International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

Student Perceptions on the Use of New Techonologies in Engineering CoursesRecorded Lectures on the Internet and Moodle

Madhulika Goyal and Sahana MurthyCentre for Distance Engineering Education Programme

Indian Institute of Technology BombayPowai, Mumbai 400076, India

Abstract-- IIT Bombay (IITB) has been transmitting someof its courses as part of its distance education initiative,coordinated by the Centre for Distance EngineeringEducation Programme (CDEEP). These courses areregular courses taken by IITB students, transmitted livefrom the classroom, which have a studio like environmentwith projectors, cameras and mikes. CDEEP makes videosof these recorded lectures available to IITB students.Some courses coordinated by CDEEP use a learningmanagement system, Moodle. In this paper weinvestigated IITB students’ perceptions of the use of theabove technologies in their engineering / science courses.We found that students largely perceive the recordedvideos and the interactivity provided by Moodle as beingproductive for their learning. Their responses towards theclassroom environment were mixed, a significant problembeing the lack of perceived spontaneity in the classroom.

Keywords-- Live transmission, Learning ManagementSystems, Moodle, student perceptions

I. INTRODUCTION

Leading universities around the world are makingtheir course material freely available over the internet,including video lectures. Such open educationmodels are particularly relevant in India. The numberof students studying engineering in India is only 2.5% ofthe people in that age group. According to variousreports [1] only 25% of engineering graduates from Indiaare employable. There are many factors responsiblefor this dismal state, including a need for trainedfaculty, lack of access to good quality courses,inadequate guidance on teaching advanced courses andso on. A few elite institutions exist, such as the variousIndian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and NationalInstitutes of Technology (NIT), which offer world-classengineering education. However, these institutions onlyadmit a tiny fraction of students aspiring to study there.One attempt to improve this situation has been theNational Programme on Technology EnhancedEducation (NPTEL) [2], an initiative by the IITs and theIndian Institute of Science to create studio-recordedvideo and web-based courses. As a partial solution to theabove problem, IIT Bombay (IITB) has been involved ina distance education programme for the past few years[3]. Courses from IITB are transmitted live and aresimultaneously received via satellite at remote centers allover the country, as well as through live webstreaming inreal time. These activities are coordinated by the Centre forDistance Engineering Education Programme (CDEEP)at IITB [4].

The courses transmitted by CDEEP are regularcourses offered to IITB students, broadcast live from theclassroom without any change. While the content of the

course is similar to a traditional IITB course, theclassroom environment is different. In addition to theinstructor and

IITB students enrolled in the course, theclassroom consists of a camera team that records andtransmits the course. The setup is more technological thana traditional classroom as it includes PCs, projectors,mikes and cameras. Given the dual roles of the course(teaching IITB students and for remote transmission),a question that arises is how the different classroomenvironment affects the learning of the primaryaudience, namely IITB students.

In addition to live transmission, CDEEP also makesavailable all the videos of recorded lectures within theIITB intranet. Many courses coordinated by CDEEPmake use of an online learning management system(LMS) called Moodle [5], which includes a groupdiscussion area, posted instructional materials such asnotes, assignments and solutions, and other resourcesuseful for the course. CDEEP’s courses offer students acombination of face-to-face instruction and onlinelearning using information and communicationtechnologies (ICT). In this sense, they may resembleblended (also called hybrid or mixed-mode) courses [6]that are becoming popular in the distance educationcommunity. However, IITB’s CDEEP courses differ inone significant respect. While blended courses typicallyhave decreased amounts of contact time in class, CDEEP’scourses have the same number of contact hours asregular IITB courses.

Previous studies on students’ perceptions in blendedcourses from various parts of the world have suggestedthat students are generally satisfied with the use of onlineLMS for discussions forums, collaborative work andavailability of materials such as assignments and solutions.[7, 8]. There have been a number of studies on students’perceptions on the use of ICT in tertiary education. AEuropean-wide survey report [9] states that students arepositive towards the use of ICT in university learning andteaching, but they have a preference for learning withtraditional educational methods.

In this study we investigate IITB students’perceptions regarding the use of new technologies intheir engineering and science courses. A similar pilotstudy conducted by CDEEP in Spring 2008 suggestedthat a high proportion of students considered therecorded lectures and Moodle to be effective for theirlearning [10]. Our goal for this study is to understand indetail students’ views on how they use CDEEP’sresources, and how the new environment affects theirlearning experience. As CDEEP plans to significantlyincrease the scope of its activities, what are our ownstudents’ perceptions of its recording, transmission, andarchival efforts?

T4E 2009

978-1-4244-5505-8/09/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE 36

International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

We first describe various components of CDEEP’sactivities. We then discuss the design andimplementation of the study. Finally we report ourfindings of student responses, and discuss its implicationsfor future CDEEP activities.

II. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: CDEEP’ SACTIVITIES

A. Live transmission through satellite and webcasting

CDEEP has been transmitting IITB’s courses livesince 2002. For the first six years, a total of 70 courseswere transmitted via satellite on a commercial basis.Since January 2008, CDEEP has been transmittingcourses free and unencrypted through ISRO’s EDUSATsatellite [11]. In addition, about 58 institutions in Indiahave installed Student Interactive Terminals throughwhich students in those institutions can interact withIITB faculty during the live transmission. Since January2008, CDEEP has been transmitting some coursesthrough live webcasting [12].

The classroom where lectures are recorded consistsof a camera/technician team that is located in arecording room behind the students. In the recordingroom, the lectures are simultaneously transmitted livethrough satellite and web. These lectures are alsocaptured on tapes to be edited. Within 24 hours, therecorded lectures are edited and uploaded on an intranetserver.

In the classroom, the instructor has access to a PC todisplay slides or other electronic text and images.Instead of a blackboard, the instructor can write onwhite paper whose image can be displayed on a screen viaa document camera and a projector. Students in theclassroom view and hear the instructor just like they doin a traditional setting, and view written material asprojected images on a screen. The transmitted videoconsists of a mix of the instructor’s image, and theprojected slides or images of handwritten material. Theaudio setup consists of mikes that both the instructor andIITB students have access to.

B. Video on Demand: Archives of recorded courses

A collection of all recorded courses is available toIITB students as “Video on Demand” (VOD). VODallows students the flexibility of viewing any of theselectures over the IITB intranet at a convenient time andplace. Each user has access to an independent videosession, enabling multiple users to simultaneously viewthe videos. VOD is currently also available to someremote users, who have registered for CDEEP’s coursesin a value-added mode. As part of a new project,CDEEP is planning to make VOD available free to allusers from July 2009.

C. Moodle: Learning Management System

An important component of the learning process isproductive interaction among students and between theinstructor and students. IITB uses Moodle, a web-basedopen source learning management system to provide aplatform for group discussions and to ask/answer queriesafter contact hours. Moodle also allows faculty andTeaching Assistants post-instruction materials that can beaccessed by both IITB students as well as students at

remote centers who take the courses via distance mode.Other uses of Moodle within IITB include a bulletinboard for posting announcements, tools for monitoringstudent progress, exams, assignments, solutions andadditional study materials for students.

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

A. Methodologies and rationale

The nature of our research questions led us to choosean exploratory quantitative study as our design. One ofour goals was to obtain representative data aboutstudents’ perceptions of various aspects of CDEEPcourses and if the responses differ betweenundergraduate (UG) vs. postgraduate (PG) instruction,department and so on. We were also interested ingathering broadly generalizable information; hence wewanted to include a large number of students.Consequently we chose a multi-part survey as ourinstrument, consisting of both agree/disagree ratingscales and open-ended questions. Students were asked torespond to the survey questions anonymously.

The questionnaire for the survey was developed togather insights about the perception of IITB students onthe live transmission of classroom lectures, the LearningManagement System and the recorded lectures availableon Video on Demand. The questionnaire was circulatedamongst CDEEP staff members to ensure contentvalidity. Based on the feedback/comments received,necessary changes were made and the final survey wasprepared. The survey consisted of the following parts:

6 questions to gather a summary of the student’sCDEEP experience, including demographicinformation, student’s frequency of use of VODand Moodle.

9 questions on VOD to which students respondusing a five-point agree/disagree scale. Thequestions pertain to its usability and itsusefulness as a learning tool.

8 questions where students rate the classroomenvironment using a five-point agree/disagreescale. These questions focus on the interactivityin the classroom, effects of the new environmentand use of electronic presentation material.

14 questions on Moodle to which studentsrespond using a five-point agree/disagree scale.Similar to the questions on VOD, the questionsabout Moodle can be classified into groups:Moodle’s usability as a learning platform and itsbenefits as a learning tool.

Open-response questions to elicit additionalfeedback from students on their views of theclassroom environment, VOD, Moodle andother aspects of CDEEP.

Responses to the open-ended questions were used totriangulate the data from students’ rating of CDEEP’sdifferent aspects (from parts 2, 3 and 4 above).

B. Population and data collection.

We performed this study in the Spring semester2009. There were 27 courses being recorded andtransmitted by CDEEP during that semester. Out ofthese, 13 were undergraduate courses and 14 were

37

International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

postgraduate. Table I shows the distribution of courses bydepartment. Most of the courses (except 3) were inengineering departments. The lectures took place for 3to 4 hours per week in slots of 1 or 1.5 hours each,totaling about 40 contact hours per semester per course.Students filled out the paper-andpencil survey duringone of the lecture.

A total of 1257 students were enrolled in thesecourses. We collected surveys from 701 students duringthe last two weeks of instruction. After eliminating somedata from blank or incomplete surveys (described indetail in the next section), we were left with 655unique surveys. The sample was heterogeneous interms of year of study: 344 B.Tech. and Dual Degree(1st to 4th year) students, 146 M.Sc., M.Tech and 5thyear Dual Degree students and 45 Ph.D. students.

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF COURSES (SPRING2009)

DepartmentNo . o fCourses

UGCourse

PGCourse

Civil Engineering2 0 2

Chemical Engineering4 2 2

Computer Science & Engineering2 0 2

Electrical Engineering12 6 6

Mechanical Engineering2 2

0

Physics2 2 0

Centre of Studies in ResourcesEngineering

1 0 1

School of Bioscience andBioengineering

1 1 0

Systems & Control Engineering1 0 1

TOTAL 27 13 14

C. Data Analysis

Raw data from the surveys were transferred to aspreadsheet and tabulated. Using information on student’sfrequency of use of VOD, we eliminated someresponses. If a student had never watched a VOD, wedid not consider data from his/her survey. In somecourses the instructor never used Moodle; if so, weeliminated all the responses on Moodle from students inthat course. Finally, in cases where surveys werereturned blank, we eliminated the student’s responsefrom our analysis. While this might increase the risk ofresponse bias, the number of such missing responses wassmall, about 7% of the total sample. The original surveyquestions had five choices: strongly agree, agree,disagree, strongly disagree and not sure. For purposes ofanalysis we combined the choices “strongly agree” and“agree” and also the choices disagree” and “disagree”,leaving us with three possible responses. The choice“not sure” was included in the survey to account forresponses such as “I do not know”, and “notapplicable”. Responses to the open-ended questionswere first categorized into the following major groups:comments on VOD, Moodle, classroom environmentand CDEEP’s role in education. A detailed analysis ofthe responses from each group showed that a number of

comments were repeated by different students. We thenfurther classified students’ responses into a few sub-categories.

IV. FINDINGS

A. Students’ responses to VOD.

Table II shows students’ responses on VOD-relatedquestions. Overall, responses to VOD were largelypositive. Almost three-quarters of the students felt thatthe audio-visual quality of VOD was acceptable and VODwas easy to access. A large majority of responsessuggested that students find VOD as an effectivelearning tool. Majority of the students agreed that VODwas useful for revision (93%), and enhancedunderstanding of the course material (8 8%). A highproportion (86%) of students felt that VOD allowsflexibility in learning. Most of the students (90%)wanted more lectures to be available in the form ofVOD.

TABLE II. STUDENT RESPONSES TO VOD QUESTIONS(IN %, N=655)

Survey item AgreeD i s -agree

N o t sure

Usability

Good audio quality 75.4 18.4 6.3

Good video quality 74.3 18.4 7.3

Easy to access 79.7 16.0 4.3

Lectures on VOD take time to stream 48.6 38.4 13.0

Allows flexible learning 86.4 8.6 5.0

Usefulness as a learning tool

Enhances understanding 87.7 5.8 6.5

Helps keep up with the course 77.1 9.1 13.8

Good forrevision 92.7 3.9 3.5More courses should be made availablethrough VOD

90.1 6.2 3.9

Analysis of the open-response section of the surveyshowed that the maximum number of commentswere about VOD, specifically about the modes of use ofVOD. Table III shows the categories of studentcomments that emerged from the open-responsesection of the survey. A total of 174 students (~27%)commented that they found VOD useful for revision andbetter understanding. Out of these, 17% had viewedmore than half the available VODs for their respectivecourse. As a comparison, only 10% of all students hadviewed at least half the VODs (See Fig. 1). Other uses ofVOD that students mentioned were that VOD helpedwhen they were absent, they could view the samelecture repeatedly and that VOD allowed flexibility inlearning. A number of students (22%) simply mentionedthat more courses should be made available on VOD,without describing specific reasons. Students also gaveuseful feedback about the problems encountered withVOD. The main complaint was about the difficulty ofaccess to VOD due to issues related to downloading ondifferent operating systems or due to slow streaming

38

International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

rates. Other problems included the poor audio or videoquality of VOD and a lack of time to view VODs.

B. Students’ responses to Moodle

Survey questions on Moodle were grouped intocategories of usability as a learning platform andbenefits as a learning tool. Table IV describes students’responses on this part of the survey. Almost allresponses (94%) suggested that Moodle is easy to useand most students (81%) felt that more coursesshould use Moodle. To a large extent, students felt thatMoodle helped them learn better. As a learning tool,68% of the responses indicate that Moodle was usefulduring projects and 79% students felt that it was a goodplatform for interaction. However, only half the studentsagreed that Moodle motivated them to do referencework or encouraged them to post challengingquestions or provide answers. Although three-quarters ofstudents agreed that Moodle was used appropriately,only 60% students expressed consent that theresponses posted were timely and relevant.

TABLE III. STUDENTS’ COMMENTS ON OPEN-RESPONSE

Categories of studentcomments

Sub-categoriesPercentstudents

Revision / Better understanding 27%

Helps when absent 10%

Usefulness of VOD View lectures repeatedly 4%

Useful during exams 8%

More courses should be madeavailable on VOD

22%

Difficulty of download 3%

Problems with VOD Slow streaming rate 1.5%

P o o r a u d i o q u a l i t y 6%

Promoting interaction 15%Role of Moodle

Instructional materials useful 6%

Easy to use 9%Usability of Moodle Convenient to submit

assignments3%

Problems with Moodle Setup not optimal for course 2%

Artificial / Distractingenvironment

2.5%

Comparison with Lack of interaction, no

traditional classroom spontaneity 2%

Absence of blackboard 1.5%

Courses well structured 3%

Provides flexibility in learning 6%

Role of CDEEP

Improves quality of teaching 4%

Provide access to education toeveryone

<1%

On the open-response section, a frequent commentwas about the role of Moodle as an aid to better learning.

15% of students wrote that Moodle’s biggest strengthwas that it encouraged interaction among theirclassmates, and also between instructors and students.Detailed analysis of these comments revealed that theinteraction students referred to, promoted a intellectualdiscussion between members of the class. The followingcomments are indicative of this: “TAs participate in thediscussion”; “I can clarify or challenge another student’sanswer”; “When the discussion goes off-track, theprofessor brings the discussion back.”

A number of instructors posed assignments,solutions, sample exams, notes, lecture slides, referencearticles and other study material. Students enrolled in thesecourses expressed approval of the availability ofmaterials at one location. Students also mentioned thatMoodle was user-friendly, hence they were more likelyto use it and participate in discussions. However, a smallerfraction of students complained that Moodle’s setup wasnot optimal or appropriate for their course.

C. Classroom environment and instruction

Students had mixed reactions about the studioenvironment affecting their classroom experience. TableV shows student responses to the classroom environmentand instruction. More than half the students said thatclassroom interaction and quality of instruction suffered.A little over 60% of students were in favor of thepresentation modes in CDEEP classrooms as comparedto a traditional setup.

In the open-response section of the survey, somestudents voiced their opinion about the environment inCDEEP courses being different from traditionalcourses. The issues raised included presence of adistracting or artificial environment (presence ofcameras, limited mobility of instructors), diminished ordifficulty of interaction in classrooms (due to the need tospeak with mikes), and absence of a blackboard. Somestudents (2%) explicitly mentioned that CDEEPcourses cut off spontaneity in the class.

At the same time, a fraction of students (3%)mentioned that CDEEP courses were more structured,efficient and well organized. A few remarked that asa result, the quality of teaching was better. Due to theavailability of slides, they welcomed the fact that theydid not have to write extensive notes. Students alsoappreciated that CDEEP courses allowed flexibilityin terms of being able to learn anywhere, and atanytime. A small number of students remarked thatthey viewed VODs of courses they were not registeredfor the other comments on the open -response section wereabout the role of CDEEP in educating larger numbers,however, these comments were few. In all, 15 studentsmentioned that CDEEP was useful for distanceeducation and provided open access to all.

39

International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

TABLE IV. STUDENTS’ RESPONSES (IN %, N=427)

Survey item A g r e eDis-

agreeNotsure

Usability as a learning platform

Easy to use94.4 4.0 1.6

Students’ participation is encouraged72.4 17.3 10.3

The response time for the reply to theposted questions is reasonable

60.2 18.5 21.3

The responses are relevant to thequestions posted

61.4 19.0 19.7

The ways in which Moodle is used forthis course is appropriate

75.6 16.2 8.2

Confident interacting through Moodleonly when my identity is concealed

41.2 43.1 15.7

Usefulness as a learning tool

Helps during projects/ assignments68.1 19.0 12.9

Usefulin preparing for the examination60.0 25.1 15.0

Encourage to post challenging questions51.3 28.6 20.1

Questions help improve my knowledge60.2 22.7 17.1

Motivates to do reference work 47.3 29.7 23.0

Encourages to provide solutions for theposted problems

51.5 28.1 20.4

Encourages exchange of ideas79.4 11.7 8.9

More courses should use Moodle 81.7 13.1 5.2

TABLE V. STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTIONAND THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT (IN %, N=655)

Survey item A g r eDis-

agreeNot sure

Better lecture quality64.4 23.1 12.5

Confident in asking questions duringrecording

62.2 25.7 12.1

Studio setup is a cause of distraction inthe classroom

31.1 60.0 8.9

Instructions quality suffers becauseof the studio environment

34.8 53.6 11.7

Classroom interaction suffers

because of the studio environment.43.2 47.5 9.3

Better presentation modes64.6 27.2 8.2

D. Undergraduate versus postgraduate students.

We found significant differences in responses betweenB.Tech (N= 344), M.Tech (N=266) and Ph.D (N= 45)students. However, there was no significant differencebetween students in different years of B.Tech. We didnot find significant differences between students indifferent departments.

Fig. 1a shows how frequently different studentsviewed VOD lectures. The most significant difference isthe percent of students who never watched a VODlecture. 33% of B.Tech students responded that they hadnever viewed a lecture on VOD, as opposed to 13%each of M.Tech (N=266) and Ph.D (N= 45) students.These differences are significant to a p-level of 0.05. Thepercent of students who had viewed more than 25VOD lectures (i.e. about half of all available lectures for

the course) was 7.5% for B.Tech, 14% for M.Tech and13% for Ph.D students (Significant at p=0.01 level). Onthe other hand, 48% of B.Tech students responded thatthey have seen the same VOD multiple times whereasonly 26% of M.Tech and 29% of Ph.D studentsresponded similarly.

To further explore if the above differences can beattributed to different courses, or whether they trulyrepresent a difference in the student demographic, welooked at only those courses in which bothundergraduate and postgraduate students were enrolled.There were 10 such courses. Here we found significantdifferences in the percent of students who viewed morethan half the VOD lectures. On an average 5.8% ofB.Tech (N=84), 7.35 of M.Tech (N=146) and 23.6% ofPh.D. students (N=34) viewed at least half the availableVOD lectures.

In terms of Moodle use, 43% of all B.Tech students,44% of M.Tech and 29% of Ph.D students responded thatthey had used Moodle regularly. Fig. 1b shows thefrequency of use of Moodle.

V. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK

The results of our study indicate that students largelyperceive CDEEP’s activities to be productive for their ownlearning. VOD’s audiovisual medium appealed to anumber of students. Another aspect of CDEEP’s coursesthat students valued was the flexibility provided. Studentsappreciated that the courses were customized to theirconvenience, study habits and personal learningpreferences. IITB students’ responses to Moodle areconsistent with previous studies [7, 8].

Students tended to have mixed reactions about thealtered classroom environment. A big differencebetween this environment and a traditional classroomwas the restriction placed on the instructor’s movements.CDEEP’s staff members did consider the option ofallowing natural movements of the instructor as in atraditional classroom. This option had to be rejected fortwo technical reasons: one, capturing movement withthe existing cameras resulted in choppy video andtwo, videos containing human movement hadsignificantly larger file sizes.

We noticed contradictory views in students’comments on active learning. While some studentsresponded that active learning was hampered in theentire course due to the classroom environment (mainly,presence of cameras hindering spontaneity), otherscommented on the increase in interactivity in the coursecompared to a traditional course, provided by Moodle’sdiscussion forum.

One way of interpreting the differences we observedin the reactions of undergraduate versuspostgraduate students is in terms of the timeavailable to students outside of classes. UG studentshave a very structured schedule, and they typicallytake more courses per semester (4-6) than PG students(2-3), thus leaving them with less time to watch VODs.This is similar to PG students spending more time onreference work in the library. Another hypothesis for thevariation is that UG students may be more focused onexams and grades, and more used to studying just beforeexams. Since it is difficult to watch many VODs at the

40

International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E), Aug 4-6, 2009, Bangalore

last minute, the frequency is lower among UG students.Differences in the usage of Moodle could perhaps beexplained by a hypothesis that on an average,undergraduates in a metropolitan city like Mumbai canbe considered to be more comfortable with newtechnologies, than PG students who may not be exposed toa lot of new technologies. It is important for us to be ableto tease apart reasons for the observed differences, as anyfurther steps to be taken will depend on the reason forthem. Each of these reasons will have differentimplications. For example, if our explanation for thedifference in Moodle usage is supported, a trainingsession on the use of Moodle may be necessary for acertain group of students. While our survey has alerted usto variations among various groups of students, a large-scale survey is not the best method to interpret whyvariation exists. We will need to conduct detailedinterviews to understand this aspect further.

The feedback we received from students regarding thetechnical quality of VOD, Moodle and classroomenvironment was invaluable. Students’ feedbackexposed some technical issues that CDEEP’s staff wasnot aware of. To follow up on specific problems in therecorded videos, we conducted an online contest solicitingfeedback from all IITB students. Using results of oursurvey and feedback from the context, we are in theprocess of fixing some of the problems before the nextsemester.

Results of our research raise many questions. Forexample, a few students mentioned that they watchVODs of courses outside of their curriculum, to learnnew subjects. In what ways is knowledge beingdisseminated using this technology? What is the role ofVODs in a research-intensive institution such as IITB?Secondly, what are the effects of the availability oftechnology such as live webcasting on attendance?Thirdly, as student numbers are going up significantly,can live webcasting be used as an alternative in largeclasses?

Finally, this study only reveals students’ ownperceptions of their learning experience. Our larger goalis to understand how new and blended modes ofteaching impact student learning. The paradigm of thetraditional classroom using printed materials is changingtowards the inclusion of more online technologies. Aswe move in this direction, we first need to evaluate the

effects of the different learning environment on studentlearning, attitudes and perceptions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are grateful to IITB faculty for allowing us toconduct our survey in their classes. We thank IITBstudents for participating in the survey. We thank Prof.Kannan Moudgalya for providing feedback on thismanuscript. We appreciate the continuous supportprovided by CDEEP staff.

REFERENCES

[1] D. Farrell, N. Kaka, and S. Sturze. Ensuring India’s offshoringfuture. McKinsey Quarterly, pages 75–83, September 2005.

[2] See http://nptel.iitm.ac.in (as of June 2009).

[3] S. Krithivasan, M. Baru and S. Iyer. “Satellite-based interactivedistance education. A scalable and quality learning model.”Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 2005.

[4] K. M. Moudgalya, D. B Phatak, and R. K. Shevgaonkar."Engineering education for everyone: A distance educationexperiment at IIT Bombay." Frontiers in EducationConference, 2008. FIE 2008. 38th Annual 22-25 Oct. 2008Pp:T3C-21 - T3C26.

[5] M. Dougiamas and P. Taylor. “Moodle: Using learningcommunities to create an open source course managementsystem”. In D. Lassner and C. McNaught, editors, Proceedingsof World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermediaand Telecommunications 2003, pp. 171–178, Chesapeake, VA,2003; Further resources for Moodle available at:http://moodle.org.

[6] B. Colis, and J. Moonen. Flexible learning in a digital world:Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan-Page, 2001.

[7] Buzzetto-More, N.A “Student Perceptions of Various E-LearningComponents”, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning andLearning Objects (4), 2008.

[8] Hoic-Bozic, N. Mornar, V. Boticki, I. “A Blended LearningApproach to Course Design and Implementation. IEEETransactions on Education, Volume: 52, No. 1, pp. 19-30,February 2009.

[9] Survey report from the SPOT+ project supported by theEuropean Commission. Available athttp://www.spotplus.odl.org

[10] M. Goyal. “A pilot study of efficacy of distance education atIIT Bombay”. Reachout, A newsletter of CDEEP, IITBombay.May 2008. Available at http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/Reachout/

[11] Reachout, A newsletter of CDEEP, IIT Bombay.Jan.2008 Available at http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/Reachout/.

[12] Live webcasts available from CDEEP athttp://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/Live webc/index.html (as of June2009)

Figure 1. Frequncy of use of VOD (a) and Moodle (b)

41