Chapter 17 — Contained laboratory II
Lesson map
Lesson 17 published. Map, example, EX065.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["17.1 Exercise design"]
N2["17.2 Results"]
N3["Lab — Session two reporting with and without feedbac"]
N4["17.3 Recommendation"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
N5 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX065"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["17.1 Exercise design"]
N2["17.2 Results"]
N3["Lab — Session two reporting with and without feedbac"]
N4["17.3 Recommendation"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX065"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[17.1 Exercise design]
|
v
[17.2 Results]
|
v
[Lab — Session two reporting with and without feedbac]
|
v
[17.3 Recommendation]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX065]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) test the effect of quick feedback on later reporting in a contained exercise; (2) analyse results simply; (3) recommend practice.
17.1 Exercise design
In the second contained laboratory, Priya tests whether quick feedback encourages people to report again. Twelve volunteers, who know the purpose, use test accounts over two sessions a week apart. In session one, each reports synthetic messages; half receive a short verdict within minutes and half receive nothing. In session two, all receive a new batch and Priya counts how many they report. The design is approved by Tom and the operations manager, and volunteers can withdraw at any time. Session times suit shifts.
17.2 Results
The lab compares session two reporting between the two groups. Volunteers who received quick feedback report more of the new messages than those who did not. Priya notes that twelve people is a small group and that volunteers knew the purpose, which could affect behaviour. Still, the result is consistent with interviews and with earlier findings that feedback matters. She presents the counts and the difference without claiming more than the small test shows. Feedback reached 87% against 57%. She shares the counts with volunteers.
Lab — Session two reporting with and without feedback
# Session two: messages reported out of 30 per group (6 volunteers x 5 messages), synthetic.
fb, nofb = 26, 17
print(f"feedback group {fb}/30 = {fb / 30:.0%}; no-feedback group {nofb}/30 = {nofb / 30:.0%}")
Run with python3 lab_feedback.py. Verified output:
feedback group 26/30 = 87%; no-feedback group 17/30 = 57%
17.3 Recommendation
Priya recommends that every real report receive a reply within one working day and that automated verdicts be used where possible to speed this up. She suggests that the IT lead track reply times weekly. She also recommends a brief explanation in each verdict of what made the message suspicious, so that staff learn from each case. Her recommendation is cheap and builds on several sources of evidence, which makes managers willing to adopt it. The IT lead adopts it at once.
Worked example
Priya runs a contained feedback exercise with twelve volunteers, finds more later reporting after quick feedback and recommends replies within a day.
Synthetic case. The exercise is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Volunteers knew the purpose. Small group.
Exercises
- EX065 — Exercise groups. How were the two groups treated in session one? Rubric: 3 = half got quick verdicts, half got nothing;; 2 = feedback;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX066 — Lab result. What did the lab show for session two reporting? Rubric: 3 = 26 of 30 with feedback versus 17 of 30 without;; 2 = higher;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX067 — Verdict content. What should each verdict briefly include? Rubric: 3 = what made the message suspicious;; 2 = explanation;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX068 — Reply target. What reply target did Priya recommend? Rubric: 3 = within one working day;; 2 = one day;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Contained exercises can support simple, cheap improvements such as fast feedback.
Continue studying — chapter 17 of 18
← Chapter 16 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 18 (draft) →