Table 5.
Ethnicity
| Grade |
% of na | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ″A″ | ″B″ | ″C″ | ″D″ | ″F″ | ″W″ | ||
| URM | |||||||
| African American | 10.81 | 21.62 | 24.32 | 12.16 | 21.62 | 9.46 | 2.8 |
| Latino | 7.48 | 15.86 | 25.06 | 15.11 | 25.43 | 11.07 | 49.9 |
| Native American | 3.77 | 19.81 | 15.09 | 20.75 | 34.91 | 5.66 | 4.0 |
| Combined URM | 7.38 | 16.41 | 24.32 | 15.36 | 25.91 | 10.61 | 56.6 |
| Non-URM | |||||||
| Asian American | 9.68 | 22.58 | 29.03 | 12.90 | 19.35 | 6.45 | 1.2 |
| Caucasian | 15.04 | 23.98 | 24.78 | 10.62 | 15.22 | 10.35 | 42.2 |
| Combined non-URM | 14.90 | 23.94 | 24.89 | 10.68 | 15.33 | 10.25 | 43.4 |
| Ethnicity × grades | |||||||
| Differences URM − non-URM | −7.52 | −7.53 | −0.57 | 4.68 | 10.57 | 0.36 | |
| Significance of URM in comparison to non-URM grades across all semesters | Two-way Pearson χ2 = 99.34, df = 5, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| URM × course structure | |||||||
| Preworkshop | 6.95 | 14.34 | 23.92 | 15.22 | 27.97 | 11.61 | 1137 |
| Workshop | 8.68 | 22.63 | 25.53 | 15.79 | 19.74 | 7.63 | 380 |
| Differences | 1.74 | 8.30 | 1.60 | 0.57 | −8.23 | −3.98 | 1517 |
| % Change | 24.99 | 57.87 | 6.70 | 3.77 | −29.43 | −34.26 | |
| Significance of course structure, URM students only | Two-way Pearson χ2 = 25.16, df = 5, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Non-URM × course structure | |||||||
| Preworkshop | 13.38 | 21.78 | 24.70 | 10.83 | 17.27 | 12.04 | 822 |
| Workshop | 18.58 | 29.20 | 25.37 | 10.32 | 10.62 | 5.90 | 339 |
| Differences | 5.20 | 7.43 | 0.67 | −0.50 | −6.66 | −6.14 | 1161 |
| % Change | 38.87 | 34.11 | 2.72 | −4.64 | −38.53 | −51.01 | |
| Significance of course structure, non-URM students only | Two-way Pearson χ2 = 25.76, df = 5, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Ethnicity × course structure | |||||||
| Significance of different effects of course structure on URM and non-URM students | Three-way Pearson χ2 = 161.97, df = 16, p < 0.001 | ||||||
Descriptive statistics for each ethnic group are followed by two-way contingency table analyses of ethnicity (URM vs. non-URM) × grades across all semesters, effects of course structure on grades of URM students, and then of non-URM students. The last row shows results of a three-way contingency table analysis of the effects of course structure on the grades of URM in contrast to non-URM students.
a The far-right column indicates overall percent of students in each ethnic group in the URM and non-URM rows. In the URM × course structure and non-URM × course structure rows, the far-right column indicates the number of students in each category.