Graduate Student Satisfaction with an Online Discrete Mathematics Course

1
Graduate Student Satisfaction with an Online
Discrete Mathematics Course

• Amber Settle, CTI, DePaul University
• joint work with Chad Settle, University of Tulsa
• CCSCMW
• September 24, 2005

2
Satisfaction with distance learning

• Distance learning is popular with CTI students
• There are 8 M.S. and 1 M.A. degree online (from
  10 M.S., 1 M.A., and multiple joint degrees)
• Distance learning students are 21 of the student
  population
• It has been asserted that while outcomes are
  similar in DL and traditional classes, DL classes
  are less satisfying to students (Carr 2000)
• Is DL less satisfying for CTI students? If so,
  how?

3
The test case

• The course
• CSC 415 Foundations of Computer Science
• Discrete mathematics including propositional and
  predicate logic, proofs by induction, basic
  algorithms, asymptotic analysis, recurrence
  relations, graph theory
• 9 sections between Fall 2001 and Fall 2003
• The format
• Traditional (3 sections)
• Sibling DL Runs parallel to a traditional class
  entire classroom interaction is recorded
  automatically (2 sections)
• Pre-recorded DL High production quality
  independent of any live class broken into five
  modules (4 sections)

4
Course evaluations

• Conducted every quarter for every CTI course
• Mandatory for all students
• Online using secure login anonymous
• Completed during the 8th and 9th week of 10 week
  quarter
• Results are withheld from instructor until grades
  are submitted results are then published on the
  CTI web site
• Consists of 22 multiple choice questions
• 10 questions about course-related factors 12
  questions about instructor-related factors
• Ratings on a scale from 0 to 10 a higher number
  indicates greater satisfaction 0 indicates the
  question is not applicable

5
Statistical analysis

• Ordinary least squares regression
• X2i 0 for traditional, X2i 1 for DL
• If ?2 is statistically different from 0, it
  indicates a difference in how DL students view
  the course vs traditional students
• Total of 100 data points
• 80 traditional students
• 20 pre-recorded DL students
• Scores of 0 (not applicable) were dropped from
  each question

• Qi ?0 ?1 X1i ?2X2i ui

Time
DL
Error
Question i
Constant
6
Course-related questions

1. Was this course well organized?
2. Do you feel the course objectives were
   accomplished?
3. The amount of work you performed outside of this
   course was
4. How difficult was this course material?
5. The textbook for this course was
6. Supplementary reading for this course was
7. The assignments for this course were
8. What is your overall estimate of this course?
9. How valuable was this course in terms in your
   technical development?
10. Would you recommend this course to another
    student?

7
Course-related results
Question Time DL Question Time DL
Q-CR1 -0.164 (0.075) 0.200 (0.393) Q-CR6 0.046 (0.164) 0.302 (0.910)
Q-CR2 -0.120 (0.079) -0.023 (0.416) Q-CR7 -0.071 (0.101) 0.237 (0.533)
Q-CR3 0.064 (0.086) 0.221 (0.460) Q-CR8 -0.179 (0.089) 0.594 (0.467)
Q-CR4 0.305 (0.102) -0.549 (0.530) Q-CR9 -0.199 (0.110) 0.620 (0.573)
Q-CR5 0.185 (0.144) -0.261 (0.758) Q-CR10 -0.202 (0.092) 0.067 (0.486)
Coefficient estimates are presented with standard
errors in parentheses. Statistically significant
at the 10 level of a two-tailed
test. Statistically significant at the 5 level
on a two-tailed test. Statistically
significant at the 1 level of a two-tailed test.
8
Instructor-related questions

1. How would you characterize the instructors
   knowledge of this subject?
2. How would you characterize the instructors
   ability to present and explain the material?
3. Does the instructor motivate student interest in
   the subject?
4. How well does the instructor relate the course
   material to other fields?
5. Did the instructor encourage participation from
   the students?
6. Was the instructor accessible outside of class?

9
Instructor-related questionscontinued

• What was the instructors attitude? How did
  he/she deal with you?
• How well did the instructor conduct, plan, and
  organize classes?
• Were the instructors teaching methods effective?
• How fair was the grading of the homework and
  exams of this course?
• Would you take this instructor for another
  course?
• Rate the teaching effectiveness of this
  instructor as compared to other faculty in the
  department.

10
Instructor-related results
Question Time DL Question Time DL
Q-IR1 -0.010 (0.072) 0.065 (0.379) Q-IR7 -0.115 (0.084) 0.013 (0.437)
Q-IR2 -0.069 (0.069) -0.029 (0.360) Q-IR8 -0.110 (0.084) 0.042 (0.442)
Q-IR3 -0.194 (0.083) -0.016 (0.437) Q-IR9 -0.181 (0.088) 0.570 (0.454)
Q-IR4 -0.189 (0.098) 0.043 (0.515) Q-IR10 0.010 (0.087) 0.304 (0.451)
Q-IR5 -0.267 (0.102) 0.481 (0.654) Q-IR11 -0.096 (0.089) 0.411 (0.461)
Q-IR6 -0.053 (0.090) -0.183 (0.468) Q-IR12 -0.114 (0.082) 0.268 (0.443)
Coefficient estimates are presented with standard
errors in parentheses. Statistically significant
at the 10 level on a two-tailed test.
Statistically significant at the 5 level on a
two-tailed test.
11
Summary of results

• Similarities in evaluations Overall scores
• None of the coefficients for instructor-related
  or course-related questions were significantly
  different from 0 for DL sections
• Differences in evaluations Not applicable
  response rate
• Q-IR5 (Encourage participation)
• DL 60
• Traditional 6
• Q-IR12 (Teaching effectiveness)
• DL 15
• Traditional 2.5

12
Conclusions and future work

• Potential explanations for results
• Pre-recorded DL is better organized which
  compensates for the lack of interaction (Swan
  2001)
• DL students are not watching the recordings
• Small DL sample size
• Second study with Java I and II courses
• Larger data set
• Course-related differences DL students feel the
  class is less organized and that course
  objectives were not accomplished as well
• Instructor-related differences Nine out of
  twelve questions were statistically different
  from zero for DL students

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16

• Back