This document summarizes two studies: a comparative study and a non-comparative study. The comparative study compared student satisfaction, perceptions, and learning outcomes between an online course and equivalent face-to-face course. It found that while both formats had positive ratings, face-to-face students had more positive views of interaction and support. Learning outcomes were similar between the two formats. The non-comparative study examined how the amount of on-screen text affected student learning in a multimedia unit. It found no significant differences in learning between short-text and whole-text versions, and that those with lower memory benefited more from the short-text version.

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

2. COMPARATIVE STUDY Perception and performance study

3. OUTLINE Comparative Study Study Title Study Purpose Study Questions Target Audience Instruments Study Findings

4. 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

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

8. INSTRUMENTS This study used three established instruments to assess student perceptions of course quality, interaction, structure, and support: The university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES)  to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience. Th e Distance and Open Learning Scale (DOLES)  to assess student perceptions of their learning experience. T he Dimensions of Distance Education (DDE)  to provides a further assessment of the learning environment.

9. 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.

10. RESEARCH RESULTS (CONT’D) Student Learning Outcomes 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. Course grades: the distributions of course grades for both the online and face-to-face classes were to a large extent equally distributed. 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.

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

12. NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY

13. OUTLINE Non-comparative Study Study Title Study Purpose Study Methodology Study Results

14. STUDY TITLE “ Does the amount of on-screen text influence student learning from a multimedia-based instructional unit?” Dilek Ardac¸ Serap Unal

15. 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.

16. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Participants Instrumentation Pre and post measures Retention test Memory tests Multimedia instructional unit Procedure

17. 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.

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