The following tables indicate differences between the students in the 2 College Algebra classes.
The numbers of students in the classes were approximately equal. There were several other factors, though, in which the groups differed; these could be interesting from a research point of view if we were seeking to identify factors that would affect the choice of teaching modes for different groups.
The College 1 class was more heavily female, while the College 2 class was more evenly split. The College 1 class tended to be somewhat older.
One-third of the College 1 students and two-thirds of the College 2 students were active members of the military. The non-military students may have been family members of military personnel, since both Colleges permitted such enrollment. College 2, being based on a military installation, probably had few, if any, students that were not associated in some way with active military service. College 1, with a campus off base in a nearby community, draws students from a wider pool.
The College 1 students tended to have had previous math classes more recently that did the College 2 students. This finding is reasonable since their College Algebra class is the second course in a sequence, while the College 2 class has no precursor.
The College 1 students appeared to assess their math abilities, at the outset of the course, to be weaker than did the College 2 students. Both groups strongly asserted that they were interested in being able to do math problems, both at home and on the job. Over half of the College 1 students indicated that their jobs required them to use numbers for some purposes. In contrast, the College 2 students were mostly neutral about this.
The College 1 students tended not to see any more math courses in their future, while the College 2 students were more evenly divided.
Overall, both groups gave favorability ratings to the traditional method; this was more pronounced in the College 1 group. They were more ambivalent about the flip method.
Both groups expressed ambivalence about what they would retain from the flip method. C1 felt the same about the traditional method; C2, though, felt the traditional method would lead to stronger retention.
Three aids were used here in the flip instruction. These were the YouTube PPT videos, the Khan Academy videos, and the class teamwork. Both the YouTube movies and the Khan Academy videos were rated as mildly better than neutral; the teamwork drew a higher favorability rating.
Both groups claimed to have prepared well for class in each mode of instruction.
Each student was asked to estimate their expected score on a quiz of similar material taught under each of the two methods. The net differences for each group were computed and averaged. Out of 100%, C1 appeared to expect their score to be lower by 0.6%, while C2 expected it to be lower by 4.4%.
The flip method scored higher in C1 as a preferred future method of instruction. C2 showed a mild polarization of preferences, with a balance between the methods.