CMU has been said to be the “most wired campus in the US” for two years in a row. What kind of impact does such a infrastructure has on the daily academic life of CMU? While the students in CMU are enjoying the convenience of online course materials, sometime too convenient that they don’t even have to show up for classes, we want to look at this issue from a different perspective: What do the faculties think about putting course materials on the web.

CMU Faculties’ Opinion About Online Course Materials Group 6 Yi Niu, Maisha O’Neal, Ethan Tira-Thompson

Introduction Why did we chose this project? Why did we chose this project? What can this survey tell us? What can this survey tell us? What future benefits would come out of this survey? What future benefits would come out of this survey?

Question to be explored What is the percentage of faculties in CMU that is using web materials to support teaching What is the percentage of faculties in CMU that is using web materials to support teaching How is the materials distributed online How is the materials distributed online Do the faculties find online materials helpful / harmful Do the faculties find online materials helpful / harmful

Outcome prediction More than half of the faculties in CMU is using online materials for their courses More than half of the faculties in CMU is using online materials for their courses Online materials are considered helpful by the faculties Online materials are considered helpful by the faculties More faculties will provide online course materials to their students in the future More faculties will provide online course materials to their students in the future

Project design + web based survey supported by personal interview follow ups + web based survey supported by personal interview follow ups Reason: Reason: All faculties in CMU has an address, and free internet access in school All faculties in CMU has an address, and free internet access in school Personal follow up of the non-response ensures high response rate Personal follow up of the non-response ensures high response rate

Sampling Target population Target population All teaching faculties in CMU All teaching faculties in CMU Sampling frame Sampling frame All faculties listed in CMU directory All faculties listed in CMU directory Sampled population Sampled population Proportional stratified by college Proportional stratified by college

Sample assembly We built a list of Andrew user IDs We built a list of Andrew user IDs Filtered out students and administration Filtered out students and administration Pulled proportionally stratified sample from faculty Pulled proportionally stratified sample from faculty Target size: 250; final sample 252 Target size: 250; final sample 252 Later learned Philosophy Department was accidentally left out, added 13 samples. Later learned Philosophy Department was accidentally left out, added 13 samples. Generated random IDs Generated random IDs

Questionnaire Design 20 questions total 20 questions total Yes / No questions + Multiple choice Yes / No questions + Multiple choice For “other” or “unsure”, additional information is collected in form of open ended questions For “other” or “unsure”, additional information is collected in form of open ended questions Goal: get as much related information as possible Goal: get as much related information as possible

Pilot Testing First to non-professors (to check for clarity) First to non-professors (to check for clarity) Then to a few professors across the university (to check for content) Then to a few professors across the university (to check for content)

Pilot Testing Results Simplify certain questions/instructions. Simplify certain questions/instructions. Create an “Other” option for specific questions Create an “Other” option for specific questions

Sample Contact Initially send with link to survey web page to 265 subjects Initially send with link to survey web page to 265 subjects Confidentiality is stressed. Each subject answer the survey with assigned random ID number Confidentiality is stressed. Each subject answer the survey with assigned random ID number

Sample Contact (Cont.) 1 st round follow up by , 2 days after initial 1 st round follow up by , 2 days after initial 2 nd round follow up by , 3 days after 1 st round follow up 2 nd round follow up by , 3 days after 1 st round follow up Personal interview for non-response follow up as final attempt Personal interview for non-response follow up as final attempt

Response Rate By April , 72 replies: By April , 72 replies: April 18 th : 18 replies (Initial ) April 18 th : 18 replies (Initial ) April 19 th : 8 replies April 19 th : 8 replies April 20 th : 7 replies April 20 th : 7 replies April 21 st : 18 replies (1 st follow up) April 21 st : 18 replies (1 st follow up) April 22 nd : 8 replies April 22 nd : 8 replies April 23 rd : 7 replies April 23 rd : 7 replies Response Rate: 29% (72/250) Response Rate: 29% (72/250)

Descriptive Statistics Background information (72 responses): Background information (72 responses): Gender: Gender: 51 male (77.3%) 51 male (77.3%) 15 female (22.7%) 15 female (22.7%) Age: Age: (7.6%) (7.6%) (27.3%) (27.3%) (36.4%) (36.4%) (13.6%) (13.6%) >6010 (15.2%) >6010 (15.2%)

Descriptive Statistics Background information (72 responses): Background information (72 responses): Title Title Professor:21 (31.8%) Professor:21 (31.8%) Assistant Professor:16 (24.2%) Assistant Professor:16 (24.2%) Associate Professor: 7 (10.6%) Associate Professor: 7 (10.6%) (Senior) Lecturer :8 (11.1%) (Senior) Lecturer :8 (11.1%) Research Faculty:5 (7.6%) Research Faculty:5 (7.6%) Visiting Faculty:4 (6.1%) Visiting Faculty:4 (6.1%)

Descriptive Statistics Background information (72 responses): Background information (72 responses): Years teaching: Years teaching: > 2017 (26.2%) > 2017 (26.2%) (10.8%) (10.8%) (13.9%) (13.9%) (18.5%) (18.5%) (24.6%) (24.6%) < 13 (4.6%) < 13 (4.6%) Don’t teach1 (1.5%) Don’t teach1 (1.5%)

Descriptive Statistics Background information (72 responses): Background information (72 responses): Years teaching in CMU: Years teaching in CMU: >20 9 (13.7%) >20 9 (13.7%) (9.1%) (9.1%) (12.1%) (12.1%) (16.7%) (16.7%) (40.4%) (40.4%) <19 (13.7%) <19 (13.7%) Don’t teach at CMU3 (4.6%) Don’t teach at CMU3 (4.6%)

Descriptive Statistics Background information (72 responses): Background information (72 responses): 63 (95.5%) respondents have computer at home 63 (95.5%) respondents have computer at home 60 (91.0%) respondents have internet connection at home 60 (91.0%) respondents have internet connection at home Connection type: Connection type: Dial up modem42 (63.6%) Dial up modem42 (63.6%) DSL20 (30.3%) DSL20 (30.3%) Cable3 (4.6%) Cable3 (4.6%) Not sure1 (1.5%) Not sure1 (1.5%)

Descriptive Statistics 51 respondent are teaching in CMU during the current Academic Year 51 respondent are teaching in CMU during the current Academic Year Method of class handout distribution Method of class handout distribution Online + in class hand out 30 (36.59%) Online + in class hand out 30 (36.59%) In class only24 (29.3%) In class only24 (29.3%) Online only18 (22.0%) Online only18 (22.0%) Library reserve3 (4.2%) Library reserve3 (4.2%) No handout2 (2.4%) No handout2 (2.4%)

Descriptive Statistics 38 respondents (65.5% who teaches this year) have course web page (web site) for this Academic Year. 38 respondents (65.5% who teaches this year) have course web page (web site) for this Academic Year. Reason not to have course web page (web site) Reason not to have course web page (web site) No need for net10 (35.7%) No need for net10 (35.7%) Don’t know how4 (14.3%) Don’t know how4 (14.3%) Too much work2 (7.1%) Too much work2 (7.1%)

Descriptive Statistics Course web page (web site) location Course web page (web site) location Own home page:48 (82.8%) Own home page:48 (82.8%) Black Board:11 (19.0%) Black Board:11 (19.0%) Andrew course:7 (10.6%) Andrew course:7 (10.6%)

Descriptive Statistics Content of web page (web site) Content of web page (web site) Syllabus / Policy38 (65.5%) Syllabus / Policy38 (65.5%) Lecture note29 (50.0%) Lecture note29 (50.0%) Class handout35 (60.3%) Class handout35 (60.3%) Homework assignment36 (62.1%) Homework assignment36 (62.1%) Assignment solutions27 (46.6%) Assignment solutions27 (46.6%) Past exam / solutions18 (31.0%) Past exam / solutions18 (31.0%) Additional material / link32 (55.2%) Additional material / link32 (55.2%) Q&A / course discussion10 (17.2%) Q&A / course discussion10 (17.2%)

Descriptive Statistics Helpfulness vs. Harmfulness Helpfulness vs. Harmfulness Most helpful30 (66.7%) Most helpful30 (66.7%) Somewhat helpful10 (22.2%) Somewhat helpful10 (22.2%) Indifferent5 (11.1%) Indifferent5 (11.1%) No negative / harmful opinion yet No negative / harmful opinion yet

Descriptive Statistics Future usage of course web pages Future usage of course web pages 40 respondent are planning on using course web pages next year 40 respondent are planning on using course web pages next year 21 are not going to use course web pages 21 are not going to use course web pages 5 are not sure about the decision 5 are not sure about the decision Location of future course web pages Location of future course web pages Own home page:43 (65.2%) Own home page:43 (65.2%) Black Board:13 (19.7%) Black Board:13 (19.7%) Andrew Course:10 (15.2%) Andrew Course:10 (15.2%)

Descriptive Statistics Additional information gathered by using online survey Additional information gathered by using online survey Respondent net location Respondent net location Unresolved55 (83.3%) Unresolved55 (83.3%) Commercial4 (6.1%) Commercial4 (6.1%) Educational 3 (4.6%) Educational 3 (4.6%) Network2 (3.0%) Network2 (3.0%) Old Style Arpanet1 (1.5%) Old Style Arpanet1 (1.5%) Israel1 (1.5%) Israel1 (1.5%)

Descriptive Statistics Additional information gathered by using online survey Additional information gathered by using online survey Respondent OS type Respondent OS type Windows (13.6%) Windows (13.6%) Windows NT9 (13.6%) Windows NT9 (13.6%) Windows 9812 (18.2%) Windows 9812 (18.2%) Windows 95 3 (4.6%) Windows 95 3 (4.6%) PowerPC10 (15.2%) PowerPC10 (15.2%) Macintosh14 (21.2%) Macintosh14 (21.2%) Linux6 (9.1%) Linux6 (9.1%) SunOS1 (1.5%) SunOS1 (1.5%) Unknown2 (3.0%) Unknown2 (3.0%)

Descriptive Statistics Additional information gathered by using online survey Additional information gathered by using online survey Respondent browser type Respondent browser type Netscape 5.x3 (4.5%) Netscape 5.x3 (4.5%) Netscape 4.x32 (48.5%) Netscape 4.x32 (48.5%) Netscape 3.x1 (1.5%) Netscape 3.x1 (1.5%) IE Explorer 5.x22 (33.3%) IE Explorer 5.x22 (33.3%) IE Explorer 4.x5 (7.6%) IE Explorer 4.x5 (7.6%) IE Explorer 3.x2 (3.0%) IE Explorer 3.x2 (3.0%)

Summary Of Data 65% teaching faculties using online materials for the course 65% teaching faculties using online materials for the course 89% faculties find course web pages very helpful or somewhat helpful 89% faculties find course web pages very helpful or somewhat helpful No faculties think online course materials are harmful No faculties think online course materials are harmful More faculties plan on putting course materials online in the future More faculties plan on putting course materials online in the future

Statistical Analysis Need more data to do further analysis Need more data to do further analysis

Known Problems Should have put lecturer in the Title list Should have put lecturer in the Title list

Questions?