Company

LOGO

And the Flipped Classroom

Emporium Math

The Problem

95% of students place into pre-college math

Students not passing pre-college math Pre-Algebra: 56% Beginning Algebra: 42% Intermediate Algebra: 50% All Pre-College: 48%

Students not passing consecutive courses 12% pass two consecutive courses in two

consecutive quarters Source: BBCC Institutional Research (2011, 2013)

The problem with Lecture

Passively listening to teacher does not create long term learning (Nilson, 2010)

Even taking notes in class during lecture does not create long term learning (Kanar, 2011)

Lecture did not work for these students in high school, why would it work in college? (Twigg, 2011)

What is a Flipped Classroom?

The flipped classroom model involves the teacher delivering the 'taught' element outside of the classroom. Students complete this element of their learning prior to attending the lesson. This allows the teacher to spend more 1:1 time with students in lessons consolidating their learning and allowing them to progress to more challenging tasks quicker. (Steed, 2012, p. 10)

What is Emporium Math?

Students watch videos for content Instant feedback on progress via online

homework system On-demand help available from tutors and

instructors (1:15 ratio) Mastery required to move on Flexible pace (1-4 quarters to complete) Required attendance

The BBCC Emporium

Students watch 5-10 minute YouTube Video

Complete a 2 problem checkpoint (100%) After several videos, complete 15 problem

assignment (80%) After several assignments complete a

practice test (80%) Complete a test (75% weighted average) All resources open source: WAMAP,

Textbook, YouTube Videos

Research

Low success tends to connected to math anxiety related to a belief that the student cannot do math (Ashcraft & Krause, 2011)

This belief is confirmed from a long history of math failure and seeing others fail. Thus the students lack the motivation to even try (Hall & Ponton, 2005)

The primary reason students do not succeed in traditional courses is they do not actually do the problems (Twigg, 2005)

The Emporium raises this self-efficacy belief in students through mastery experience and vicarious experiences (Hodges, 2008)

Emporium Models have been shown to increase student success by an average of 51% (Twigg, 2011)

Methodology

Three Questions: Do Emporium students pass at a higher rate? Do Emporium students withdraw at a lower rate? Do Emporium students succeed in the college level at the same

rate as lecture students?

2012-2013 school year Students allowed to select lecture or emporium Some instructors taught both modalities, all students

given the same final Success rates, withdraw rates and success at college

level tracked Chi-squared analysis of 2x2 contingency table at the

significance level

Results

Emporium students are significantly more likely to pass their pre-college math courses, 2 (1, N = 1421) = 74.86, p < 0.01, 1.47.

Emporium success rates jumped to 75% (n = 1028) Lecture success rates 51% (n = 393) Emporium students 47% more likely to pass!

Emporium students are significantly less likely to withdraw from pre-college math courses, 2 (1, N = 1421) = 57.03, p < 0.01, 2.64.

Emporium withdraw rate: 9% Lecture withdraw rate: 25% Lecture student 164% more likely to withdraw!

Detail Results - Success

For those who really like stats:

Course Modality N x P df 2 p ES

PreLecture Success 101 53 52%

1 16.65 <0.01 1.41Emporium Success 299 222 74%

BeginningLecture Success 112 59 53% 1

25.17 <0.01 1.46Emporium Success 398 306 77%

IntermediateLecture Success 180 89 49%

1 27.83 <0.01 1.47Emporium Success 331 241 73%

AllLecture Success 393 201 51%

1 74.86 <0.01 1.47Emporium Success 1028 771 75%

Detail Results - Withdraw

For those who really like stats:

Course Modality N X P df 2 p ES

PreLecture Withdraw 101 22 21%

1 11.42 <0.01 2.41Emporium Withdraw 299 27 9%

BeginningLecture Withdraw 112 22 19% 1

12.43 <0.01 2.44Emporium Withdraw 398 32 8%

IntermediateLecture Withdraw 180 53 29%

1 40.01 <0.01 3.61Emporium Withdraw 331 37 11%

AllLecture Withdraw 393 97 25%

1 57.03 <0.01 2.64Emporium Withdraw 1028 96 9%

College Level

There is no statistical difference of student performance in college level lecture courses when comparing emporium and lecture precollege experiences, 2 (1, N = 312) = 1.87, p = 0.17, 1.15

No difference in success, however we are getting SIGNIFICANTLY more students to the college level!

Detail Results

For those who really like stats:

Course Modality for Algebra N X P df 2 p ES

Math in Society

Lecture Success 32 20 63%1 0.25 0.48 1.12

Emporium Success 25 14 56%

Pre-CalcLecture Success 72 39 54% 1

1.00 0.32 1.21Emporium Success 49 22 45%

StatsLecture Success 86 51 59%

1 0.65 0.42 1.14Emporium Success 48 25 52%

AllLecture Success 190 110 58%

1 1.87 0.17 1.16Emporium Success 122 61 50%

Accelerated Success

Students are allowed to complete the three course series in shorter time frame

Many students complete the three courses in two quarters

Four students have completed all three courses in one quarter

Two of them during a short summer term

Unexpected Result

With an increase in student success at the precollege level, enrollment in college level courses has dramatically increased!

Best Practices

Lots of student/instructor interaction (one-on-one or in groups)

Class time used for higher ordered thinking and activities

Develop as much of your curriculum as possible Let the computer do what the computer does

best and the instructor do what the instructor does best

Students don’t do optional – everything is required (notes/workbook, attendance, homework)

References

Ascraft, M. H. & Krause, J. A. (2011) Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248.

BBCC Institutional Research (2011). BBCC Developmental Math Failure Rates. Moses Lake, WA: Starr Bernhardt.

BBCC Institutional Research (2013). Precollege Success Quarter-to-Quarter. Moses Lake, WA: Starr Bernhardt.

Hall, J. M., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 26-32.

Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy, motivational email, and achievement in asynchronous math course. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(3), 265-285.

Kanar, C. C. (2011). The Confident Student (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college Instructors (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Steed, A. (2012). The flipped classroom. Teaching Business & Economics, 16(3), 9-11.

Twigg C. A. (2005) Math lectures: An oxymoron? Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/PlanRes/Math%20Lectures%20Editorial.htm

Twigg C. A. (2011) The math emporium: A silver bullet for higher education. Change, 43(3), 25-34. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2011.569241

Any Questions?

Tyler Wallace

Math Instructional Specialist

Big Bend Community College

tylerw@bigbend.edu

509.793.2185

@wallaceSTEM