Successfully reported this slideshow.

Comparative and non-comparative study


Published on

Published in: Education, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Comparative and non-comparative study

  1. 1. Done by: Hanaa Al-Suhai (70536) Sumaiya Al-Nassri (68695) Eklas Al-Saadi (68704) COMPARATIVE AND NON-COMPARATIVE STUDY
  2. 2. COMPARATIVE STUDY <ul><li>Perception and performance study </li></ul>
  3. 3. OUTLINE <ul><li>Comparative Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Purpose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Target Audience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instruments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Findings </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. STUDY 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. STUDY PURPOSE <ul><li>to compare an online course with an equivalent course taught in a traditional face-to face format. </li></ul><ul><li>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,3course 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. TARGET AUDIENCE <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  8. 8. INSTRUMENTS <ul><li>This study used three established instruments to assess student perceptions of course quality, interaction, structure, and support: </li></ul><ul><li>The university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES)  to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience. </li></ul><ul><li>Th e Distance and Open Learning Scale (DOLES)  to assess student perceptions of their learning experience. </li></ul><ul><li>T he Dimensions of Distance Education (DDE)  to provides a further assessment of the learning environment. </li></ul>
  9. 9. 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: Both groups of students had positive perceptions, with the face-to-face students having significantly more positive views for interaction and support. </li></ul>
  10. 10. RESEARCH RESULTS (CONT’D) <ul><li>Student Learning Outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Course grades: the distributions of course grades for both the online and face-to-face classes were to a large extent equally distributed. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  11. 11. REFERENCES <ul><li> </li></ul>
  13. 13. OUTLINE <ul><li>Non-comparative Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Purpose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Methodology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study Results </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. STUDY TITLE <ul><li>“ Does the amount of on-screen text influence student learning from a multimedia-based instructional unit?” </li></ul><ul><li>Dilek Ardac¸ Serap Unal </li></ul>
  15. 15. STUDY PURPOSE <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  16. 16. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY <ul><li>Participants </li></ul><ul><li>Instrumentation </li></ul><ul><li>Pre and post measures </li></ul><ul><li>Retention test </li></ul><ul><li>Memory tests </li></ul><ul><li>Multimedia instructional unit </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure </li></ul>
  17. 17. Study Results <ul><li>There is no significant differences between groups who worked with short-text and whole-text versions. </li></ul><ul><li>The retention scores of students in high and low memory groups were similar for students working with the short-text version. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  18. 18. REFERENCES <ul><li> </li></ul>