Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Presentation_1375280653597
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentation_1375280653597

65

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
65
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • ДОБАВИТЬ НАЗВАНИЕ КОНФЕРЕНЦИИ И ДАТУ ДОКЛАДА
  • Я бы говорила не про «обуславливают», а «с какими факторами связано их наличие» . Can be used – не самое удачное выражение. Лучше говорить о give return или что-то похожее. Про вопросы: мы уже несколько раз говорили о том, что мы не можем назвать факторы, которые «определяют» сети. Мы можем только говорить о характеристиках, с которыми эти сети ассоциируются. На вопрос « which types exist » мы тоже не отвечаем, поскольку сами выбрали два типа отношений «сверху». С чего мы взяли, что это самые важные?
  • Название слайда не очень отражает содержание; В литературе упоминается еще одна важнейшая характеристика -
  • Не уверена, но стоит подумать: может быть, на этапе гипотез сформулировать гипотезы для сетей дружбы отдельно и для сетей помощи отдельно, а на этапе результатов дать их в таком виде, как структурировано сейчас. А то сейчас гипотезы типа второй немного искусственно воспринимаются.
  • Уже не нужно говорить, что это «один российский университет» Вполне можно обозначить Вышку. Нужно также упомянуть, что студенты разбиты на группы, и что сделано это «сверху», и что платящие и не платящие за обучение студенты учатся вперемешку
  • Не понятен п. 4. обучение в одной группе может что-то объяснять в большой степени (причем измеримой степени), но в том виде, как это сформулировано сейчас, это звучит слишком общо. Понятие популярности нигде не объяснено. Из презентации пока не очень понятно, что в этой работе нового. Чем она отличается от тех, кто уже были раньше???
  • Transcript

    • 1. Friendship and assistance ties of students: effect of GPA D.Valeeva, O.Poldin, M.Yudkevich Center for Institutional Studies (Higher School of Economics) Moscow, Russia XXXIII Sunbelt Social Network Conference, May 21-26, 2013, Hamburg, Germany
    • 2. Network as dependent variable Network as independent variable Student Network effects Network effects Student characteristics (homophily, (peer group abilities (race, sex etc.) propinquity etc.) effects) (academic achievement) DeFour & Hirsch (1990) Antrobus (1988) D’Augelli & Hershberger (1993) Thomas (2000) Mayer & Puller (2008) Sacerdote (2001) Zimmerman (2003) Our contribution: • friendship and study assistance networks • p* modeling of student networks • administratively formed groups • Russian sample Main research areas of student social networks
    • 3. Main network effects • Reciprocity: tendency of friendship ties to be mutual • Transitivity: tendency of ties to be closed in triads (“friend of my friend is also my friend”) • Homophily: tendency of ties to be formed between individuals with the same characteristics and abilities • Propinquity: tendency of ties to be formed between individuals situated in same geographical and institutional settings • Popularity: tendency of more popular and active individuals to form more toes and to be more successful
    • 4. Hypotheses About reciprocity and transitivity effects: H1. Friendship ties are more mutual than assistance ties H2. Friendship ties are more transitive than assistance ties About homophily and propinquity effects: H3. There are propinquity effects between students in study group and type of tuition (in both friendship and assistance networks) H4. There are homophily effects between students in their gender (only in friendship network) H5. There are homophily effects between students in their GPA (in both friendship and assistance networks) About popularity effects: H6. Academically successful students are more popular (in both friendship and assistance networks)
    • 5. Data Students of Economics Department in Higher School of Economics • 2nd year students: 94 students • 3rd year students: 118 students • ~80% of the whole network is described • Students from 7 study groups (administratively formed) • Tuition free and full tuition students study together Questions in the questionnaire: 1. Please indicate up to 5 of your classmates with whom you spend most of your time 2. Please indicate up to 5 of your classmates to whom you address on some educational help + Additional information about gender and type of tuition of students, their study group and GPA
    • 6. Descriptive statistics-1 Mean Min Max No. of obs. No. of friendship ties 3.49 (1.31) 0 5 94 No. of assistance ties 3.35 (1.47) 0 5 94 GPA 6.89 (0.93) 4.70 9.52 94 % of men 37% 94 % of tuition free students 68% 94
    • 7. Friendship network
    • 8. Assistance network
    • 9. Descriptive statistics-2 Friendship network Assistance network Density 0.04 0.04 Reciprocity 0.55 0.40 Transitivity 0.36 0.35
    • 10. Methods • ERGM or p* => estimation of probability of tie in network Variables: a) Network characteristics: density, reciprocity, transitivity b) Student characteristics: homophily, propinquity and popularity on gender, group, tuition, GPA
    • 11. Network characteristics Network characteristics Picture Reciprocity GWESP (geometrically weighted edgewise shared partner) Mixed 2-star
    • 12. Effects Friendship network Assistance network Effects Estimate(SE) Estimate(SE) Density -2.112* (0.895) -11.971*** (1.249) Reciprocity 2.215*** (0.244) 1.013*** (0.286) Mixed 2-star -0.193*** (0.037) -0.126*** (0.026) Gwesp 1.231*** (0.120) 1.131*** (0.127) Friendship network 3.282*** (0.210) Assistance network 3.205*** (0.199) Homophily on gender (women) 0.452* (0.180) 0.334 (0.204) Homophily on gender (men) 0.502*** (0.152) 0.023 (0.155) Propinquity on study group 0.822*** (0.129) 1.101*** (0.158) Propinquity on tuition (free) 0.137 (0.154) 0.229 (0.161) Propinquity on tuition (full) 0.435* (0.197) 0.198 (0.305) Abs. diff. in GPA -0.114 (0.089) -0.185+ (0.111) Popularity on GPA -0.334** (0.123) 1.029*** (0.163)
    • 13. Conclusions Reciprocity and transitivity effects: 1. Friendship ties are more mutual than assistance ties 2. There is no significant differences between networks in their transitivity measures Homophily and propinquity effects: 3. Students connections are highly defined by their study groups 4. Homophily on gender is significant only in friendship ties 5. Propinquity on tuition is significant only in friendship ties (for full tuition students) 6. Difference in GPA doesn’t determine friendship or assistance ties of students Popularity effects: 7. Academically successful students are more popular (have more in- going ties) in assistance networks, but less popular in friendship networks
    • 14. GOF plots for friendship network-1
    • 15. GOF plots for friendship network-2
    • 16. GOF plots for assistance network-1
    • 17. GOF plots for assistance network-2

    ×