1. BRADLEY DITTO
Mathematical Tutoring through an Online System

2. Introduction
Gaming has become a part of everyday life
+
Innovation needed in the classroom =
Introducing gaming into the curriculum for math

3. Introduction
 Learning outcomes for online education are
equal or superior to fact to face instruction
 Data suggests that “educational computer
games significantly promote motivation
toward learning”
• (FENGFENG KE, 2008)
 Sumdog System is a learning engine

4. Research Questions
 Do students show growth
in mathematical
performance after using
the Sumdog system?
 Are there limitations for
students in areas of
disabilities, gender,
socioeconomic status?
 What are the benefits of
integrating online
tutoring into regular
classroom practice and
learning routines?

5. Methodology
 Pre/Post test
 Approval requested
 Instruction
 Consistent time across
study participants
 9 week duration
 Missed time provided
 Teacher monitoring
 The student time will be
monitored to assure focus
and forward movement
 All students will have the
same
instructor/researcher

6. Limitations
 Population Size
 Small class size
 Varying cognitive
competencies
 Little control of
outside influences

7. T-test ANOVA
 To determine the effect of
Sumdog on test scores a
T-test was conducted.
 We use this test for
comparing the means
of two samples (or
treatments).
 The ANOVA was conducted
to determine the fixed
effects of gender,
socioeconomic status and
disability in the reaction of
the scores.
 ANOVAs are useful in
comparing (testing)
three, or more means
(groups or variables)
for statistical
significance.
Data Analysis

8. F I R S T G R A D E
S E C O N D G R A D E
F O U R T H G R A D E
Results

9. First Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Pre-Test
Post-Test

10. First Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
AxisTitle
Pre-Test
Post-Test

11. Second Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Second Grade
Pre-Test
Post-Test

12. Second Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
AxisTitle
Second Grade
Percent
Percent2

13. Fourth Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Pre-Test
Post-Test

14. Fourth Grade
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
AxisTitle
Pre-Test
Post-Test

15. COMPARING THE
RELATIONSHIP OF MALE TO
FEMALE DIFFERENCE IN GAIN
Gender Analysis

16. Second Grade
18.25
16.9
20.83
18.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Girls Boys
Pre-Test Post-Test

17. First Grade
32.875
43.4
44.875
46.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Girls Boys
Pre-Test Post-Test

18. Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pre Post
MeanScore
Exam
Figure 1: Score (Mean ± SE) in Pre and Post Examination
P < 0.001; 19.56 ± 2.2

19. F . R . M . O R F R E E A N D R E D U C E D M E A L S
Social Economic Results

20. First Grade
28.25
41.54545455
43
46.90909091
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
F.R.M. Non-F.R.M.
Pre-Test Post-Test

21. Second Grade
10.66666667
18.73684211
17
20.15789474
0
5
10
15
20
25
F.R.M. Non-F.R.M.
Pre-Test Post-Test

22. Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
Female Male
Score
Gender
Figure 2: Effect of Gender and Economic Status on Overall Score Change
FRM
NFRM

23. Overall Mean SES Overall Mean Gender
Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
FRM NFRM
Score
Gender
Figure 4: Effect of Economic
Status on Mean Change in Score
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Female Male
Score
Gender
Figure 3: Effect of Gender on
Mean Change in Score

24. Discussion
 Sumdog WORKS!
 Few differences that may show if a bigger sample is
used
 Students were more engaged
 Students showed excitement to learn

25. Future Research
 Looking further into the testing increases at different
times throughout the 9 week testing.
 Reviewing supplementary instruction outside of the
online tool
 Using this model for different levels of education
including middle, high school, and college.