3)  Below is a comparison of two instructors from the Fall 2007 MAT0024C Test Group (Courses with Factoring Active Learning Notes) with the same two instructors from the Fall 2006 MAT0024C Control Group (Courses without Factoring Active Learning Notes).


In this study, I compared two groups: two instructors from the Fall 2007 MAT0024C Test Group (Courses with Factoring Active Learning Notes) with the same two instructors from the Fall 2006 MAT0024C Control Group (Courses without Factoring Active Learning Notes).  My goal was to compare the same instructors taking the same MAT0024C State Exam in Fall 2007 with the same instructors’ performance in Fall 2006.  In Fall 2006, a total of 57 students took the exam from the same instructors without the notes, and 85 had the active learning notes for factoring from the same instructors.


Below is a comparison of only the percent correct from the two groups:


Questions

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

Percent correct

Test Group Total Students = 85

83.53%

94.12%

88.24%

68.24%

76.47%

82.35%

68.24%

Control Group Total Students = 57

78.95%

91.23%

89.47%

63.16%

64.91%

73.68%

66.67%


Initial Comments:  All of the percentages were relatively near to each other, except for Questions 23 and 24.  The test group was higher on 6 questions (19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25), but the control group was higher on 1 question (21).



The proportion correct of the test group is equal to the proportion correct of the control group.



The proportion correct of the test group is greater than the proportion correct of the control group.


2 Prop z test to see if there is a statistical difference between Fall 2006 (control group) and

Fall 2007 (test group) of the same instructors

P-Value:  The probability, computed assuming that Ho is true, that the observed outcome would take a value as extreme as or more extreme than that actually observed.

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

2 Prop z test

 

 

 

 

 

 

71/85 versus 45/57  

80/85 versus 52/57  

75/85 versus 51/57

58/85 versus 36/57  

 65/85 versus 37/57  

70/85 versus 42/57  

58/85 versus 38/57 

p = 0.244

p = 0.255

p = 0.591

p = 0.2653

p = 0.067

p = 0.107

p = 0.422

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

 

 

 

 

Significant at alpha 0.10

 

 


An examination of the p values showed that there was no statistical difference between the groups except for Question 23 at the 10% level.  Overall (except for Question 23), this shows that implementing the active learning notes for factoring did not increase the percent correct. 


Conclusion for all questions (except 23 at 10%): Fail to rejectimage002.  There is no statistically significant evidence to rejectimage002.  We conclude that the percent correct in the test group NOT greater than the percent correct in the control group.

Conclusion for question 23 at 10%: Reject image002.  There is statistically significant evidence to rejectimage002.  We conclude that the percent correct in the test group is greater than the percent correct in the control group.

We are 90% confident that the average percent change using the active notes for Question 23 is between a 0.1% to 24% increase. 

Since the test group’s percent correct was not greater than the control group’s percent correct, I will examine if the test group’s percent correct is not equal to the control group’s percent correct. 

________________________________________________________________________

 


The proportion correct of the test group is equal to the proportion correct of the control group.



The proportion correct of the test group is NOT equal to the proportion correct of the control group.


2 Prop z test to see if there is a statistical difference between Fall 2006 (control group) and

Fall 2007 (test group) of the same instructors

P-Value:  The probability, computed assuming that Ho is true, that the observed outcome would take a value as extreme as or more extreme than that actually observed.

2 Prop z test

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

71/85 versus 45/57  

80/85 versus 52/57  

75/85 versus 51/57

58/85 versus 36/57  

 65/85 versus 37/57  

70/85 versus 42/57  

58/85 versus 38/57 

p = 0.489

p = 0.509

p = 0.819

p = 0.531

p = 0.133

p = 0.215

p = 0.845

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10


An examination of the p values showed that there was no statistical difference between the groups.  This shows that implementing the active learning notes for factoring did not increase or decrease the percent correct. 

Conclusion for all questions:  Fail to rejectimage002.  There is no statistically significant evidence to rejectimage002.  In conclusion, again there is no statistically significant evidence that the active learning notes increases or decreases the proportion correct.  


Another lurking variable was the experience of the instructors and the skills of the instructors.  To deal with the experience of the instructors in the next study I compared only one test instructors to the same instructor in previous years.


COMPLETE DATA

 

 

Two Instructors Fall 2006 without notes compared to

Same Two Instructors Fall 2007 with notes COMPLETE DATA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Instructors 2006

Control Group

Total Students = 57 

 

 

 

Questions

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

Number correct

45

52

51

36

37

42

38

Percent Correct

78.95%

91.23%

89.47%

63.16%

64.91%

73.68%

66.67%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Instructors 2007

Test Group

Total Students = 85

 

 

 

Questions

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

Number correct

71

80

75

58

65

70

58

Percent correct

83.53%

94.12%

88.24%

68.24%

76.47%

82.35%

68.24%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Prop z test to see if there is a statistical difference between Fall 2006 (control group) and

Fall 2007 (test group) of the same instructors

2 Prop z test

 

 

 

 

 

 

71/85 versus 45/57  

80/85 versus 52/57  

75/85 versus 51/57

58/85 versus 36/57  

 65/85 versus 37/57  

70/85 versus 42/57  

58/85 versus 38/57 

p = 0.244

p = 0.255

p = 0.591

p = 0.2653

p = 0.067

p = 0.107

p = 0.422

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.01

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

Significant at alpha 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.10

 

 

2 Prop z test to see if there is a statistical difference between Fall 2006 (control group) and

Fall 2007 (test group) of the same instructors

P-Value:  The probability, computed assuming that Ho is true, that the observed outcome would take a value as extreme as or more extreme than that actually observed.

2 Prop z test

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q19

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

Q25

71/85 versus 45/57  

80/85 versus 52/57  

75/85 versus 51/57

58/85 versus 36/57  

 65/85 versus 37/57  

70/85 versus 42/57  

58/85 versus 38/57 

p = 0.489

p = 0.509

p = 0.819

p = 0.531

p = 0.133

p = 0.215

p = 0.845

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10

Not Significant at alpha 0.01, 0.05, 0.10