Ppt Comparitive1

Uploaded on

comparative and non-comparative

comparative and non-comparative

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Comparative & non-comparative study evaluation Done for: D.Alaa Sadik Done by: Siham Al -Omairi(67157) Asmahan Albulushi (68702)
  • 2. Study title: Comp: Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learner Outcomes in Online and Face –to- Face Learning Environment Non-com: Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance
  • 3. Purpose of the evaluation
    • Comp: The primary purpose of this study was to compare an online course with an equivalent course taught in a traditional face-to - face format. (Learners perception and performance study )
    • Non-com: One purpose of this study was to examine and clarify the empirical relations between the motivational and self-regulated learning components.
  • 4. comparative study: Questions
    • 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, course 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?
  • 5. Non-comparative study: Questions
    • 1. How are the three motivational components related to
    • the components of self-regulated learning?
    • 2. What are the interactions among the three motivational
    • components and their relation to the self-regulated learning components?
    • 3. How are the motivational and self-regulated learning
    • components related to student performance on classroom academic tasks?
  • 6. Participant of studies
    • Non-comp: 173 seventh-grade students from eight science and seven English classrooms from a predominantly White, middleclass, small city school district in south eastern Michigan.
    • Comp : 19 students were enrolled in the online
    • version of the course.
    • 19 students, most of whom are pursuing
    • a graduate degree in Human Resource
    • Development (HRD), were enrolled
    • in the on-campus course.
  • 7. comparative study instrument:
    • (ICES): university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System was used to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience.
    • (DOLES) Distance and Open Learning Scale and the (DDE) Dimensions of Distance Education instruments were identified as appropriate starting points for the creation of an assessment tool for online instruction.
    • CISS Course Interaction, Structure, and Support was used to establish the construct validity of the hybrid instrument.
  • 8. Non-comparative study instrument: MSLQ : the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire was used to measure students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning.
  • 9. Advantages of studies:
    • Comp: 1-llustrate the findings by the tables of statistics.
    • Non-comp: 1-using more than one instruments
    • 2- explain each result and prove it.
    • 3- provide enough explanation about the
    • instrument that is used in the study.
  • 10. Disadvantages of studies:
    • Comp : 1-donot provide the enough information about participant.
    • Non-comp : 1- using only one instrument
  • 11. comparative study: Result
    • 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.
    • Both groups of students had positive perceptions, with the face-to-face students having significantly more positive views for interaction and support.
    • Students enrolled in the face-to-face course had a more favourable opinion of the amount and type of interactions among the students.
  • 12. Non-comparative study: Result
    • The second research question concerned the potential interactions between the motivational variables on the two cognitive scales.
    • The third research question concerned how the motivational and cognitive variables were related to student performance.
    • The study displays the zero-order correlations for the motivational, cognitive, and performance variables.
  • 13. Resources:
    • Non-comp: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/self-regulation/self-regulated%20learning-motivation.pdf
    • Comp:
    • http:// www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction = Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id =8371