1 / 32

CMU Faculties’ Opinion About Online Course Materials

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?

shepry
Download Presentation

CMU Faculties’ Opinion About Online Course Materials

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. 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.

  2. CMU Faculties’ Opinion About Online Course Materials 36-203 Group 6 Yi Niu, Maisha O’Neal, Ethan Tira-Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. Response Rate • By April 23 2001, 72 replies: • April 18th: 18 replies (Initial email) • April 19th: 8 replies • April 20th: 7 replies • April 21st: 18 replies (1st follow up) • April 22nd: 8 replies • April 23rd: 7 replies • Response Rate: 29% (72/250)

  15. Descriptive Statistics • Background information (72 responses): • Gender: • 51 male (77.3%) • 15 female (22.7%) • Age: • 20-30 5 (7.6%) • 31-40 18 (27.3%) • 41-50 24 (36.4%) • 51-60 9 (13.6%) • >60 10 (15.2%)

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

  17. Descriptive Statistics • Background information (72 responses): • Years teaching: • > 20 17 (26.2%) • 16 - 20 7 (10.8%) • 11 - 15 9 (13.9%) • 6 - 11 12 (18.5%) • 1 - 5 16 (24.6%) • < 1 3 (4.6%) • Don’t teach 1 (1.5%)

  18. Descriptive Statistics • Background information (72 responses): • Years teaching in CMU: • >20 9 (13.7%) • 16-20 6 (9.1%) • 11-15 8 (12.1%) • 6-10 11 (16.7%) • 1-5 20 (40.4%) • <1 9 (13.7%) • Don’t teach at CMU 3 (4.6%)

  19. Descriptive Statistics • Background information (72 responses): • 63 (95.5%) respondents have computer at home • 60 (91.0%) respondents have internet connection at home • Connection type: • Dial up modem 42 (63.6%) • DSL 20 (30.3%) • Cable 3 (4.6%) • Not sure 1 (1.5%)

  20. Descriptive Statistics • 51 respondent are teaching in CMU during the current Academic Year • Method of class handout distribution • Online + in class hand out 30 (36.59%) • In class only 24 (29.3%) • Online only 18 (22.0%) • Library reserve 3 (4.2%) • No handout 2 (2.4%)

  21. Descriptive Statistics • 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) • No need for net 10 (35.7%) • Don’t know how 4 (14.3%) • Too much work 2 (7.1%)

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

  23. Descriptive Statistics • Content of web page (web site) • Syllabus / Policy 38 (65.5%) • Lecture note 29 (50.0%) • Class handout 35 (60.3%) • Homework assignment 36 (62.1%) • Assignment solutions 27 (46.6%) • Past exam / solutions 18 (31.0%) • Additional material / link 32 (55.2%) • Q&A / course discussion 10 (17.2%)

  24. Descriptive Statistics • Helpfulness vs. Harmfulness • Most helpful 30 (66.7%) • Somewhat helpful 10 (22.2%) • Indifferent 5 (11.1%) • No negative / harmful opinion yet

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

  26. Descriptive Statistics • Additional information gathered by using online survey • Respondent net location • Unresolved 55 (83.3%) • Commercial 4 (6.1%) • Educational 3 (4.6%) • Network 2 (3.0%) • Old Style Arpanet 1 (1.5%) • Israel 1 (1.5%)

  27. Descriptive Statistics • Additional information gathered by using online survey • Respondent OS type • Windows 2000 9 (13.6%) • Windows NT 9 (13.6%) • Windows 98 12 (18.2%) • Windows 95 3 (4.6%) • PowerPC 10 (15.2%) • Macintosh 14 (21.2%) • Linux 6 (9.1%) • SunOS 1 (1.5%) • Unknown 2 (3.0%)

  28. Descriptive Statistics • Additional information gathered by using online survey • Respondent browser type • Netscape 5.x 3 (4.5%) • Netscape 4.x 32 (48.5%) • Netscape 3.x 1 (1.5%) • IE Explorer 5.x 22 (33.3%) • IE Explorer 4.x 5 (7.6%) • IE Explorer 3.x 2 (3.0%)

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

  30. Statistical Analysis • Need more data to do further analysis

  31. Known Problems • Should have put lecturer in the Title list

  32. Questions?

More Related