Done by:
Hanaa Al-Suhai (70536)
Sumaiya Al-Nassri (68695)
Eklas Al-Saadi (68704)
COMPARATIVE AND NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY
COMPARATIVE STUDYPerception and performance study
OUTLINE Comparative Study
Study TitleStudy PurposeStudy QuestionsTarget Audience InstrumentsStudy Findings
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
REFERENCES
http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=8371
NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY
OUTLINE Non-comparative Study
Study TitleStudy PurposeStudy MethodologyStudy Results
STUDY TITLE
“Does the amount of on-screen text influence
student learning from a multimedia-based
instructional unit?”
Dilek Ardac¸ Serap Unal
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.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Participants Instrumentation Pre and post measures Retention test Memory tests Multimedia instructional unit Procedure
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.
REFERENCES
http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=8371