Two Case Studies in One
“A Case Study in Integrating the Best Practices of Face-to-Face Art History and Online Teaching “
Dr. Kelly Donahue-Wallace and Dr. Jacqueline Chanda
Originally published in Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning 7:1 (2005).
Reprinted in Formamente: Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca sul Futuro Digitale (Universita Telematica Guglielmo Marconi, Italy) 1:1-2 (2006) Pp. 95-106.
(posted to https://unt.academia.edu/KellyDonahueWallace)
Common Assertions in Teaching Presentations
• The students learned/retained more/better.
• The students were more engaged or got a lot out of the experience.
Case Study #1
Start with relevant educational theory:
Nelson, R. (2000). "The Slide Lecture, or The Work of Art History in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Critical Inquiry 26, 414-434.
Case Study #1
• Design the study:• Studying the effectiveness of three instructional models:
• Lecture
• Blended: face-to-face lecture plus reinforcement with an online learning object
• Online only: online text plus reinforcement with an online learning object
Case Study #1
• Research question:• Which instructional model helps students learn the
content better?• Correctness of answers
• Quality of answers using appropriate terminology
Case Study #1
• Develop the research method• Experimental Data Collection
• Exposing participants to different teaching methods
• Three groups: lecture (control), blended, fully online
• Answered three short essay questions face-to-face (not online)• Quantitative analysis=how many answered correctly
• Content Analysis• Assessing their learning through content analysis of
answers to questions.• Quantitative analysis=how many relevant terms they
employed
Case Study #1
• Answering constructed questions• Correctly identify what a mihrab niche is?
• Correctly explain the typical parts of a mosque?
• Correctly explain the role of a minaret?
Case Study #1
• What did we do?• We scored the answers overall as either
correct or incorrect.
• Correct= correctly identifying the object, parts of the plan, function.
Case Study #1: Correctness of Answers Results
Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-Face/Online learning object group
Totally Online Group
Mihrab Niche 83% 83% 100%
Plan of Mosque 83% 100% 83%
Role of Minaret 66% 100% 100%
77% 94% 94%
Case Study #1
• Content Analysis to Assess Quality of Answers• Looking at use of terms.
• For each answer, identified 3 relevant terms that a quality answer would include.
• Created coding scheme for the data = identified relevant terms and acceptable alternatives.
• Examples of codes: • Mihrab, niche in qibla wall
• Qibla wall, wall facing Mecca
• Plan, map, floorplan
• Tower, spire, elevated structure
Case Study #1
• Content Analysis of Data to Assess Quality• What did we do?
• Counted codes (terms) in answers.
• Tallied frequency.
• Did not count other relevant terms since they were not in our coding scheme.
Case Study #1: Quality of Answers Results
Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-face/Online Totally Online
Mihrab Niche 11 6 13
Mosque Plan 12 18 13
Role of Minaret 9 15 12
59% 72% 70%
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Assessing student perception of interactive learning objects in an online art appreciation course.• Streaming videos demonstrating art-making
processes
• Flash animations• Types:
• Self-directed creation of objects
• Drag-and-drop self-assessments
• Game-like self-assessments
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Research Questions• Which types of interactive learning objects did
online students like?
• How did online students perceive the impact of interactive learning objects on their learning?
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Research Method• Questionnaire=qualitative and quantitative
• Open for 5 days online
• Voluntary participation
• 46 of 167 students who logged in during the 5 days participated
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Questionnaire• Did they prefer video or Flash learning objects?
• Multiple choice
• Which types of Flash learning objects did they like?• Multiple choice
• Did they believe the learning objects impacted their learning?• Multiple choice
• How did they feel about the learning objects?• Constructed, open-ended question
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Results (Quantitative)• Response to whether they believed that the
learning objects contributed to their learning experience: 70% yes
• Response to which type of learning object students preferred: 51% videos, 45% Flash animations
• Response to which type of Flash learning object students preferred: majority preferred self-directed creative exercise.
Case Study #2: Perceptions
• Results (Qualitative)• Responses to open-ended question of how
students felt about learning objects: • Unexpected recognition of how the interactive
components improved learning because they catered to multiple types of learners.
• Positive responses to being allowed to self-direct.
• Positive responses to instructor’s effort to include these in the course.
Case Study #1 and #2
• Discussion and implications/conclusions:• What do the results show? What conclusions can be drawn?
• Students do learn online. (#1)
• Students learn a bit more when online and face-to-face combined (blended). (#1)
• Students perceive interactive learning objects to be effective in their learning. (#2)
• Student appreciate the presence of learning objects for showing interest in their learning. (#2)
• How can this study impact the broader field?• Recommendations for actions/changes.
• Further research recommendations.