Washington, District of Columbia
June 23, 1996
June 23, 1996
June 26, 1996
1.206.1 - 1.206.8
Evaluation of Experimental Course Formats Utilizing Technology-Based Instructional Delivery
David G. Meyer, Sudeep Bhoja, Ku-Jei King, and Krish Bandaru School of Electrical & Computer Engineering/Purdue University
This paper describes our experiences using a testbed instructional multimedia delivery system in experi- mental offerings of a "mainstream" computer engineering course. The experimental course formats were designed to investigate how use of technology-based instructional delivery impacts student performance and perceptions. Data from exit surveys, course and instructor evaluations, performance on similar exams, and stu- dent comments are presented to document the results obtained.
We’ve all heard the hype about how the "information superhighway" will affect the future of education, at all levels. An example to this effect follows: "Ultimately, network access will provide students with instant access to virtually any research document currently published, as well as a convenient mechanism for colla- borating with each other on major projects. Additionally, computer-based conferencing will remove the con- straints of classroom attendance, allowing students to view lectures from their computer terminals. And, in a two-way, interactive format, they’ll still be able to pose questions to the lecturer and interact with the lecturer’s data and information in real time."1
Many questions, however, remain — such as: What curriculum changes need to be made in order to effectively utilize technology-based instructional delivery? How well can students adapt their learning style to such an environment? How does technology-based instructional delivery impact academic performance — does it hinder or help students learn? What impact does technology-based instructional delivery have on stu- dents’ perceptions of the course and the instructor? What are the advantages and disadvantages of technology- based instructional delivery, and how can the perceived disadvantages be addressed?
To help answer these questions, several different experiment course formats were designed for one of our "mainstream" computer engineering courses, EE362 Microprocessor Systems and Interfacing — a course required on all Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering plans of study. The experiments were run during the 1994 and 1995 Summer Sessions with class sizes ranging from 40-50 students. A "regular semester" experimental division was also run during the Fall 1994 Session; another is currently in progress as of this writ- ing (Spring 1996 Session). This paper begins with a brief discussion of learning styles in the context of technology-based delivery, followed by a brief overview of the VideoJockey Multimedia Delivery System. The experimental course format is then described along with the results obtained. Included in the results section are data on exam performance and class GPA, course and instructor evaluation data, exit survey data that assess various features of the experimental course format, and student comments. This paper concludes with a brief synopsis of future goals, along with some suggestions for those wishing to try similar experiments.
Bhoja, S., & King, K., & Bandaru, K., & Meyer, D. G. (1996, June), Evaluation Of Experimental Course Formats Utilizing Technology Based Instructional Delivery Paper presented at 1996 Annual Conference, Washington, District of Columbia. https://peer.asee.org/6043
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 1996 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015