2009 Workshop Program Data Analysis

2009 Workshop Program – Data Analysis

There is a high correlation (Pearson correlation coeff. r = 0.67) between the workshop scores and the (adjusted) final grade, suggesting that the workshop activity does contribute to learning. The adjusted final grade is the course grade without the 10% contribution from the workshops.

Note: Last year in Math 184, the correlation between the workshop scores (which were based solely on attendance) and course grades for students who would have satisfied the new 2009 course pre-requisites was lower than the correlation observed this year between workshop attendance and course grades (r = 0.37 in 2008, r = 0.53 in 2009). This suggests that the changes introduced in the workshops this year (better coordination with lecture material, better TA training, regular quizzes) had a positive effect student learning.

correlation coeff. (r ) r^2 180 184 WS vs CA1 (Adj) 0.67 0.45 0.69 0.66 WS Att vs CA1 (Adj) 0.53 0.28 0.55 0.52 WS PHI vs CA1 (Adj) 0.69 0.48 0.72 0.68 WS Part vs CA1 (Adj) 0.56 0.32 0.57 0.57 2008 WS Att vs CA1 (Adj) 0.37

MA12 = High school grade CA1 = Course final grade (Term (40%) + Workshops (10%) + Exam (50%)) (both Math 180 and 184) WS = Workshop final score (= attendance (12.5%) + participation (37.5%) + quiz (50%)) CA1 (Adj) = Calculus course final grade minus Workshop score WS Att = Workshop Attendance WS PHI = Workshop Quiz score WS Part = Workshop Participation mark 2008 CA1 (Adj) = Calculus course grade for students who would have satisfied the new 2009 prereq.s

Math 180 + 184

70 ) j

d 50 A (

1 A C 30

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 -10 Workshop score Some statistics from both courses (Math 180 + 184):

Overall, about 90% of the students scored 50% or higher in the workshops, and only 12% of them failed the course. Thus a passing score in the workshops yields a very probability of passing the course. Also, about 64% students earned 80% or higher in the workshops and only 5% of them failed the course. So engaging in the workshop activity in a consistent manner does correspond to a very high probability of passing the course.

Not surprisingly, we note that the distribution of workshop scores does not match that of final grades. Workshops CA1 Mean 7.867612267 60.99343 Standard Error 0.074697271 0.626247 Median 8.57 64 Mode 10 50 Standard Deviation 2.257044526 18.92263 Sample Variance 5.094249994 358.0657 Kurtosis 3.296575255 1.048368 Skewness -1.882348428 -0.90484 Range 10 100 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 10 100 Sum 7183.13 55687 Count 913 913 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.146598384 1.229053

Also, about 64% of the students scored 80% or higher in the workshops and only 23% of them earned a grade of 80 or higher in the course. CA1 CA1 CA1<50 CA1<50 CA1 CA1 CA1<50 CA1<50 CA1 CA1 CA1<50 CA1<50 Ws Score (All) (All) (All) (All) (180) (180) (180) (180) (184) (184) (184) (184) <=100% 913 100% 170 18.6% 417 100% 86 20.6% 493 100% 84 17.0% >=50% 821 89.9% 98 11.9% 384 92.1% 55 14.3% 434 88.0% 43 9.9% >=60% 791 86.6% 83 10.5% 369 88.5% 45 12.2% 419 85.0% 38 9.1% >=70% 714 78.2% 60 8.4% 330 79.1% 31 9.4% 381 77.3% 29 7.6% >=80% 589 64.5% 30 5.1% 268 64.3% 16 6.0% 318 64.5% 14 4.4% >=90% 345 37.8% 6 1.7% 148 35.5% 4 2.7% 194 39.4% 2 1.0%

Course Ws Score CA1 record CA1>50 CA1>60 CA1>70 CA1>80 CA1>90 180<=100% 417 100.0% 331 79.4% 242 58.0% 134 32.1% 52 12.5% 7 1.7% 180>=50% 384 92.1% 329 85.7% 180>=60% 369 88.5% 238 64.5% 180>=70% 330 79.1% 130 39.4% 180>=80% 268 64.3% 51 19.0% 180>=90% 148 35.5% 6 4.1% Course Ws Score CA1 record CA1>50 CA1>60 CA1>70 CA1>80 CA1>90 184<=100% 493 100.0% 409 83.0% 303 61.5% 194 39.4% 88 17.8% 19 3.9% 184>=50% 434 88.0% 391 90.1% 184>=60% 419 85.0% 289 69.0% 184>=70% 381 77.3% 185 48.6% 184>=80% 318 64.5% 85 26.7% 184>=90% 194 39.4% 17 8.8% Course Ws Score CA1 record CA1>50 CA1>60 CA1>70 CA1>80 CA1>90 All <=100% 913 100.0% 743 81.4% 545 59.7% 328 35.9% 140 15.3% 26 2.8% All >=50% 821 89.9% 723 88.1% All >=60% 791 86.6% 527 66.6% All >=70% 714 78.2% 315 44.1% All >=80% 589 64.5% 136 23.1% All >=90% 345 37.8% 23 6.7%

What might have affected attendance in the workshops?

Only about 10% of the students attended 5 or lesser workshops.

Only 5 workshop sections (out of 38) reported an average attendance below 80%. The 3 least attended sections, where average attendance was < 70%, were all scheduled at 8am in the morning.

 Workshop Week Day

Workshop Attendance by Week Day

0.40 Tue Wed Thu Fri

 Workshop starting time

Workshop Attendance by Workshop starting tim e

8:00am 9:30am 11:00am 3:00pm 3:30pm 4pm 5pm  Instructor

Workshop Attendance by Course Section

180-1 180-2 180-3 180-4 184-1 184-2 184-3 184-4 184-5

All sections 184-3/4/5 had workshops (and lectures) scheduled at 8am.

 GTA Ave no F no 8am no F 8am 180 184 1WONG 0.90 2 0 2HALASAN 0.93 3 2 3RAGGI 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 3 2 4ZHAI 0.85 0.91 0.90 0.91 3 2 5SOO 0.92 2 2 6MEYER 0.90 0.91 3 0 7STAAL 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.88 2 3 8GOODMAN 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 1 4 9CODE 0.93 0 1 10TIMMERS 0.84 0.85 0.95 0.95 0 3

After accounting for unpopular schedules, GTAs do not seem to have an effect on student attendance.

Did the day of week on which students attended the workshops have any effect on quizzes and participation?

There were some concerns among GTAs that quizzes were more difficult at the beginning of the week. After normalizing section-averaged PHI scores by attendance, it does look like the Tue sections had perhaps slightly lower PHI scores than the other sections. Average Phi score Tue 2.30 Wed 2.60 Thu 2.36 Fri 2.36 PHIs and Partcipation By Week Day PHIs Participation 6

0 Tue Wed Thu Fri