1 A Course on Multimedia QoS Networking: Transition to Hybrid Offering and Comparative Evaluation Martin Reisslein, Jana Reisslein, and Patrick Seeling Arizona State University

2 Multimedia QoS Networking Course Development Companion paper: Development and Assessment of on-campus course offering Balanced instruction in fundamental principles and current developments Course structure: 40% lecture, 30% topic exploration presentations, 30% paper critique discussions

3 Transition to Hybrid Offering Fall ’03 on campus offering Fall ’04 hybrid on-campus/distance learning offering Hybrid Offering Class in on-campus studio classroom Captured on video Web-based video streaming (asynchronous) to distance learners

4 Challenges/Approaches in Transition Lecture Component Standard delivery via video web streaming Student questions via , discussion board Topic Exploration In class mode: student presentation, instructor-led follow-up discussion, review set (quiz) in classroom Distance mode: presentation, discussion via asynchronous/synchronous communication on class website

5 Transition Challenge: Paper Critique Discussion Paper critique components 1. Summary of paper 2. Contributions to state-of-the-art 3. Strengths of paper 4. Weaknesses of paper 5. 3 addl. Refs. Paper could/should have cited + justification Class discussion: aligned with critique structure, 30% of class contact time, highly interactive

6 Paper Discussion Approaches 1/2 Face-to-face Discussion Discussion in classroom Distance learner limited to watching discussion Asynchronous Discussion Board All students discuss via asynch. postings Small group size 5-8 students Basis: aggregate critique compiled from individual student critiques Management: student moderator

7 Paper Discussion Approaches 2/2 Asynchronous Discussion Board, cont’d Types of discussion: topical discussion (discussion question related to contribution/benefits/drawbacks), and taking- sides discussion (two camps, one in favor, one opposed to specific approach/scheme) Posting providing original answer/viewpoint or follow-up on earlier posting Live Chat Similar to face-to-face discussion, but via synchronous live chat facility

8 Evaluations Comparative Evaluation: 1. Fall 2003, on-campus, 8 students 2. Fall 2004, hybrid, 12 students Course Survey 5-point Likert scale strongly agree = 5, strongly disagree = 1 Also, official school course survey, student interviews, evaluation of student work

9 Overall Course Same tendencies: 1. Preferred course activities: Lecture, topic exploration, paper critique discussion 2. Delivery mode: traditional face-to-face meetings with complementary online readings/assignments Course workload: M = 1.0 for on-campus offering, M = 1.27 for hybrid offering => perceived workload higher due to on-line class activities

10 Comparative Evaluation of Different Forms of Paper Discussion: Effectiveness Assessed with 5 survey items E.g., “The discussions in the instructional format were worthwhile” Face-to-face, M = 4.29 Asynchronous disc. Board, M = 3.95 Live chat, M = 3.66

11 Comparative Evaluation: Instructor Instructor, assessed with 5 items E.g., “The instructor was supportive in this instructional format” Face-to-face, M = 4.68 Asynch. discussion board, M = 3.91 Live chat, M = 4.40 => preference for immediacy of instructor feedback in face-to-face/live chat => instructor perceived as less supportive with common delays in asynch. board

12 Comparative Evaluation: Peers Assessed with 5 items E.g., “My peers were helpful in my learning in this instructional format” Face-to-face, M = 4.00, ease of aural communication, helpful visual cues Asynch. discussion board, M = 4.07, substantial, well-thought-out contributions Live chat, M = 3.68, short messages, less coordinated, multiple thought threads

13 Open-Ended Comments From N = 11 Students Improvements for face-to-face discussions Discussion very good, 3 More moderation, 2 Improvements for asynch. discussions Increase frequency of postings/ participation, 3 Increase timeliness of moderation/ instructor feedback, 2 Improvements for live chat Focus on a specific question, 2 More moderation, 1

14 Conclusion Transition of multimedia networking course to hybrid on-campus/ distance learning format 30% of class time for highly interactive discussions, common to seminar-style courses Compared face-to-face, asynch. board, and live chat discussions Asynch. board more effective for learning/ peer interaction than live chat Face-to-face effective, but limits distance learners Trade-offs in seminar-style interactive hybrid courses: immediacy of interactions in live chat vs. contemplated exchanges in asynch. board