Comparartive and non-Comparative study


Published on

This presentation summarize tow studies which represent tow types of studies : comparative and non-comparartive studies

Published in: Education, Technology
  • 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

No notes for slide

Comparartive and non-Comparative study

  1. 1. Khadeeja Al-Shidhani 61344 Amal Al-Balushi 66755 COMPARATIVE AND NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Comparative Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Purpose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation Instruments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages & Disadvantages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-comparative Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Study title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Aim of The Study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Methodology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study results </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. COMPARATIVE STUDY <ul><li>Perception and performance study </li></ul>
  4. 4. Research Title <ul><li>“ Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments” </li></ul><ul><li>Scottd. Johnson, Steven R. Aragon, Najmuddin Shaik, & Nilda Palma-Rivas </li></ul><ul><li>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign </li></ul>
  5. 5. Research Purpose <ul><li>Comparing 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. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Research Questions <ul><li>What differences exist in satisfaction with the learning experience of students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments? </li></ul><ul><li>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? </li></ul><ul><li>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? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Participants <ul><li>The subject of this study includes 38 students enrolled in an instructional design course. 19 students were taught face-to-face while the other 19 students were taught online. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Evaluation Instruments <ul><li>The university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) was used to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience. </li></ul><ul><li>The Course Interaction, Structure, and Support (CISS) instrument which is a hybrid instrument of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Distance and Open Learning Scale (DOLES) instrument was used to assess student perceptions of their learning experience. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Dimensions of Distance Education (DDE) instrument which provides a further assessment of the learning environment. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Advantages & Disadvantages <ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More than one instrument was used to collect data. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only tools for quantitative analysis were used without using of any type of qualitative analysis tools. </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Research Results <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Perceptions of course interaction, structure & support: Overall, both groups of students had positive perceptions, with the face-to-face students having significantly more positive views for interaction and support. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Research Results (Cont’d) <ul><li>Learning Outcomes (Course Grades): </li></ul>Course Format n Course Grade A % B % C % I % Face-to-Face 19 13 68% 2 11% 2 11% 2 11% Online 19 13 68% 1 6% 2 11% 3 16% Total 38 26 68% 3 8% 4 11% 5 13%
  13. 13. Study Title <ul><li>“ Evaluation of the development of metacognitive knowledge supported by the knowcat system” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers: Manoli Pifarre´ . Ruth Cobos </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009 </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. The Aim of The Study <ul><li>To examine the development of the metacognitive knowledge of a group of higher education students who participated actively in an experiment based on a Computer Supported Collaborative Learning environment called KnowCat. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Research Methodology <ul><ul><li>Participants: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eighteen university students participated in the research. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instruments: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The interviewer asked students to describe their learning processes and contextual interpretations of their interactions to the content of the two main KnowCat knowledge elements: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interactions with the documents (access to others’ documents and document versions) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interactions with the notes (sent and received notes). </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Disadvantages <ul><li>The researchers have used interviews as the only tool for qualitative evaluation, without any quantitative evaluation tool. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Research Results <ul><li>Interactions of students with their classmates’ documents encourage them to compare their own cognitive strategies to solve the task with the others’. </li></ul><ul><li>Students are aware of how the characteristics of the KnowCat educational process had a strong incidence in their cognition-metacognitive knowledge of task and context category. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Research Results cont.. <ul><li>Results revealed a high level of awareness that students received through note contribution as it proved to be a unique opportunity to monitor and regulate their cognitive strategies to solve the task. </li></ul><ul><li>These results show evidence that the KnowCat note knowledge element was helpful in assisting students develop constituent components of metacognition i.e., planning, monitoring, evaluating and revising their learning activities to solve the tasks efficiently. </li></ul>
  19. 19. References <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>