1 / 15

Questionnaire Audience

Questionnaire Audience. Online Course Groups of COE 200 COE 205 ICS 102, ICS 201 and ICS 202 ICS 334 ICS 353 Number of respondents: 23 Percentage of participation: +90%. Questionnaire Content. Group Questions Development Approach Development Tools Used

shelley-howell
Download Presentation

Questionnaire Audience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Questionnaire Audience • Online Course Groups of • COE 200 • COE 205 • ICS 102, ICS 201 and ICS 202 • ICS 334 • ICS 353 • Number of respondents: 23 • Percentage of participation: +90%

  2. Questionnaire Content • Group Questions • Development Approach • Development Tools Used • Audio Production Tool for Presentation • Intended Delivery Mode • Individual Questions • Assessment of Development Approach • Convenience of Development Tools • Rational for Audio Production Tool Choice • Recommended mode of course delivery • Feedback received from students using online material • Things would like to add/ do differently in the future • Other suggestions/comments for online course development at KFUPM

  3. Development Approach

  4. Development Tools Used

  5. Audio Production Tool for Presentation

  6. Intended Delivery Mode

  7. Assessment of Development Approach • Each member played all roles • Fair (distribution of labor) • Independence • Knowledge of all development phases • Every member developed content • Animation implementation easier for content preparer • Unfocused (no one master of all) • Time consuming • Non-Uniformity • Each member played a specific role • Focused • Efficiency • Speed • Quality • Uniformity • Unfair (distribution of labor) • Time consuming • Communication Problems • Animations/Presentations were week.

  8. Convenience of Development Tools • Flash • Excellent for complex animations • Problem with cut-paste from Word to Flash • Complex and Time consuming for animations • Authorware • Good for simple animations • File/Lesson size problems (too huge) • WebCT Porting problems • Text/Audio Synchronization problems • No spell-checker • Small things done in complicated manner • Bad for complex animations • Lack of backward compatibility of versions • Difficult to update content

  9. Convenience of Development Tools • Other Tools • Open Tools • Easy data maintenance • Convenient/User friendly • Needed front-end tool • Few glitches • Less interaction with end users

  10. Rational for Audio Production Tool Choice • Human Voice • Natural • Effective • Time consuming • Accent-dependent • Machine Voice • Uniformity • Accent • Pronunciation • Easily updatable • Decision of project leader!!!!!! • Low Quality • No human emotions • Boring • dull • Extra effort needed to include human emotions • No scientific terminology support • E.g. equation support

  11. Recommended mode of course delivery

  12. Recommended Mode of Course Delivery Other:

  13. Feedback Received From Students Using Online Material • Audio not good • More animations • More features (course progress, exams/quizzes) • Students • Seem to like material • Do not like the idea as it puts more burden on them • Apprehensive in the beginning, less apprehension later on. • Like frequent quizzes and homeworks • Do not like lab component • Prefer online course as support material rather than fully online

  14. Things to Add/Do Differently in the Future • More and Improved animations, quizzes, questions/answers • Standardize the look • Add control of the speed of animation • Ability to see the script of spoken part of presentation • Add progress features • Redesign the template (e.g. Netg courses) • Development must go through instructional design phase • Outsourced to a special contractor • Correct identified mistakes/revise material • Animations more interactive rather than presentative • Java applets • Part of the animation is left as exercise for students • Automate quizzes grading

  15. Other Suggestions/Comments for Online Course Development at KFUPM • Fulltime task, cannot be carried out by teaching faculty, one full semester without teaching should be given for the developer • Teaching faculty should be only content developers, not implementers • Expertise in online education needed • Students should be prepared for new environment • Online courses should not be forced on students • Students should be freed from regular meetings and labs • Exams given based on how much student has finished, hence good students complete the course in shorter time. • Online courses should be for real distance learning, i.e. non-KFUPM students • Forming a coherent dedicated team is very important • Low-level courses should be support material while for high-level courses some lectures may be offered fully online • Data maintenance should not be overlooked

More Related