1. Statistical Analysis of Traditional and Flipped Teaching in Elementary Statistics Dil Singhabahu Slippery Rock University Dec. 5 th 2015

2. Outline Background Introduction to our study/data Objective/s of our study Method Analysis and Results Discussion Limitations Next… Student research References

3. Background Flipped Teaching – Students watch lecture videos as homework before coming to class. – During class the students work on problems, engage in discussions, etc. with the help of the instructor.

4. Background Peer interaction was also significantly greater and students felt much more comfortable talking with their classmates in the flipped classrooms (Love). Others who support flipping classrooms have also said that this style allows students to get help on their homework from a trained professional instead of at home where some may be less fortunate than others and not have as educated of parents to help them if needed. Allowing the students to discuss in groups also allows them to see different ways to think about an idea (Berrett). One point that has been made against flipped classrooms is that it is believed to be a high-tech version of the traditional lecture and nothing is actually changing for the type of learning that is occurring. Professors and teachers are also worried that their students are not motivated enough to watch their lecture videos outside of the classroom and not remaining engaged throughout the entirety of the videos as well (Ash).

5. Introduction to Our Study/Data Data: – Elementary Statistics 1 course at SRU – Taught by Dr. Dil Singhabahu – During, Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015

6. Introduction to Our Study/Data Fall 2013 – Traditional Teaching – Two sections (total 59 students) Spring 2014 – Traditional Teaching – Two sections (total 57 students) Fall 2014 – Traditional Teaching – Two sections (total 78 students) Spring 2015 - Flipped – Two sections (total 80 students) Total: 274 students

7. Data Final Course Grade – Weighted average of three non-cumulative exams, HW, Quizzes, and Minitab projects. Class Type ( T or F ) Sex Student Rank ( freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) Major Semester Section

8. Main Objective of the Study Compare the two teaching pedagogies: Traditional vs. Flipped in Elementary Statistics course at SRU to identify differences in student performance.

9. Method Descriptive Statistics Hypothesis testing – non-parametric Multiple Regression

10. Sample

11. Summary Stats - Final Grades

12. Final Grades by Semester SemesternMean GradeSD 1 – Fall 20135976.241264712.5124463 2 – Spring 20145579.180564313.1058687 3 – Fall 20147783.732192115.5883539 4 – Spring 20157977.422434813.3923439

13. Final Grades by Sex SexnMean GradeSD Female15082.094904612.4702457 Male11675.821198814.8866108

14. Grades for each Sex by the Teaching Method Traditional Teaching: n female = 104 n male = 83 Flipped Teaching: n female = 46 n male = 33

15. Two Sample Hypothesis Testing on the Final Grades H 0 : µ Traditional = µ Flipped H A : µ Traditional ≠ µ Flipped P value = 0.1330

16. Two Sample Hypothesis Testing on the Final Grades H 0 : µ Male = µ Female H A : µ Male ≠ µ Female P value = 0.0002

17. Two Sample Hypothesis Testing on the Final Grades for Male Students in Traditional and Flipped H 0 : µ Male_Trad = µ Male_Flip H A : µ Male_Trad ≠ µ Male_Flip P value = 0.1593

18. Multiple Regression Final_Course_grade = Class_indicator + Sex_Indicator + Student_rank + SemesterNo R 2 : 0.105968 Only statistically significant predictor is student’s sex with a p value <.0001

19. Additional Analysis Conducted all the analysis after standardizing the final course grade within the class for comparability. – Results did not change

20. Discussion Did not find a difference in the students course grade between the traditional teaching and flipped teaching in Elementary Statistics 1 taught by one faculty member at SRU. The only statistically significant difference in the course grade was between the sex of the student.

21. Limitations Course grade might not be the best way to compare student learning across pedagogies. – Pre-post assessment tool: Gain factor Flipped class was done in a larger classroom (60 student capacity) compared to the traditional class (30 seat capacity) Disparity in sample size.

22. Next…. Use a pre-post assessment tool and measure the gain factor to evaluate student learning. More data – From my classes – Other instructors – Other subjects Include fully online classes.

23. Student Research Kristina Bell Kalene Ireland Kallie Simpson

24. References Ash, Katie. "Educators Evaluate Flipped Classrooms" Education Week 32.02 (n.d.): S6-S8. 27 Aug. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. Berrett, Dan. "How Flipping the Classroom Can Improve the Traditional Lecture." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. Love, Betty, Angie Hodge, Neal Grandgenett, and Andrew W. Swift. "Student Learning and Perceptions in a Flipped Linear Algebra Course." International Journal of Mathematical Education 45.3 (n.d.): 317-24. 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

25. Thank you! Questions?