1. 1 A Comparison of Traditional, Videoconference-based, and Web-based Learning Environments A Dissertation Proposal by Ming Mu Kuo

2. 2 Proposal Format I.Purpose of Study II.Research Questions III.Significance of the Study IV.Review of Literature V.Research Design

3. 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. 4 II. Quantitative Research Questions What are the differences in (student satisfaction 1, peer relationships 2 ) among traditional, videoconference- based, and web-based learning environments?

5. 5 Qualitative Research Questions What are the differences in (faculty motivation 3, faculty load 4, faculty promotion & tenure 5 ) among traditional, videoconference-based, and web-based learning environments?

6. 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. 7 Significance of the Study (cont..) Encourage more faculty members teaching at the distance learning environments.

8. 8 IV. Review of Literature 1.Learning Environments Traditional Videoconference-based Web-based

9. 9 Review of Literature (cont..) 2.Student Satisfaction Technology Interaction Motivation to Enroll Experience as predictors

10. 10 Review of Literature (cont..) 3.Factors Related to Faculty Members Motivation and Incentives Faculty Load Promotion and Tenure

11. 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. 12 Learning Environments (cont..) Traditional major advantage: Face-to-face interaction, immediate feedback, social contact …. Distance: isolation and loneliness (Long et al., 1999).

13. 13 Learning Environments (cont..) Videoconferencing: More channels of communication than other forms of distance education Technological problems, camera skills

14. 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. 15 Student Satisfaction Many previous studies showed: No significant effectiveness difference among the different distance delivery methods and traditional learning environment

16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 24 Population (cont..) Quantitative Graduate students: Web-based course: Web group Videoconference (in campus): Traditional group Videoconference (remote site): Videoconferencing group Qualitative Faculty members : Teaching the web-based or videoconference- based courses

25. 25 Instrumentation Quantitative: On-line survey with 23 items that examined technology issues, peer interaction, and overall experience On-line survey 5 point Likert scale Qualitative Interviews will be conducted to identify faculty motivation, load, and promotion. 10 questions email interview

26. 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. 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. 28 Data Analysis- Quantitative Survey A two-way contingency table analysis Person Chi-Square significance level: 0.05 TraditionalVideoconferenceWeb-Base Questionnaire 1 ………… Questionnaire 23

29. 29 Data Analysis- Qualitative Interview Qualitative Interview Coding and recoding Member checks peer debriefing

30. 30 A Comparison of Traditional, Videoconference-based, and Web-based Learning Environments A Dissertation Proposal by Ming Mu Kuo