I hope everyone is hanging in there. Here is a pretty straight forward one-way ANOVA example that is interactive, based on for-real personality psychology research, and interesting. I blogged about this previously but whipped up a Google Slideshow you can download and edit to suit your own teaching. Also, I uploaded data that you can use with your students.  TL:DR- A bunch of researchers gave the NEO to 1.5 million Americans to determine if different regions of the US have different personality trends (see research here ).  Original Study They do. Then Time magazine reported on the study . And the scicomm was beautiful. They accurately described the research AND created a fun interactive portion in which you students can take the NEO-Short Form and be matched with the state that best matches their personality (Hi, I am West Virginia because I'm high in neuroticism and low in openness to new experiences, which are great qualities to have during a pandem...

This example gets students thinking about how we operationalize variables. Psychologists operationalize a lot of abstract stuff. Intelligence. Grit. But what about something that seems more firmly grounded and countable, like whether or not a crime meets the criteria for a a mass shooting? How do we define mass shooting? As shared in this article by Chris Wilson for Time Magazine , the official definition is 1) three or more people 2) killed in a public setting. That is per the current federal definition of a mass shooting . But that isn't universally excepted by media outlets. The article shares different metrics used for identifying a mass shooting, depending on what source is being used. Whether or not to include a dead shooter towards the total number killed. Whether or not the victims were randomly selected. I think the most glaring example from the article has to do with the difference that this definition makes on mass shooting counts: You could also discuss wi...

Full disclosure: I have no chill when it comes to Harry Potter. Despite my great bias, I still think this pscyometrically-created (with help from psychologists and Time Magazine's Chris Wilson!) Hogwart's House Sorter is a great example for scale building, validity, descriptive statistics, electronic consent, etc. for stats and research methods. How to use in a Research Methods class: 1) The article details how the test drew upon the Big Five inventory. And it talks smack about the Myers-Briggs. 2) The article also uses simple language to give a rough sketch of how they used statistics to pair you with your house. The "standard statistical model" is a regression line, the "affinity for each House is measured independently", etc. While you are taking the quiz itself, there are some RM/statsy lessons: 3) At the end of the quiz, you are asked to contribute some more information. It is a great example of a leading response options ...

Here is a great example of several different topics, featuring an engaging, interactive m ap created by Time magazine AND using data from a Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y article . Essentially, the authors of the original article gave the Big Five personality scale to folks all over the US. They broke down the results by state. Then Time created an interactive map of the US in order to display the data. http://time.com/7612/americas-mood-map-an-interactive-guide-to-the-united-states-of-attitude/ How to use in class:

Hi! Here is my presentation from APS . I am posting it so that attendees and everyone else can have access to the links and examples I used. If you weren't there for the presentation, a warning: It is text-light, so there isn't much of a narrative to follow but there are plenty of links and ideas and some soon-to-be-published research ideas to explore. Shoot me an email (hartnett004@gannon.edu) if you have any questions. ALSO: In the talk I reference the U.S. Supreme Court case Hall v. Florida ( also did a blog entry about this case ). Update: The court decided in the favor of Hall/seemed to understand standard error/made it a bit harder to carry out the death penalty, as discussed here by Slate). Woot woot!

This scale , created by Haidt and Wilson, predicts your political leanings based upon seemingly unrelated questions. Screen grab from time.com You can use this in a classroom to 1) demonstrate interactive, Likert-type scales, 2) face validity (or lack there of). I think this would be 3) useful for a psychometrics class to discuss scale building. Finally, the update at the end of the article mentions 4) both the n-size and the correlation coefficient for their reliability study, allowing you discuss those concepts with students. For more about this research, try yourmorals.org