender and lunch question
  • Gender and rejection question
social distance and social attraction
Social Distance and Social Attraction
  • Student 1 (ghost)
    • Social distance: 3.44
    • Social attraction: 0
  • Student 12 (popular)
    • Social distance: 2.56
    • Social attraction: 27
concerns
Concerns…
  • Academic question and 2 social questions
  • Suggestions…
    • 3 questions social
    • 3 questions academic