• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Maths
  • Word count: 1988

Leaves Project

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Mathematics

YEAR 10 – LEAVES PROJECT

Hypotheses:

  • As the length increases so will the width.
  • The length and width will be greater in 2002 than 2001.
  • The spread of the length and width will be great in 2002 than in 2001.
  • The length and width of the leaves will follow a normal to almost normal distribution.
  • The length of leaf for which 10% of the leaves are longer will be greater in 2002.

From the data gathered on leaves, attached overleaf, I performed statistical techniques to attempt to prove my hypotheses.


Factors Effecting Results:

Time of year

From the data given we cannot be sure if the length and width of the leaves were collected at the same time of year each year.  Leaves collected at the beginning of the year would not yet have finished growing whereas leaves collected towards the end of year (i.e. autumn) would be at their largest.

Type of tree

We do not know if the data was collected from one specific type of tree or a mixture.

Age of tree

The age of the tree would affect the results because a younger tree would have smaller leaves whereas a more mature tree would have larger leaves.

Weather

We do not know if the leaves were collected during drought conditions, this would affect the size of leaf, as a tree would conserve water by not growing such large leaves.

Location

We do not know if the leaves were collected from the same location both years i.e. in the same wood.  We also do not know if the leaves were collected directly from the tree or picked up from the ground.

The above therefore leaves my results questionable.


Before we can analyse the data gathered on leaves, I have to identify if there are any anomalies.  I have highlighted these in yellow:

Length (mm) 2001

Width (mm) 2001

Length (mm) 2002

Width (mm) 2002

72

44

45

27

105

56

62

41

61

37

80

47

66

39

82

39

33

11

64

35

62

41

85

40

55

30

76

40

85

47

75

43

74

36

66

32

36

20

64

42

90

55

67

32

13

6

78

45

57

30

70

38

79

43

69

37

65

41

52

26

47

32

64

29

55

31

71

45

55

30

76

44

56

27

79

45

61

34

69

37

55

32

67

39

53

25

77

43

57

32

76

44

55

31

83

47

50

28

83

44

59

35

85

46

72

45

89

45

71

39

87

46

60

38

95

53

66

44

84

48

58

32

85

42

71

38

86

45

67

35

64

38

55

37

87

46

65

41

77

43

80

45

75

39

78

44

71

38

98

50

64

30

85

43

60

26

93

46

82

50

90

42

80

45

31

18

91

52

30

15

84

51

27

14

93

54

44

22

88

51

41

20

95

54

42

22

102

56

90

50

76

40

82

41

79

42

66

34

104

52

I think that these numbers are anomalies because they are either too small or too big to fit in with the consistency of the data.  I am going to discount these numbers from the rest of my work as including them would make my results unreliable or faulty.

Statistical Technique: Averages, Quartiles and Largest and Smallest

Numbers.

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

2001

2001

2002

2002

Mean

62.57

35.14

76.71

43.28

Median

61.00

36.00

77.00

44.00

LQ

55.00

30.00

69.00

39.00

UQ

72.00

43.00

85.00

46.50

IQR

17.00

13.00

16.00

7.50

Largest

98.00

56.00

102.00

56.00

Smallest

27.00

11.00

45.00

29.00

...read more.

Middle

The second scatter graph shows a stronger, positive correlation but there are still points being placed about the trendline.  Once again the formula for the trendline shows us that the trendline crosses the y-axis at +33.474mm showing that when the length is 0mm the width is +33.474mm, once again this is impossible.  The gradient of this scatter graph tells us that as the length increases by 1mm the width increases by 0.1278mm.

My first hypothesis was:

As the length increases so will the width.

According to the scatter graphs (shown over the page) this hypothesis has been proved as on both of the scatter graphs, the gradient shows us that as the length increases so does the width.


image01.png


image02.png


Statistical Technique: Box Plots.

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

2001

2001

2002

2002

Mean

62.57

35.14

76.71

43.28

Median

61.00

36.00

77.00

44.00

LQ

55.00

30.00

69.00

39.00

UQ

72.00

43.00

85.00

46.50

IQR

17.00

13.00

16.00

7.50

Largest

98.00

56.00

102.00

56.00

Smallest

27.00

11.00

45.00

29.00

Another way of showing this table is in the form of a “box and whisker” diagram, located overleaf.

My next hypothesis was:

The length and width will be greater in 2002 than 2001.

In order to attempt to prove this hypothesis I am going to look at the mean on the table above and also represent the data above in the form of box plots (shown overleaf).

...read more.

Conclusion

n="1">

5

6

7

5

0

0

5

6

Width

Freq.

Width < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

20-29

4

29.5

4

30-39

7

39.5

11

40-49

20

49.5

31

50-59

14

59.5

45

60-69

4

69.5

49

Total =

49


Length 2002:

4

5

5

2

6

0

2

4

4

4

4

4

6

7

7

9

9

7

0

1

1

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

7

8

9

9

8

0

0

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

6

7

7

8

9

9

1

3

5

5

10

2

4

Length

Freq.

Length < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

40-49

1

49.5

1

50-59

1

59.5

2

60-69

12

69.5

14

70-79

14

79.5

28

80-89

16

89.5

44

90-99

4

99.5

48

100-109

2

109.5

50

Total =

50

image04.png


Width 2002:

2

6

6

7

9

3

0

2

2

5

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

4

0

0

0

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

8

5

0

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

6

Width

Freq.

Width < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

20-29

4

29.5

4

30-39

12

39.5

16

40-49

25

49.5

41

50-59

9

59.5

50

Total =

50

N.B. Graphs are not included for width as we are only looking at lengths in 2001 and 2002.

My final hypothesis was:

The length of leaf for which 10% of the leaves are longer will be greater in 2002.

In order to prove this, I have to find out 10% of the totals on both cumulative frequency graphs.  

For lengths in 2001, 4.9 and in 2002, 5.


image05.pngimage00.png

From the two graphs I can tell that the 10th percentile in 2001 is equal to 40 and in 2002 the 10th percentile is equal to 63.

From the above I can say that my hypothesis has been proven.

In conclusion I have proven 4 out of 5 of my hypotheses and disproved the remaining one.

Francesca Tate        10H        Mrs Smith

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Comparing length of words in newspapers section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Comparing length of words in newspapers essays

  1. Aim: having been presented with some data, to come up with a hypothesis and ...

    These values are completely inaccurate with regards to the genuine 7.9 length, possibly the student decided upon the wrong units of length and therefore the answers they came up with were wrong. Acknowledging this, I have decided to discard those values and instead pick two more values still using random sampling.

  2. Data Handling Project

    It also needs to be long enough for it to be accurate therefore I decided to sample per newspaper 100 words. However then I considered the variation in word lengths in one newspaper, such as a sport section which would have different topics than the news or business section.

  1. The Open Box Problem

    Results Table Height Length Width Volume 1cm 34cm 34cm 34 x 34 x 1 = 1,156cm� 2cm 32cm 32cm 32 x 32 x 2 = 2,048cm� 3cm 30cm 30cm 30 x 30 x 3 = 2,700cm� 4cm 28cm 28cm 28 x 28 x 4 = 3,136cm� 5cm 26cm 26cm 26

  2. Investigate if there is a relationship between the length and width of the leaves.

    I added all the widths and called them y. x=3522/35 x=100.63mm y=1709/35 y=48.83mm The formula for standard Deviation is: Measurement Total Mean Standard Deviation LENGTH 3522 100.63 19.99 WIDTH 1709 48.83 11.63 To check that these values are correct I shall group my data and estimate the mean and standard deviation.

  1. Open Box Problem.

    174.24 592.416 3.5 13 169 591.500 The table shows us that as the cut is increased so did the volume, but when it reached 3.3cm, the volume decreased. Therefore the maximum volume was at 3.3cm where it had reached 592.548cm.

  2. The aim of our project is to find out the correlation between organization of ...

    Therefore, their education level should have no large differences. q Subject effect is also one of the extraneous variables. The first one is the demand characteristics. If the subject are informed the purpose of this experiment, they will try to be cooperative and conform the hypothesis by writing down less words in the group that got the unorganized data.

  1. Does people's ability to estimate lengths improve after being shown an accurate length?

    As would the length 105mm be calculated to have a difference of 10mm. Once all the results have been entered and the differences calculated, I will then begin to produce various statistical graphs to show my results graphically examples include cumulative frequency graphs, box plots and scatter graphs.

  2. The Open Box Problem

    Now i will draw a graph to show the change in volume. The maximum volume of this box is 1/6 of the length. We can tell this because 10 divided by 6 is 1.6666 reoccurring. Now I will try a 15 by 15 square.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work