Enhancing a Flipped Statistics First Year Course by Using QT-Clickers

Figures & data

Table 1 Summary of cohort composition.

	2014	2017 (QT-clickers—	2017 (QT-clickers—
Cohort	(no QT-clickers)	with partial grading)	without partial grading)
Sample size	n = 1448	n = 1176	n = 1176
Proportion female	52.5	48	48
Examination mark
Mean (%)	59.32	61.32	59.52
(Standard deviation %)	(16.88)	(17.71)	(17.91)
Pass rate (%)^a	86.5	88.4	(85.6–88.4)^b

^aPass rate is based on the final grade $\ge$50% which is a composite of the examination and semester mark, or on the supplementary examination mark.

^bThirty-three students who passed with partial grading failed without partial grading, but would have qualified for a supplementary examination which they may or may not have passed.

Fig. 1 Frequency polygons of the distribution of examination marks for the 2014 cohort and the 2017 cohorts with and without partial grading.

Table 2 Description of variables identified for the GLM.

Variable	Type	Possible values
Dependent: Exam (examination mark)	Quantitative	0%–100%
Independent: Clicker (clicker use)	Categorical, nominal	1 (Clicker 2017) 0 (No Clicker 2014)
Covariates:
Sem (semester mark)	Quantitative	30%–100%
Gr 12 Math (Grade 12 mathematics mark)	Quantitative	60%–100%
Gr 12 Eng (Grade 12 English mark)	Quantitative	45%–100%
Mother tongue (home language vs. instruction language)	Categorical, nominal	1 (Home language different from instruction language) 0 (Home language same as instruction language)
APS score (based on the six best Grade 12 marks excluding life orientation)	Quantitative	26–42
Yrs reg (Years registered—the number of years a student has been registered at the university)	Quantitative	1–6
STK contact time (programme dependent exposure to statistics)	Categorical, ordinal	1 (Six months) 2 (Nine months to one year) 3 (Two years) 4 (Three years)
Class section (instruction language preference)	Categorical, nominal	1 (English) 0 (Afrikaans)
Gender	Categorical, nominal	1 (Female) 0 (Male)

Table 3 Results of GLM I with partial grading in 2017.

	Coefficients^a
	Unstandardized coefficients
Model	β	Std. error	Std. β	t	Sig.
Constant	56.294	0.686		82.105	< 0.0001
X1: Clicker	$\mathbf{3}.\mathbf{3}\mathbf{3}\mathbf{7}$	0.388	0.096	8.601	< 0.0001
X2: Sem	0.866	0.016	0.744	52.984	< 0.0001
X3: Gr12 Math	0.175	0.030	0.090	5.844	< 0.0001
X4: Mother tongue	1.329	0.384	0.038	3.462	0.001
X5: APS score	0.239	0.077	0.049	3.097	0.002
X6: Yrs reg	1.663	0.582	0.032	2.859	0.004

^aDependent variable: Examination mark $(R^2=0.679)$

Table 4 Results of GLM II without partial grading in 2017.

	Coefficients^a
	Unstandardized coefficients
Model	β	Std. error	Std. β	t	Sig.
Constant	56.044	0.693		80.858	< 0.0001
X1: Clicker	2,361	0.396	0.068	6.002	< 0.0001
X2: Sem	0.869	0.016	0.746	52.687	< 0.0001
X3: Gr12 Math	0.183	0.030	0.094	6.070	< 0.0001
X4: Mother tongue	1.286	0.388	0.037	3.319	0.001
X5: APS score	0.219	0.078	0.045	2.817	0.005
X6: Yrs reg	1.560	0.588	0.030	2.654	0.008

^aDependent variable: Examination mark $(R^2=0.676).$

Table 5 Summary of the four additional GLM models.

Model	Dep variable	Covariates	Unstd β	Sig.	R^2	Comment
GLM III	Sem	Clicker	–1.678	0.004	0.003	R^2 is poor
GLM IV	Exam	Clicker	2.030	0.003	0.003	R^2 is poor
GLM V	Exam	Sem	0.942	< 0.0001	0.66	R^2 is good for only Sem in the model
GLM VI	Exam	All GLM I covariates except Sem			0.34	R^2 is lower than in GLM I

Table 6 Results of GLM VII (interaction model) with partial grading in 2017.

	Coefficients^a
	Unstandardized
	coefficients
Model	β	Std. error	Std. β	t	Sig.
Constant	56.053	0.710		78.992	¡0.0001
X1: Clicker	2.485	0.547	0.072	4.541	¡0.0001
X2: Sem	0.820	0.020	0.705	41.690	¡0.0001
X3: Gr12 Math	0.396	0.080	0.204	4.928	¡0.0001
X4: Mother tongue	0.673	0.515	0.019	1.306	0.2
X5: APS score	0.272	0.077	0.056	3.552	¡0.0001
X6: Yrs reg	2.009	0.584	0.039	3.441	0.001
$X_1{X}_2$: Clicker*Sem	0.106	0.026	0.060	4.026	¡0.0001
$X_1{X}_4$: Clicker*Mtongue	1.520	0.768	0.037	1.979	0.048
$X_3{X}_6$: Math*YrsReg	–0.225	0.069	–0.129	–3.247	0.001
$X_2{X}_5$: Sem*APScore	0.008	0.004	0.024	2.080	0.04

^aDependent variable: Examination mark $(R^2=0.683).$

Fig. 2 Clustered bar graph of students’ perceptions on ten QT-clicker statements.

Table 7 Average statement response against final grades.

Grade intervals	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10
$[0;40)$	5.9	7.1	6.0	5.8	6.4	6.6	6.2	5.8	6.1	6.5
$[40;50)$	6.0	7.5	6.6	6.6	7.0	7.2	6.6	6.2	6.7	6.8
$[50;60)$	6.0	7.1	6.5	6.2	6.9	6.9	6.4	5.9	6.8	7.0
$[60;70)$	6.9	8.2	7.3	7.1	7.7	7.7	7.4	6.9	7.6	7.7
$[70;80)$	7.0	8.2	7.1	7.2	7.6	7.7	7.3	6.9	7.7	7.7
$[80;90)$	7.5	8.9	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.2	7.9	7.3	7.9	8.3
$[90;100]$	7.5	8.8	7.8	7.8	8.3	8.2	8.0	7.3	8.0	8.2

Fig. 3 Bar chart of students’ general comments on clicker use.