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 StudyII. Research Questions III. Significance of the StudyIV. Review of LiteratureV. 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

1. Learning Environments Traditional Videoconference-based Web-based

9

Review of Literature (cont..)

2. Student Satisfaction Technology Interaction Motivation to Enroll Experience as predictors

10

Review of Literature (cont..)

3. 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?What’s 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 A&M 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

QualitativeFaculty members:

Teaching the web-based or videoconference-based courses

25

Instrumentation

Quantitative: On-line survey with 2

3 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 (N=5) comprised of graduate students and faculty members at the Texas A&M University -- Kingsville.

27

Research Instrument Reliability Cronbach’s 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. (N=30)

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