Comparative and non-comparative study

18
Done by: Hanaa Al-Suhai (70536) Sumaiya Al-Nassri (68695) Eklas Al-Saadi (68704) COMPARATIVE AND NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY

Transcript of Comparative and non-comparative study

Page 1: Comparative and non-comparative study

Done by:

Hanaa Al-Suhai (70536)

Sumaiya Al-Nassri (68695)

Eklas Al-Saadi (68704)

COMPARATIVE AND NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY

Page 2: Comparative and non-comparative study

COMPARATIVE STUDYPerception and performance study

Page 3: Comparative and non-comparative study

OUTLINE Comparative Study

Study TitleStudy PurposeStudy QuestionsTarget Audience InstrumentsStudy Findings

Page 4: Comparative and non-comparative study

STUDY TITLE

“Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction

and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-

to-Face Learning Environments”

Scottd. Johnson, Steven R. Aragon, Najmuddin

Shaik, & Nilda Palma-Rivas

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Page 5: Comparative and non-comparative study

STUDY PURPOSE

to compare an online course with an equivalent course taught in a traditional face-to face format.

Comparisons included student ratings of instructor and course quality; assessment of course interaction, structure, and support; and learning outcomes such as course projects, grades, and student self-assessment of their ability to perform various ISD tasks.

Page 6: Comparative and non-comparative study

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What differences exist in satisfaction with the learning experience of students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments?

2. What differences exist in student perceptions of student/instructor interaction,3course structure, and course support between students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments?

3. What differences exist in the learning outcomes (i.e., perceived content knowledge, quality of course projects, and final course grades) of students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments?

Page 7: Comparative and non-comparative study

TARGET AUDIENCE

The Target Audience of this study consist of 38

students enrolled in an instructional design

course. 19 of the students were taught face-to-

face while the other 19 students were taught

online.

Page 8: Comparative and non-comparative study

INSTRUMENTSThis study used three established instruments to assess

student perceptions of course quality, interaction, structure, and support:

1. The university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience.

2. The Distance and Open Learning Scale (DOLES) to

assess student perceptions of their learning experience.

3. The Dimensions of Distance Education (DDE) to provides

a further assessment of the learning environment.

Page 9: Comparative and non-comparative study

RESEARCH RESULTS

Student Satisfaction: On the student satisfaction

indicators, instructor quality and course quality,

both groups provided positive ratings, although

the face-to-face group displayed more positive

views than the online group. Perceptions of course interaction, structure &

support: Both groups of students had positive

perceptions, with the face-to-face students

having significantly more positive views for

interaction and support.

Page 10: Comparative and non-comparative study

RESEARCH RESULTS (CONT’D) Student Learning Outcomes1. Blind review of course projects: to judge the quality of the major course projects, the ratings of three independent reviewers showed no difference in the quality of the projects across the two course formats.

2. Course grades: the distributions of course grades for both the online and face-to-face classes were to a large extent equally distributed.

3. Self-assessment: A self-assessment instrument collected students’ reported levels of comfort at performing various instructional design tasks. Each task was rated on a four-point scale from Very Comfortable (4) to Very Uncomfortable (1). Significant differences were found on only five of the 29 items on the self-assessment instrument.

Page 11: Comparative and non-comparative study

REFERENCES

http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=8371

Page 12: Comparative and non-comparative study

NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY

Page 13: Comparative and non-comparative study

OUTLINE Non-comparative Study

Study TitleStudy PurposeStudy MethodologyStudy Results

Page 14: Comparative and non-comparative study

STUDY TITLE

“Does the amount of on-screen text influence

student learning from a multimedia-based

instructional unit?”

Dilek Ardac¸ Serap Unal

Page 15: Comparative and non-comparative study

STUDY PURPOSE

The present study examines how changes in the amount of on-screen text will influence student learning from a multimedia instructional unit on basic concepts of coordinate geometry.

Page 16: Comparative and non-comparative study

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Participants Instrumentation Pre and post measures Retention test Memory tests Multimedia instructional unit Procedure

Page 17: Comparative and non-comparative study

Study Results

There is no significant differences between groups who worked with short-text and whole-text versions.

The retention scores of students in high and low memory groups were similar for students working with the short-text version.

The results imply that the whole-text version might be particularly unfavorable for those students who are low in terms of their memory for symbolic implications.

Page 18: Comparative and non-comparative study

REFERENCES

http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=8371