Testing student performance between the test and control groups in the Basic Mathematic

Mathematic course

The pre-assessment distributed on September 11, 2018 was comprised of topics and concepts that lecturers would be teaching throughout our testing period. This gave us the

opportunity to test students’ knowledge on a series of subjects both before and after they learned it in class and we had introduced them to ASSISTments. This allowed us to analyze the increase in students’ scores and draw conclusions based on results from different groups of students.

The mean of the pre-assessment scores, for the students participating in our study that took both the pre-assessment and the post-assessment (n=9), was 34.2% ± 13.06. The median score was 34.4%. The highest score was 56.3% and the lowest score was 12.5%; the large spread in students’ scores reflects the significant differences in mathematical backgrounds between students. The post-assessment revealed a noticeable increase in scores from the pre-assessment, with a mean of 54.6 ± 16.0% and a median score of 55.2%. There was a high score of 80.2% and a low score of 31.3% (Figure 4.2). It should be noted that the amount of participation in class and in the study varied from student to student, increasing some student’s scores by large margins. Others saw little or no increase in score, as seen by the large standard deviation. In addition, only the students that took both the pre-assessment and the post-assessment were analyzed; students that took the pre-assessment but not the post-assessment were omitted. There are other factors that could affect the scores of students, such as outside job requirements, course load, and other similar demographic information.

23

Figure 4.2 Distribution of pre-assessment and post-assessment scores

As expected, there was no significant difference between the test and control groups for the pre-assessment (Figure 4.3). The mean scores of the control and test groups were 28.4% ± 13.5% and 39.1% ± 14.6%, respectively. The control group had a median score of 32.5% and the test group had a median score of 39.1%.

24

Figure 4.3 Pre-assessment scores of the test and control groups

Our alternative hypothesis (HA – the group of students that incorporated ASSISTments

into their studying would learn more than the group that did not) suggested that there would be a significant difference in scores between the test and control group on the post-assessment. The data, however, showed that there is no noticeable difference between the test and control groups (Figure 4.4). The control group had a mean score of 56.5% ± 18.5% on the post-assessment and a median of 52.1%. The test group had a mean score of 52.3% ± 14.7% and a median of 56.2%. The lowest score from each group was the same (31.3%), and the highest score from each group was similar (80.2% for the control group and 65.6% for the test group).

25

Figure 4.4 Post-assessment scores of the test and control groups

By comparing the pre-assessment to the post-assessment, it is evident that there is no significant difference in the increase in scores from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment between the test and control groups (Figure 4.5). We did not have enough student participation in our study to compute a two-proportion t-test and determine if there was enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and support our alternative hypothesis. Although we had 9 students that we could compare, there was a very wide disparity in how often students attended classes. This disparity, along with most students not completing ASSISTments modules or attending the hour in the tutoring center, made it impossible to compare the data with any degree of certainty.

26

Figure 4.5 Increase in scores from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment of the test and control groups

The midway quiz that was distributed on September 27, 2018 further showed that there was not enough evidence to support that the test group’s scores were higher than those of the control group’s because of ASSISTments (Figure 4.6). Although only 4 students from the control group and 3 students from the test group took the midway quiz, the control group’s scores were generally higher than the test group’s. The mean score of the control group was 73.6% ± 4.9%, while the mean score of the test group was 57.3% ± 28.9%. These different standard deviations show the lack of participation in both the test and control groups. The 3 students in the test group scored very similarly while the 4 students in the control group scored anywhere from 25.0% to 87.5%. The median score of the control group was 70.8% while the median score of the test group was 58.4%.

27

Figure 4.6 Midway quiz scores of the test and control groups

These results can be attributed to a number of factors, primarily revolving around students’ lack of participation in the study. Out of 14 participants in the study, only 6 attended class regularly (75% or more of classes) and 8 completed either one of the ASSISTments modules or went to a tutoring session. That being said, 0 students completed all ASSISTments modules assigned to them and/or an hour of tutoring each week. In addition to participation, we also had trouble with student attendance. The students in the control group spent an average of 0.9 more hours in class each week than the test group. These two main factors, in addition to student course load, age, job status, et cetera, render this analysis inconclusive for our

hypothesis. However, despite the inconclusive results of our three-week testing period regarding the potential of incorporating ASSISTments into NUST, other data we collected shows strong support for the program.

28