A Comparison of Traditional, Videoconference-based, and Web-based Learning Environments

1
A Comparison of Traditional, Videoconference-based
, and Web-based Learning Environments

• A Dissertation Proposal
• by
• Ming Mu Kuo

2
Proposal Format

• I. Purpose of Study
• II. Research Questions
• III. Significance of the Study
• IV. Review of Literature
• V. Research Design

3
I. Purpose of the Study

• Gain a comprehensive understanding of the
  perspectives of graduate students and faculty
  members in on-campus and remote sites of courses
  delivered using web-based courseware and
  videoconference-based (TTVN) deliveries.

4
II. Quantitative Research Questions

• What are the differences in (student
  satisfaction1, peer relationships2) among
  traditional, videoconference-based, and web-based
  learning environments?

5
Qualitative Research Questions

• What are the differences in (faculty motivation3,
  faculty load4 , faculty promotion tenure5)
  among traditional, videoconference-based, and
  web-based learning environments?

6
III. Significance of the Study

• The study may be valuable to higher education
  institutions that are planning to provide more
  instruction via the Internet or videoconference
  to help determine whether those methods are
  effective with their students.

7
Significance of the Study (cont..)

• Encourage more faculty members teaching at the
  distance learning environments.

8
IV. Review of Literature

• Learning Environments
• Traditional
• Videoconference-based
• Web-based

9
Review of Literature (cont..)

• Student Satisfaction
• Technology
• Interaction
• Motivation to Enroll
• Experience
• as predictors

10
Review of Literature (cont..)

• Factors Related to Faculty Members
• Motivation and Incentives
• Faculty Load
• Promotion and Tenure

11
Learning Environments

• Two categories of distance education
• Separate the learner and the instructor in space
  but not in time videoconference-based courses
• Separated in time and space Web-based courses

12
Learning Environments (cont..)

• Traditional major advantage
• Face-to-face interaction, immediate feedback,
  social contact.
• Distance isolation and loneliness (Long et al.,
  1999).

13
Learning Environments (cont..)

• Videoconferencing
• More channels of communication than other forms
  of distance education
• Technological problems, camera skills

14
Learning Environments (cont..)

• Web-base distance learning
• Internet and World Wide Web provide new
  opportunities for teaching and learning
• self-motivation, independent learning, time
  management

15
Student Satisfaction

• Many previous studies showed
• No significant effectiveness difference among
  the different distance delivery methods and
  traditional learning environment

16
Student Satisfaction (cont..)

• Technology Information technologies can promote
  learning that is constructivist in nature, like
  any other strategy, they can result in
  ineffective learning
• Interaction According to Kearsley (1995), one of
  the most important instructional elements of
  distance education is interaction
• involvement, immediately feedback

17
Student Satisfaction (cont..)

• Motivation to Enroll
• Experience
• What drive students to choose DL?
• Whats their experience in DL?
• What they expect in DL?

18
Faculty Motivation

• Positive factors as intellectual challenge,
  personal motivation to use technology, ability to
  reach new audiences, and opportunity to develop
  new ideas
• Negative Factors as lack of release time, lack of
  technical support, faculty workload, and lack of
  grants for materials

19
Faculty Load

• Faculty members
• Not only need to learn how to use new
  technologies
• Also needs to learn how to personalize their
  instruction
• Incorporate student involvement activities into
  their instruction.

20
Faculty Load (cont..)

• According to Bradburn (2002), the overall
  teaching load was somewhat higher (53) for
  instructional faculty members teaching distance
  classes than for those not doing so.

21
Faculty Promotion Tenure

• In most institutions the primary requirements for
  promotion and tenure are publication in
  traditional journals and teaching in traditional
  classrooms

22
V. Research Design

• The methods of research will be MIXED-METHODS
  utilizing both quantitative and qualitative in
  nature and descriptive and comparative in design.

23
Population

• The subjects for this study will be students and
  faculty members in courses offered over the TTVN
  and Web courseware by the Texas AM University
  system during the spring semester of 2005.

24
Population (cont..)

• Quantitative
• Graduate students
• Web-based course Web group
• Videoconference (in campus) Traditional group
• Videoconference (remote site) Videoconferencing
  group

• Qualitative
• Faculty members
• Teaching the web-based or videoconference-based
  courses

25
Instrumentation

• Quantitative
• On-line survey with 23 items that examined
  technology issues, peer interaction, and overall
  experience
• 5 point Likert scale

• Qualitative
• Interviews will be conducted to identify faculty
  motivation, load, and promotion.
• 10 questions email interview

26
Research Instrument Validity

• Content validity of the on-line survey and
  interview questions will be checked by a panel of
  experts (N5) comprised of graduate students and
  faculty members at the Texas AM University --
  Kingsville.

27
Research Instrument Reliability

• Cronbachs Alpha Coefficient will be used to
  check the reliability of the instrument.
• A pilot study with graduate students not included
  in the actual study will be conducted. (N30)

28
Data Analysis- Quantitative Survey

• A two-way contingency table analysis
• Person Chi-Square significance level 0.05

Traditional Videoconference Web-Base
Questionnaire 1

Questionnaire 23
29
Data Analysis- Qualitative Interview

• Qualitative Interview
• Coding and recoding
• Member checks
• peer debriefing

30
A Comparison of Traditional, Videoconference-based
, and Web-based Learning Environments

• A Dissertation Proposal
• by
• Ming Mu Kuo