Master’s Thesis

Effectiveness of e-Learning materials in institutions of higher learning: Casestudy of Domasi College of Education in Malawi.

Master’s Program
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University, Japan.

107g8819
Robert Chagwamtsoka Kalima

Supervisor: Dr. Yoshiko Goda (Associate Professor)

Date: January, 2011

Acknowledgements
The production of this thesis has been made possible due to tireless and constructive
advice from Dr. C. Kadzera and Dr. W. Kalande of Domasi College of Education in
Malawi who were the expert reviewers to my experimental instructional contents. Special
gratitude should also go to the principal and deputy principal of Domasi College of
Education in Malawi for the material support towards my research activities. Special
thanks should also go to the Distance Education Center technical staff of Domasi Collegeof Education for the printing of paper based instructional materials and the questionnaires.
Thanks should also go to Mr. W. Soko of Domasi College of Education library for
rendering a hand on orientation to the research participants in basic ICT skills.
Special thanks should also go to my supervisor Associate Professor Yoshiko Goda forthe research advice throughout the entire research period. In addition, thanks toProfessor Katsuaki Suzuki, Professor Hiroshi Nakano, Professor Toshihiro Kita andAssociate Professor Junko Nemoto for their constructive advice and probing questions
throughout the development period of my instructional materials and the research
proposal.
Thanks should also go to JICA Okinawa for the financial assistance towards mystudies. Special thanks also to Dr. Tomoaki Tokumura for the superb technicalassistance throughout the entire course duration and not forgetting Keiko Unaka of
Kumamoto University for the online learning support services.
Finally special thanks to all members of staff (academic and administrative) of Domasi
College of Education for the support they rendered throughout the entire research period.
Special thanks should also go to the research participants for being cooperative
throughout the experimental period.

iAbstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of e-Learning
instructional method in distance teacher training at Domasi College of Educationin particular and in Malawi in general. Distance teacher training programs at
Domasi College of Education and in Malawi in general are paper based and has
shown a number of weaknesses such as reduced rate of interactivity between
students and lecturers (instructors), students and content/learning system andamong students themselves. There is also lack of prompt feedback to students’assignments or tasks from lecturers.
A quantitative type of research was conducted. Three hypotheses were set:
(1) Online mode of content delivery in distance education will be more effective
than paper based mode; (2) Online instructional materials will result in increased
interactivity among learners, learners with contents/system and learners withlecturers than paper based instructional materials; (3) Online instructional
materials will result in prompt feedback to learners’ tasks than paper based
instructional materials. Data collection mainly involved pretest and posttest
scores, and observation and interviewing of participants. Questionnaires wereused to get participants’ views. In this research, instructional materials (topics)
from my subject area (Instructional Technology) were used. There were two
versions of instructional materials (paper based and online) covering two topics.
Each topic had both paper based and online versions of instructional materials. A
total of 60 participants (subjects) were invited for the research activities. The
participants were randomly selected from year two diploma distance students
class list. The participants were then randomly assigned into two equal groups of
30 participants per group and each group studied both topics using different
versions (paper based and online).
After randomly selecting the research participants from the class list, invitation
letters were written and sent to the research participants. The research
participants were then invited for the orientation program. During the orientation
program participants were taught basics in ICT skills. They were also oriented to
the researcher’s online and paper based experimental contents after whichusernames and passwords for accessing online instructional contents were
issued to the participants.
The whole experimental period was approximately three (3) weeks. All
participants firstly sat for the pretest for the first topic (ASSURE Model). All
participants wrote paper based pretest regardless of the version (delivery mode)of the topic they were going to study. The participants were then assigned todifferent versions (modes) of the topic for a week to study the contents of the
topic. They then sat for a posttest which was also paper based like the pretest for
both groups of participants. Soon after finishing the posttest, questionnaires were
issued to all participants. The questionnaire had two sections, one for theparticipants who studied the online version (mode) and the other for those who
studied the paper based version (mode).
Then after finishing the first topic or course, participants had to study thesecond topic or course for one (1) week. During the study of the second course,
treatments were changed. Those who studied the online version of the first topic
had to study paper based version of the second topic. Thereafter a pretest for this
topic or course was administered to all participants which was paper based likethe one for the first topic or course. After finishing studying the course, a posttest
for the course followed and then questionnaires for the second course were
issued which were the same as those for the first topic or course.
Pretest and posttest scores for both groups (versions) and topics or courses
were analyzed. T-tests in pretests for both groups were used for checking groupequivalence on prior knowledge. And t-tests on differences between pretests andposttests were also used for checking whether a group that studied online
learned significantly than the other that studied using paper based instructional

iimaterials for both topic 1 and 2, which was hypothesis 1. Questionnaire
responses were analyzed for testing hypotheses 2 (interactions) and hypothesis 3(feedback).
The results of t-test on differences between pretest and posttest for hypothesis
1 showed significant difference between two groups for topic 1 with the paperbased group scoring higher and no significant difference for topic 2 though online
group scored higher than the paper based group. Thus, hypothesis 1 was
rejected. As to hypothesis 2, questionnaire responses showed that the paperbased group claimed slightly higher interactions than the online group for both
topics, thus hypothesis 2 was rejected. The hypothesis 3 was accepted with theonline group scoring higher on feedback than the paper-based group for both
topics 1 and 2.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements(i)Abstract(ii)

Chapter one
Introduction(1)

Chapter two
Literature Review(8)

Chapter three
Procedures(15)

Research design(15)

Research Participants(18)

Operational definition of key terms(19)

Experimental contents(20)

Instruments for data collection(23)

Research scope and limitations(23)

Data analyses

(24)

iv

Chapter fourResults(25)

Chapter five
Discussion of results(52)

Chapter six
Conclusion(56)

References(58)

Appendix(59)v

Chapter one
Introduction:
Study Background
Domasi College of Education as one of teacher training colleges in Malawi, in her
efforts to address the shortage of teachers in Malawi introduced a unique system oftraining teachers through distance in addition to conventional (face to face) mode.
Currently, Domasi College of Education is struggling to expand its capacity, infrastructure,enrolment and territorial reach in the area of distance education. Despite Domasi Collegeof Education’s effort and other teacher training colleges which include the University of
Malawi, Mzuzu University and Catholic University among others, the nation’s shortage ofprimary and secondary school teachers remains unbearable. It is projected that by 2015
there will be a shortfall of over 15,000 teachers required to teach approximately 5 million
primary school learners nationwide. By the same year the projected shortfall of 10,000
teachers to teach 1.6 million secondary school learners is expected.
Founded in 1993 to cure a perceived secondary school teacher shortage nationwide,
Domasi College of Education currently enrols approximately 1480 trainees each year
which include both conventional and distance trainees out of which 705 are distancetrainees. Its annual application pool has exploded form 200 in 1993 to a current figure of
15000 candidates. This indicates that only 9.87% of the application pool is admitted into
the college each year. Despite these achievements by Domasi College of Education, theinstructional materials which are used in distance education are still paper based. In
addition to that these paper based instructional materials limit interactivity between thelearner and the contents, learners and lecturers, and among learners themselves. This
limited interactivity is even made worse with lack of prompt feedback from lecturers tostudent’s tasks or assignments.
Therefore this study aims at exploring at how the use of e-learning instructional
materials in teacher training can improve distance education at Domasi College of1

Education in particular and in Malawi in general in terms of increasing interactivity
between learners and contents, learners and instructors and among learners themselves
and rate of feedback to student tasks and assignments from lecturers (instructors). ARCS
model was used as a motivational model in the areas of lesson introduction, presentationand evaluation. Novel stories were used in the introduction to get the attention of theparticipants. Relevance was reflected in the objectives where the participants wereoriented on what they will be capable of doing after studying the course/material.
Confidence was instilled in participants through quizzes which provided automatic
feedback for the online contents and where answers for quizzes were provided at the endof the material for the paper based instructional material. This also gave a sense ofsatisfaction to the participants.
PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of online and paper
based modes of content delivery in distance education.
Identifying the Research Problem
Currently Domasi College of Education and other institutions of higher education in
Malawi use paper based instructional materials in distance education which lackinteractivity and immediate feedback from instructors to learner’s tasks or assignments.
Online instructional materials enables learners separated by distance to exchange ideas
in group discussions or forums while those studying paper based instructional materials
can only exchange ideas if they are at one place. Learners’ assignments or tasks tolecturers are sent through post offices which take a long time before they are received by
the lecturers and even longer time before the learners get feedback.
Formulating research questions(1) Will online instructional materials result in better learning outcomes than paper based
instructional materials?

2(2) Will online instructional materials result in increased interactivity among learners,
learners with contents/system and learners with lecturers than paper based instructional
materials?
(3) Will online instructional materials result in prompt feedback than paper based
instructional materials?
Research Hypothesis
Distance learning, regardless of the mode of delivery is flexible than face to facelearning. This is the case because with distance learning, you can study at anytime,
anywhere. Realizing the importance of collaboration in distance learning, online mode of
distance learning would be better or effective than paper based mode of distancelearning. In online distance learning, group discussions can occur online through online
discussion boards while discussions for paper based mode of distance education would
require face to face meetings which would be difficult for discussions anytime, anyplace.
Therefore basing on these features of distance learning, the following hypotheses are set.
Three hypotheses reflecting the research questions above:(1) Online mode of content delivery in distance education will result in better learning
outcomes than paper based mode.
(2) Online instructional materials will result in increased interactivity among learners,
learners with contents/system and learners with lecturers than paper based instructional
materials.
(3) Online instructional materials will result in prompt feedback to learners’ tasks thanpaper based instructional materials.
Research Variables:
Pretest and Posttest results for both online and paper based versions of instructional
materials or courses, research questionnaire items, comments from the research
participants.

3

Research Design
Participants were randomly assigned into two groups A and B after which there was aswap of treatments when studying the experimental instructional materials. ARCS model
was used as a motivational model in the areas of lesson introduction, presentation andevaluation. ADDIE Model was used as a guiding framework in the course development
process.
Procedures
Two identical sets of instructional materials (printed and online) were distributed toparticipants. Each participant used both sets of materials after which they were asked
using a questionnaire to judge which material was good or not to them in terms
interactivity with the material and the kind of feedback which they had using the material.
Distance students in the second year of the Distance Education Program of Domasi
College of Education in Malawi were randomly selected to practice using the instructional
materials as research participants. After the participants had used both sets of
instructional materials, they were given questionnaires to evaluate the instructional
materials in terms of interactivity and promptness of feedback. Look at the table 1 below
to see how the experimental contents were administered.
Table 1 Experimental Contents Administration Procedure

Group
Topic

A

B

1

onlinepaper based2

paper based

onlinePaper based pretests were used for both online and paper based versions of theexperimental instructional materials for both topics or courses. The same applied to theposttests. The posttests were administered to see which mode (method) of content

4

delivery in distance education results in better learning outcomes. Two expert reviewers
were used for content validation. Small group formative evaluation was conducted forusability validation of the online experimental contents. Orientation to the participants tomy experimental instructional material was conducted by the contents developer (myself)
and a library assistant who had knowledge in ICT. The participants were then randomly
assigned into two groups A and B as shown above (table 1). The assistant librarian andthe contents developer trained the research participants in basic ICT skills. Each course
or topic was available to students for approximately one week. The contents developer
conducted ICT follow-up in case of technical problems with the online learning system by
the participants. The contents developer was available to answer questions fromparticipants. Pretest was administered at the beginning of each course or topic. Posttest
and questionnaires were administered at the end of each course or topic followed byquestionnaires.
Characteristics of participants
The participants were Domasi College of Education students (teacher-learners)
studying through distance. They are serving secondary school teachers teaching incommunity day secondary schools in Malawi without secondary school teachingqualifications. Initially 60 participants were invited for the research activities out of which
12 were females and 48 were males. The age range of my research participants was 25
years to 45 years according to the enrolment requirements by the college. As pointed out
earlier that they were serving secondary school teachers without secondary school
teaching qualifications, they all had primary school teaching qualifications with aminimum teaching experience of 2 years either in primary school or community day
secondary school. They were also required to have passed Malawi School Certificate
Examinations (MSCE) with strong credits in their teaching subjects. Only three (3) of theparticipants had some or little knowledge in basic ICT skills. Fifty seven (57) participants
had literary no knowledge nor skill in basic ICT skills.
Identifying Data Analysis Procedures

5

Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were used to interpret the data thatwas collected from the participants. Quantitative data was used to test the hypotheses
while the qualitative data was used to explain other emerging issues during the research
activities. Quantitative data was obtained from the participant scores after attempting apretest and posttest before and after studying the experimental contents and from theparticipant questionnaires. Qualitative data was obtained from the questionnaires whichwere being administered to participants upon completion of the study of the contents andwriting of posttests from the section of general comments of the questionnaire. T-Test
was used for data analysis where it was expected that there will be better results for
those studying online as compared to those studying using paper based instructional
materials.
Possible research/study outcomes
The following are the expected research/study outcomes for the research hypotheses:Online mode to be more effective as a method of content delivery than paper
based mode in distance teacher trainingOnline mode to be less effective as a method of content delivery than paper
based mode in distance education trainingOnline mode to be equally effective as paper based mode of content delivery in
distance education training:Online instructional materials to be more interactive than paper based
instructional materials



Online instructional materials to be equally interactive as paper based
instructional materials



Online instructional materials to be less interactive than paper based instructional
materials

6

Online instructional materials to result in prompt feedback than paper based
instructional materials.



Online instructional materials to equally result in prompt feedback as paper based
instructional materials.



Online instructional materials to result in less prompt feedback than paper based
instructional materials.

7Chapter two
Literature Review
Teachers,

instructors

prepareinstructional

materials

without

observingthe

instructional design principles or do prepare such materials and unknowingly incorporatesuch instructional design principles. An instructional material that does not reflect such
instructional design principles is said to be ineffective, inefficient and inhumane. What do
I mean by an ineffective instructional material? This refers to an instructional material that
does not do what it is intended to do. On the other hand inefficient instructional materials
are the ones that do what they are intended to do but not in a right way. Inhumane
instructional material does what it intends to do and in a right way but takes away ahuman aspect of learning. In this research, effectiveness refers to an instructional
material that does the right thing. An instructional material that is used for self-regulated
learning has to be able to do the right thing for it to be effective. The right things which
this instructional material needs to do is to provide prompt feedback in a human like kindof interaction between the learner and itself. The effective instructional material for selfregulated learning should be able to allow learners to interact with each other, with the
instructional material and with the instructor or lecturer.
Self-directed study is not a new phenomenon in Malawi. There has been self-directedstudy particularly at secondary school level right from late 1970s in the form of distanceeducation then called correspondence studies. Since then distance education that has
been offered in Malawi has been paper based. This secondary school distance education
programme or correspondence education gradually died when tutoring centres whichwere used were turned into Malawi Correspondence and Distance Education Centres(MCDEs).
Later in the year 2000 Domasi College of Education introduced distance education
programme for secondary school teachers with funding from Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA). Since then up to now the instructional materials which areused are exclusively paper based which have the problems earlier mentioned.

8

Recently, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) introduced The TeleEducation connectivity that enables 5 African Regional Leading Universities (including
University of Malawi, Chancellor College) to be connected to a Hub through satellite to 53
Remote Virtual Classes distributed in all the 53 countries. Seven universities from India
are connected via IPLC to the Hub located in Africa. India will hosts a Tele-Education
LMS portal comprising the university Tele-Education delivery system software thatincorporates the e-Learning, content management KMS (Knowledge Management
System) and digital library solutions for each university as an integrated package.
This is looked at as a step forward towards the introduction of e-Learning in Malawi.
Recent studies on the possibility of asynchronous e-learning in Malawi has shown that
there is no significant difference in learning achievements between face to face andasynchronous e-Learning delivery modes (Kwerengwe SDA, 2010). The results showthat the asynchronous e-Learning material could enable effective learning and that the
combination of emails and forum facilities could be a fair substitute for face to faceinteraction (Kwerengwe SDA, 2010). From participants’ reactions, it has been noted that
there are many advantages of asynchronous e-Learning such as development of criticalthinking by learners as they learn from each other, learners are given the opportunity tocreate their own knowledge, and development of confidence in the learners that learning
can take place even when there is no teacher(Kwerengwe SDA, 2010) . For a successful
and attractive asynchronous e-Learning instructional material, all the dimensions ofinteractivity should be accommodated. The instructional material should allow for:1. Learner –material interaction: this is possible with the inclusion of quizzes, shorttests and exercises with immediate feedback by the learning system.
2. Learner – learner interaction: forum facilities should be provided for where learners
exchange ideas by reading and commenting on their colleagues’ work.
Learners should be made to see the advantages of learning from one another.
3. Learner – instructor interaction: it is also important to give learners an opportunity tohave their instructor’s feedback on their learning progress. All in all two way
communication should be promoted in asynchronous e-Learning.

9Regionally, University of Botswana which is within SADC region like Malawi has seen
the need for self-regulated e-learning as Stephen M. Mutula, (2002) pointed out that
there are people who are employed and wish to pursue further education at the
University of Botswana, but employers are generally reluctant to release them while they
are still in full time employment. Such people need a flexible model of learning. There are
yet other people with family commitments that wish to study from home, but are notcatered for.
At several places in rural Botswana, digital citizenship and participation is becoming
more and more tangible through an ambitious national development initiative. With theso-called Kitsong Centres, Botswana has mobilised a project for the establishment of
information centres equipped with a broad range of digital services across the country,
including access to local and community information; eGovernment offerings such as
requesting birth certificates, passport applications and school registration; as well as
access to distance learning facilities. At the moment 25 centres are functional – most ofthem in post offices – and an additional 25 centres are being set up.
The notion of e-learning, commonly understood as 'learning facilitated online throughnetwork technologies' (Garrison & Anderson, 2003), has emerged across South African
higher education institutions since the 1990s. As in other national contexts, e-learning
practices appear together with an entirely new vocabulary, institutional policies andstructures, and substantial institutional budgets. E-learning also appears as one of many
ICT-enhanced practices in universities from the provision of e-mail, online journals, andnetworked libraries, to the development of creative software solutions for information
management tasks in teaching, research and all sorts of institutional administrative
systems for online registration, finance, human resources, student performance data,
course evaluations and so on. The new practices have provoked a range of issues
around online pedagogies, patterns of access and of exclusion, increasing ICT costs inthe context of unequal resources and competing institutional priorities, and the relation ofe-learning practices to other institutional interventions seeking to transform the colonial
fabric and cultures of South African higher education institutions. It is therefore useful to10

view ICTs as 'one thread in a complex net of transformation, including historical redress,
curriculum transformation, diversity, equity and so on' (Czerniewicz, Ravjee & Mlitwa,
2006: 43).
Organizationally, the emergence of full-scale 'digital universities', such as the African
Virtual University (Juma, 2003), which involves more than 30 higher education institutions
from 17 African countries, and the increasing use of online learning in contact universities,
are seen to blur the traditional distinctions between distance-mode and contact-mode
institutions (Butcher 2003: 13-19). Butcher suggests that these kinds of 'dual-mode'
institutions are increasing in developing countries. The universities of Stellenbosch andPretoria as two clear examples in South Africa, where the number of 'distance' students
enrolled in traditionally 'contact' institutions increased by almost 500% between 1993 and1999, particularly in the historically Afrikaans language universities (Jansen, 2004: 303).
Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E (2002) pose a question “What makes e-Learning unique?”which they respond to by saying that three potentially valuable instructional methods
unique to e-Learning

are ; practice with automated tailored feedback, integration ofcollaboration with self-study and the use of simulation to accelerate expertise (pp.21).
Roger C. Schank (1995) says that right feedback at the right time helps students
understand and correct their own misconceptions helping them to do things better. On
interactivity, Broadbent, B. (2002) says that interactive learning keeps students energizedand helps participants absorb information and remember it. He says interactive learning
helps students focus. To explain this point further he uses an illustration of how a humanbrain works. He says it works five or six times faster than instructors speak or e-Learning
audio files play. If a classroom instructor , an online instructor , or an e-Learning module
limits the messages to facts , participants whose minds are working five times as fast as
the information is being delivered will start to draw their own conclusions- and perhaps
day-dream about subjects not related to the material being taught.

11

The role of interaction and prompt feedback in self-regulated learning:
Learners need a supportive social context in which they can freely interact with one
another as they engage in their problem solving groups. It is through these interactions
that they accomplish their work and hone important social and critical thinking skills. It isalso hoped that collaborative problem solving will provide learners with experiences thatbuild an intrinsic motivation to learn, inquire, collaborate, and problem solve. This canoften be promoted by building the relevance and ownership that learners feel over theirlearning. It is essential to nurture attitudes and skills that will encourage students to belife-long learners (Nelson, L.M pp. 254-25) in Instructional-Design Theories and Models:
A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Volume II by Charles M. Reigeluth.
Encourage simultaneous interaction where there are multiple active participants
engaged in problem solving tasks (Kagan & Kagan, 1994) in Instructional-Design
Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Volume II by Charles M.
Reigeluth. It is believed that this is the essence of collaborative problem solving. It is
accomplished when each group member is responsible for a task essential to the project
and when the group must work in concert to succeed.
Ensure equal participation so that all learners have an opportunity to contribute (Kagan &Kagan, 1994; Slavin, 1995). This is an indication that online instruction can enable
learners contribute without fear of failure and rebuke by other learners as is the case withthe face to face instruction.
Promote positive interdependence, in that each group member is positively linked withothers in such a way that the individual cannot succeed unless the group does (Johnson& Johnson, 1994; Kagan & Kagan 1994). Require individual accountability wherestudents are held responsible for doing their share of work (Johnson & Johnson, 1994;
Kagan & Kagan, 1994; Slavin, 1995). Brown and Champione (1996) in Reigeluth C.M(1999, p.284) claim that dialogue provides the format for the novice to adopt thediscourse structure, goals, values and belief systems of scientific practice. Overtime thecommunity of learners adopts a common voice and common knowledge base, a shared

12

system of meaning, beliefs, and activity that is as often implicit as it is explicit…. Ideas
are seeded in discussion and migrate throughout the community.
Reigeluth C.M (1999, p.473) says that “In general, feedback is more effective inpromoting learning when it transmits more complete information. In addition, Perkins in
Smart Schools in Reigeluth C.M (1999, p.6) indicate that an instruction should contain inpart thoughtful practice, informative feedback and strong intrinsic or extrinsic motivation if
it is to foster cognitive learning. Considering the fact that self-regulated study is only
possible when a learner is motivated either intrinsically or extrinsically or both, the course
content delivery for the research instructional material was based on Dr. Keller’s
Motivation Model (ARCS Model). ARCS Model is according to Dr. Keller an acronym thatstands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction.
The application of ARCS Model to my instructional material has been adapted from
Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models byCharles M. Reigeluth (1987, p289).
A (Attention): Attention in the instructional material was done through the introduction.
The introduction was done in such a way that it attracted the participants’ attention. Thiswas done by perceptual arousal in which the participants’ attention was gained andmaintained by the use novel stories.
R (Relevance): Relevance of the instructional material was shown in objectives whereparticipants were told what they will be capable of doing after the instruction.
C (Confidence): The confidence was developed by participants after attempting thequizzes and get them right.
S (Satisfaction): Satisfaction was achieved by the right responses the students got to
the quiz questions in a short term and what they could be able to do after the course in
the long run.

13

Designing

Development

Revision
Analysis

Implementation

Evaluation

Figure 1. ADDIE’s Model adapted from e-Learning Fundamentals, (Katsuaki Suzuki,
2004)
This model was based upon throughout the entire development process of theexperimental contents that were used for the research activities. ADDIE is an acronymthat stands for Analysis, Designing, Development, Implementation and Evaluation asshown in figure 1 above.

14

Chapter three
Procedures(a)

Research Design:
The research was designed in such a way that an instructional material consisting of

two topics with two versions (online and paper based) for each topic was developed.
Research participants studied both topics in both online and paper based versions
alternatively. The participants who studied topic 1 online studied paper based version of
topic 2 (group A) and participants who studied paper based version of topic 1 studied
online version of topic 2 (group B). Look at table 2 below.
Table 2 Order of Experimental Instructional Materials Study by Research Participants

Group
Topic

A

B

1

onlinepaper based2

paper based

online

The topics which were used for the development of the experimental contents weretaken from one of the courses from the Faculty of Education in the department ofeducation foundations called Instructional Technology. This is a second year course to
second year diploma students in distance education programme.
(b)Research Participants:
The research participants were students of Domasi College of Education studying

through distance. They were serving secondary school teachers who teach in community
day secondary schools in Malawi without secondary school teaching qualifications. All
participants had primary school teaching qualifications obtained from Teacher Training
Colleges (TTC) in Malawi but were promoted to teach in community day secondary
schools due to teacher shortage in these schools soon after opening these community

15

day secondary schools. They were 60 participants in total out of which 12 were females
representing 20% of the research population and 48 were males representing 80% of theresearch population. The age range of the participants was 25 to 45 years according toDomasi College of Education admission rules. The participants had a minimum of two
years teaching experience either in primary school or community day secondary school
according to the same admission standards of Domasi College of Education. The
participants were the holders of Malawi School Certificate of Education (MSCE) in which
they were required to have at least two strong credits in the subject areas of their
specialization. 57 of the 60 participants representing 95% of the whole research
population were completely computer illiterate. Only 3 of the 60 participants representing
5% of the whole research population had some knowledge and skills in basic ICT skills.
Participants were randomly selected from second year class list of distance learners.
This was done in the third week of September (16/09/2010). The entry test was not
administered to the research participants. All the students were equally legible toparticipate in the research activities since they were all selected into the college to study
by writing an entrance examination and this examination was used as entry test for themto my research activities. The total class size was 285 out of which 60 participants wereselected. 1 participant was randomly selected out of 4 possible participants. 60
participants selected for the research activities were divided into two equal groups of 30
participants each represented as group A and B in the table 2 above. The participants
were also to swap the versions of topics or courses of study after finishing the first topic
as shown in table 2 above.
Thereafter letters were written to research participants informing them of the research
activities which they were to be involved in. The research orientation program was set
and all the 60 participants were written to attend the orientation. An orientation activity
was conducted on 23rd October, 2010. This was three weeks later than initially planned
because students delayed coming to college for residential session due to Malawi
National Examinations Board activities at the college. 50 out of the shortlisted research

16participants attended the orientation program as scheduled. Those who did not attend thefirst orientation session were informed of the next orientation session which was two days
later (25/10/2010) in the evening. During the orientation sessions usernames andpasswords for accessing online research experimental contents were given to theresearch participants.
For the research participants to use the online research contents they had to be
trained in basic ICT skills which was done to the research participants during theorientation exercise. One assistant was hired to help in the teaching of basic ICT skills to
research participants.

Figure 2. Participants being Oriented to Basic ICT Skills

Figure 3. Participants Studying an Online Topic

17

There was high attrition rate of the research participants as the research activities
progressed. This was due to the tight and busy schedule for the participants because
they were supposed to attend to classes during the same research period. Limited
knowledge and skills in basic ICT skills, poor internet connectivity, and frequent powerinterruptions which frustrated the participants were also some of the factors which
contributed to high attrition rate among participants. Out of the 60 participants who wereshortlisted for the research activities 52 participants initially started the research activities
and the number continued to decrease until there were only 29 participants at the end ofresearch activities representing 48.33% which means 31 participants dropped from theinitially 60 shortlisted participants representing an attrition rate of 51.67%. Look at thetables 3 and 4 below.
Participants’ Characteristics
Table 3 Summary of Participants Characteristics during Study of Topic 1 (Week 1)
Gender

ICT skills

Numberper Group

FemaleMale

None

Little30(100%)7(23.33%)

23(76.67%)

29(96.67%)

1(3.33%)10(33.33%)

2(28.57%)8(34.78%)

10(34.48%)0(0.00%)Initial number

30(100%)6(20.00%)

24(80.00%)

28(93.33%)

2(6.67%)

Number of dropouts8(26.67%)

1(16.67%)7(29.17%)8(28.57%)0(0.00%)Initial60(100%)13(21.67%)

47(78.33%)

57(95.00%)

3(5.00%)18(30.00%)

3(23.08%)

15(31.91%)

18(31.58%)0(0.00%)Group
A

Initial number
Number of dropouts

Group
B

TotalsDropouts

18

Table 4 Participants Characteristics during Study of Topic 2 (Week 2)

Gender

ICT skills

Numberper Group

FemaleMale

None

Little20(66.67%)

5(16.67%)

15(50.00%)

19(63.33%)

1(3.33%)dropouts

4(20.00%)

2(40.00%)

2(13.33%)

4(21.05)0(0.00%)Initial number

22(73.33%)

5(16.67%)

17(56.67%)

20(66.67%)

2(6.67%)

dropouts

9(40.91%)1(20.00%)

8(47.06%)9(45.00%)0(0.00%)Initial42(70.00%)

10(16.67%)

32(53.33%)

39(65.00%)

3(5.00%)Dropouts

13(30.95%)

3(30.00%)

10(31.25%)

13(33.33%)0(0.00%)Group
A

Initial number
Number ofGroup
B

Number of

TotalsNote: Treatments to groups changed during topic 2.
Three (3) non-participating students were used in small group formative evaluation of
the experimental instructional materials of the research activities for usability validation.
They intensively studied the experimental contents for three days before they were usedby research participants after which material revision followed. Two members of staff
from my college who are specialists in the field of Instructional Technology andCurriculum Studies were also used for content validation as well as structuralorganisation of subtopics within each topic. This was done from the second week of
September, 2010 to around the end of September, 2010.
(c)

Operational definitions of key terms:
Effectiveness in my research will be measured by the posttest scores of the

instructional materials. The mode of the instructional material (online/paper based) thatwill produce a higher posttest average score for the participants will be regarded as aneffective instructional material. It is expected that such a higher average score will be the19product of promptness of feedback and the frequency of interactivity between the
instructional material and the learner, among learners themselves and between learners
and lecturer.
(d)Experimental contents:
After undergoing the training in basic ICT skills and orientation to the research

activities, the participants had to start studying the experimental contents.

The

participants were divided into two groups in which both groups had to study the same
topic of different versions (one online and the other paper based). Before beginningstudying the contents, the participants sat for a pretest. Both studying online and paper
based versions had to seat for the same pretest which was paper based. This was done
due to slow internet connectivity and to make the pretest conditions the same. The same
applied to posttests. What was the different was the mode of content delivery where
online and paper based methods of content delivery were used. My experimental
research contents did not provide or use video links due to poor internet connectivity. The
experimental contents were developed from the Education Foundations Syllabus fromthe subject called Instructional Technology. This is a compulsory second year credit
course for the diploma programme in both distance and face to face programmes. The
course development was based on ARCS Model as a motivational element in thecontents. ARCS Model is according to Dr. Keller an acronym that stands for: Attention,
Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. Each of these motivational elements wasincorporated in the instructional material to motivate the learners as they studied thecontents.
A (Attention): Attention in the instructional material was done through the introduction.
The introduction was done in such a way that it attracted the participants’ attention. Thiswas done by perceptual arousal in which the participants’ attention was gained andmaintained by the use novel stories.
R (Relevance): Relevance of the instructional material was shown in objectives whereparticipants are told what they will be capable of doing after the instruction.

20

C (Confidence): The confidence was developed by participants after attempting thequizzes and get them right.
S (Satisfaction): Satisfaction was achieved by the right responses the students got to
the quiz questions in a short term and what they could be able to do after the course in
the long run.
Then two subject matter experts one in the field of Instructional Technology and theother in curriculum studies reviewed the instructional materials. Both subject matter
experts were from Domasi College of Education.

Figure 4. Login page for the Online Experimental Contents21

Figure 5. Screen Shot for the Online Experimental Contents22

Figure 6. Screen Shot for the Online Quiz(e)

Instruments for data collection:
The following instruments were used for data collection namely pretests and posttests(table 5 and 6), participant questionnaires (table 11 and 12), comments from expert
reviewers, comments from experimental users (non-participating students) and from theresearch participants themselves.
(f)

Research scope and limitations:
The target audience for this research were second year Domasi College of Education

students studying through distance for the 2010/2011 school session. All the planned
research activities except for the one on one formative evaluation were done but not asscheduled. This was the case because of other scheduled activities at Domasi College of23

Education which resulted in the postponement of the opening date for the distanceeducation residential program for the school year 2010/2011. As a result of this, there
was high attrition rate towards the end of the research activities since students who were
the participants to the research activities had a divided attention between research
activities and academic work.
(g)Data analyses:
Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were used to interpret the data thatwas collected from the participants. Quantitative data was used to test the hypotheses
while the qualitative data was used to explain other emerging issues during the research
activities. Quantitative data was obtained from the participant scores after attempting apretest and posttest before and after studying the experimental contents and from theparticipant questionnaires. Qualitative data was obtained from the questionnaires whichwere being administered to participants upon completion of the study of the contents andwriting of posttests. Qualitative data was obtained from the section of general commentsof the questionnaire. T-Test was used for data analysis where it was expected that there
will be better results for those studying online as compared to those studying using paper
based instructional materials.
There were three hypotheses to test in this research; (1) Online mode of content
delivery in distance education will result in better learning outcomes than paper basedmode, (2) Online instructional materials will result in increased interactivity among
learners, learners with contents/system and learners with lecturers than paper based
instructional materials, and (3) Online instructional materials will result in prompt
feedback to learners’ tasks than paper based instructional materials.
To test Hypothesis (1), t-test with differences between pretest and posttest was
performed for both topics. The alpha level for significance tests was set at .05 to control
Type I error. Prior to the main effects analysis, the group equivalence was checked witht-test of pretest for two topics. To examine Hypotheses (2) and (3), questionnaire results
were analyzed.

24

Chapter fourResults
The results were obtained using pretest and posttets where posttest results (learning
outcomes) were used for comparing which one of the two modes of content delivery in
distance education was more effective than the other. Questionnaire results were also
used to find out how participants rated the two modes of content delivery in distanceeducation by determining which of the two methods of content delivery (online and paper
based) was more interactive and resulted in prompt feedback than the other. The results
are as tabulated below under descriptive statistics.
Descriptive Statistics
Pretest and posttest scores for two topics are summarized in Table 5 and 6 below.
During pretest group A (studying an online version) had an average score of 25.95 whilegroup B (studying paper based version) scored 24.82 in topic 1. In topic 2 group B(studying an online version) scored 27.69 while group A studying the paper based
version scored 25.00. During posttest, group A (studying online version) scored a lower
average score (52.25%) while group B (studying paper based version) scored a relatively
higher average score (63.00%) in topic 1. In topic 2 group B studying online version of
the instructional materials scored a higher average score (50.15) while group A studyinga paper based version scored a relatively lower average score of 45.50.

Table 5 Summary of pretest/posttest mean scores and standard deviations for topic 1
Group

PretestPosttest

Number ofparticipants
A (Online)

Number ofMSDparticipants

M

SD

20

25.95

10.61

20

52.25

22.26

22

24.82

14.13

22

63.00

19.31

B (Paperbased)

Note. The full scores for pretest and posttest were converted to 100 points.

25

Table 6 Summary of pretest/posttest mean scores and standard deviations for topic 2

Group

PretestPosttest

Number ofparticipants

Number ofMSDparticipantsMSD

B (online
mode)

13

27.69

5.76

13

50.15

12.92

16

25.00

9.63

16

45.50

23.32

A (paperbased)

Note. The full scores for pretest and posttest were converted to 100 points.

Hypothesis (1):Online mode of content delivery in distance education will be more effective thanpaper based mode. Pretest and posttest results were used to test this hypothesis.
There were two topics to test Hypothesis (1). First, the group equivalence was
examined with t-test on pretest for two topics. Then, to test the hypothesis, t-test using
differences between pretest and posttest was performed for both topics.

Group Equivalence
Table 7 and 8 below show no significant differences on pretest scores for two groups
for topic 1 and 2. As for topic 1, level of significance set at alpha level 0.05 showed nosignificance between two groups in topic 1 (t (40) = 0.278, p>0.05)). For topic 2, level ofsignificance set at alpha level 0.05 showed no significance between two groups in topic 2(t (27) = 0.869, p>0.05)).
There was no significance in pretest t-scores for both group A and B for both topics 1(ASSURE Model) and 2 (Visual Principles) which indicated group equivalence i.e. group
A and B were initially equal before studying the experimental contents.

26

Table 7 Group Equivalence Test for Topic 1; t-Test for Pretest
N

M

Var

df

t

p

Online20

25.95

112.47

40

0.278

0.782

Paper based

22

24.82

199.58

Table 8 Group Equivalence Test for Topic 2; t-Test for Pretest
N

M

Var

df

t

p

Online

13

27.69

33.23

27

.869

.393

Paper based

16

25.00

92.80

Online and Paper-based Modes Effectiveness Comparison
In order to compare which of the two modes of the content delivery was more
effective than the other, differences between pretest and posttest were used for t-test(Table 9). The t-test results show significance for topic 1(t (40) = -2.12, p < .05)), but nosignificance was found in topic 2 (t (26) = .60, p > .05)).

Table 9 Online and Paper Based Modes Comparison Test for topic 1 and 2; t-Test forPretest and posttest
t

df

p

Topic 1

- 2.124

40.045*

Topic 2

.596

26

.556

Note. p* < .05.
Group A and B were significantly different on posttest for Topic 1 (p < 0.05). However,against the hypothesis, group B studying with Paper-based mode scored higher thangroup A studying with online mode (Table 9). For topic 2, significant difference was notfound. Thus, Hypothesis (1) was rejected for both group A and B.

27

Table 10 Online and Paper Based Modes Comparison Test for topic 1 and 2

Topic 1

OnlinePaper-based

Group

A

B

Mean of Differences

5.8

8.41

SD

3.82

4.11

Group

B

A

Mean of Differences

6.08

5.13

3.23

4.80

between pretest andposttest

Topic 2

between pretest andposttestSD

It was also found that those studying an online version of topic 1 had a lower meandifference between pretest and posttest of 5.8 compared to those studying the paper
based version who had a mean difference of 8.41 between pretest and posttest. On theother hand, in topic 2 those studying an online version had a higher mean difference
between pretest and posttest of 6.08 while those studying the paper based version had arelatively lower mean difference of 5.13 (Figure 10). This indicates that paper basedmode was more effective for topic 1 than an online mode. For topic 2 it indicates that thetwo modes (online and paper based) were not significantly different.

Hypothesis (2) & (3)Table 11 and 12 summarises the participants’ responses to questionnaire items whichwere used to test hypothesis 2 and 3:

28

Hypothesis 2:
Online instructional materials will result in increased interactivity among learners,
learners with contents/system and learners with lecturers than paper based instructional
materials:
To test this hypothesis item 1 and 3 were used. Item 1 (This instructional material
makes you easily exchange ideas in group discussions) had a mean rating of 3.00 for an
online delivery mode of topic 1 as compared to a mean rating of 3.13 for the paper based
delivery mode of the same item (Figure 11). For the same item for topic 2, an online
delivery mode had a mean rating of 2.59 while the paper based delivery mode had amean rating of 3.00 (figure 12).
For the same hypothesis 2, item 3 (This instructional material makes you to interact
with the lecturer more frequently during group discussions) had a mean rating of 2.55 foran online delivery mode for topic 1 as compared to 2.75 for the paper based delivery
mode (Figure 11).
For the same item for topic 2, an online delivery mode had a mean rating of 2.65 while
the paper based delivery mode had a mean rating of 2.42 (figure 12).
Hypothesis (3):Online instructional materials will result in prompt feedback to learners’ tasks thanpaper based instructional materials:
To test this hypothesis, item 4 was used. Item 4 (This material gives feedback to you
more quickly during quiz) had a mean rating of 3.82 of an online delivery mode for topic 1
compared to 2.50 for the paper based delivery mode (Figure 11). On the other hand thesame item had a mean rating of 3.35 for an online delivery mode of topic 2 compared toa mean rating of 1.83 for the paper based delivery mode (Figure 12).

29

Table 11 Summary of Participants Rating of the two Modes of Content Delivery (Online and Paper Based) for Topic 1
Item rating

Mean

No idea

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Delivery
mode

Group

Item
number

Questionnaire item

0

1

2

3

4

Online

A

1

0(0%)

1(9.09%)

0(0%)

3.00

0(0%)

1(9.09%)0(0%)

2(18.18%)

3.00

0(0%)

2(18.18%)

3(27.27%)2(18.18%)

2.55

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

9(81.82%)

3.82

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

8(72.73%)

3.73

6

Online instructional material has good visual appeal

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

10(90.91%)

3.91

1

This instructional material makes you easily exchange
ideas in group discussions
This instructional material makes you more motivated toread the instructional contents
This instructional material makes you to interact with thelecturer more frequently during group discussions
This material gives feedback to you more quickly duringquiz

0 (0%)

1(12.5%)0(0%)

3(37.5%)3.13

0 (0%)0(0%)

3(37.5%)2(25%)

2.88

0 (0%)

1(12.5%)2(25%)

2(25%)

2.75

0 (0%)

3(37.5%)1(12.5%)3(37.5%)2.50

It is easy for you to navigate through paper based
contents
Paper based instructional material have good visualappeal0 (0%)

1 (12.5%)0(0%)

3(37.5%)3.13

1(12.5%)

1 (12.5%)

0 (0%)

8(72.
73%)
8(72.
73%)
4(36.
36%)
2(18.
18%)
3(27.
27%)
1(9.0
9%)
4(50
%)
3(37.
5%)
3(37.
5%)
1
(12.5
%)
4(50
%)
4
(50%)

2(18.18%)

5This instructional material makes you easily exchange
ideas in group discussions
This instructional material makes you more motivated toread the instructional contents
This instructional material makes you to interact with thelecturer more frequently during group discussions
This material gives feedback to you more quickly duringquiz
It is easy for you to navigate through online contents

2 (25%)

2.63

2
3
4

Paper

B

2
3
4

5
6

30

Table 12 Summary of Participants Rating of the two Modes of Content Delivery (Online and Paper Based) for Topic 2
Item rating

DeliveryMode
Online

Group
A

Item
Number
1
2
3

4

5
6
Paper
based

B

1
2
3

4
5
6

Mean

No idea

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

0

1

2

3

4

This instructional material makes you easily
exchange ideas in group discussions
This instructional material makes you more
motivated to read the instructional contents
This instructional material makes you tointeract with the lecturer more frequently
during group discussions
This material gives feedback to you more
quickly during quiz1(5.88%)0 (0%)

1 (5.88%)

2.59

9(52.94%)

3.41

0 (0%)

1(5.88%)8(47.06%)

7(41.18%)
7(41.18%)
4(23.53%)

3(17.65%)

1 (5.88%)5(29.41%)0 (0%)

4(23.53%)

2.65

1(5.88%)1 (5.88%)

0 (0%)

4(23.53%)

11(52.94%)

3.35

It is easy for you to navigate through online
contents
Online instructional material has good visualappealThis instructional material makes you easily
exchange ideas in group discussions
This instructional material makes you more
motivated to read the instructional contents
This instructional material makes you tointeract with the lecturer more frequently
during group discussions
This material gives feedback to you more
quickly during quiz
It is easy for you to navigate through online
contents
Online instructional material has good visualappeal0 (0%)

1 (5.88%)

1(5.88%)11(52.94%)

3.47

1(5.88%)0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

7(41.18%)

3.67

2(16.67%)

1 (8.33%)5(41.67%)

3.00

0 (0%)

3(25%)

3 (25%)

2(16.67%)2.42

0 (0%)

3(25%)

3(25%)

4(23.53%)9(52.94%)4(33.33%)4(33.33%)4(33.33%)2(16.67%)2.42

0 (0%)

4 (33.33%)

0 (0%)

1(8.33%)1.83

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2.83

1 (8.33%)4(33.33%)
4(33.33%)3 (25%)

0(0%)

7(58.33%)5(41.67%)6 (50%)

1 (8.33%)

2.42

Questionnaire item

31

Detailed summary of the questionnaire ratings have also been presented in graphicalform in the figures that follow. Note: An item “No idea” had no statistical significance inthis research.

Below is the summary of questionnaire items by participants in agraphical form.
Summary of Questionnaire Ratings for Topic 1
Figure 7 shows that 10 participants agree with an item that an online version of the
instructional material makes participants easily exchange ideas in group discussions
against 1 participant who disagrees with it. Figure 8 shows that 7 participants agree withan item that a paper based version makes participants easily exchange ideas in group
discussions against 1 participant who disagrees with it.

9

Number of participants

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 7. This instructional material makes you easily exchange ideas in group
discussions

32

Number of participants

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Stronglyagree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 8. This instructional material makes you easily exchange ideas in group
discussions

In figure 9 below 10 participants agreed with an item that an online version of this
instructional material made them more motivated to read the instructional contents
against 1 participant who disagreed with this item. On the other hand in figure 10 showthat 5 participants agreed that a paper based version of this instructional material madethem more motivated to read the instructional contents against 3 participants who

Number of participantsdisagreed with the item.

10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 9. This instructional material makes you more motivated to read the instructional
contents33

3.5

Number of participants

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 10. This instructional material makes you more motivated to read the instructional
contents
Figure 11 shows that 6 participants agreed with an item that an online instructional
material of ASSURE Model enabled them to interact with the lecturer more frequently
during group discussions against 5 participants who disagreed. On the other hand figure
12 shows that 5 participants agreed with the item that paper based instructional materialof ASSURE Model enabled them to interact with the lecturer more frequently during

Number of participantsgroup discussions against 3 participants who disagreed.

5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 11. This instructional material makes you to interact with the lecturer more
frequently during group discussions

34

Number of participants

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 12. This instructional material makes you to interact with the lecturer more
frequently during group discussions

Figure 13 shows that 11 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of ASSURE Model gave them feedback more quickly during quizagainst no body who disagreed with the item. On the other hand figure 14 indicates that 4
participants agreed with an item that a paper based instructional material of ASSURE
Model gave them feedback more quickly during quiz against 4 participants who
disagreed.

10
9Number of participants

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Participants Rating

Figure 13. This material gives feedback to you more quickly during quiz35

No idea3.5

Number of participants

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 14. This material gives feedback to you more quickly during quiz

Figure 15 shows that 11 participants agreed with an item that an online instructional
material of ASSURE Model was easy for them to navigate through against no body who
disagreed. On the other hand 7 participants agreed with the item that a paper based
instructional material of ASSURE Model was easy for them to navigate through against 1
participant who disagreed in figure 16.

9Number of participants

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Participants Rating

Figure 15. It is easy for you to navigate through online contents

36

No idea4.5
Number of participants

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 16. It is easy for you to navigate through paper based contents

Figure 17 shows that 11 participants agreed with an item that an online instructional
material of ASSURE Model had good visual appeal against no body who disagreed. On
the other hand 6 participants agreed with an item that a paper based instructional
material of ASSURE Model had good visual appeal against 1 participant who disagreed
in figure 18.

12

Number of participants

10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Participants Rating

Figure 17. Online instructional material has good visual appeal

37

No ideaNumber of participants

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 18. Paper based instructional material has good visual appeal

Questionnaire responses for topic 2 (Visual Principles):Figure 19 above show that 10 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles made them easily exchange ideas in group
discussions against 6 participants who disagreed. On the other hand in figure 20, 9
participants agreed with an item that a paper based instructional material of VisualPrinciples made them easily exchange ideas in group discussions against 3 participants
who disagreed.

38

8
7
Number of participants

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 19. This instructional material makes you easily exchange ideas in group
discussions

6

Number of participants

5

4
3
2

1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 20. This instructional material makes you easily exchange ideas in group
discussions

Figure 21 below show that 16 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles made them more motivated to read the
instructional contents against 1 participant who disagreed. On the other hand 6
participants in figure 22 agreed with an item that a paper based instructional material of39Visual Principles made them more motivated to read the instructional contents against 6
participants who disagreed.

10
9Number of participants

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 21. This instructional material makes you more motivated to read the instructional
contents

4.5
4Number of participants

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 22. This instructional material makes you more motivated to read the instructional
contents

40

Figure 23 below show that 8 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles made them interact with the lecturer more
frequently during group discussions against 9 participants who disagreed. On the other
hand 6 participants agreed with an item that a paper based instructional material of
Visual Principles made them interact with the lecturer more frequently during group
discussions against 6 participants who disagreed in figure 24.

98Number of participants

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 23. This instructional material makes you to interact with the lecturer more
frequently during group discussions

4.5

Number of participants

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 24. This instructional material makes you to interact with the lecturer more
frequently during group discussions

41

12

Number of participants

10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 25. This material gives feedback to you more quickly during quiz

8

Number of participants

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 26. This material gives feedback to you more quickly during quiz

Figure 25 above show that 15 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles made them have feedback more quickly during
quiz against 1 participant who disagreed. On the other hand, in figure 26, 1 participant
agreed with an item that a paper based instructional material of Visual Principles madethem have feedback more quickly during quiz against 11 participants who disagreed.

42

12

Number of participants

10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 27. It is easy for you to navigate through online contents

6

Number of participants

5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 28. It is easy for you to navigate through paper based contents

Figure 27 above show that 15 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles made them easily navigate through the contents
against 2 who disagreed. On the other hand, in figure 28, 6 participants agreed with anitem that a paper based instructional material of Visual Principles made them easily
navigate through the contents against 5 who disagreed.

43

10
9
Number of participants

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 29. Online instructional material has good visual appeal

7

Number of participants

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No idea

Participants Rating

Figure 30. Paper based instructional material has good visual appeal

Figure 29 above show that 16 participants agreed with an item that an online
instructional material of Visual Principles had good visual appeal against no body who
disagreed. On the other hand, in figure 30, 5 participants agreed with an item that apaper based instructional material of Visual Principles had good visual appeal against 7
who disagreed.

44Pretest/posttest results for the experimental contents:
The figure below summarise the mark distribution of participants and individual
participant scores during an experimental period.
Both pretests and posttests were paper based. They were only the delivery modes of the
instructional contents which were online and paper based.
Topic 1 Summary:

20
18
16

Frequency

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 31. Mark Distribution: Topic 1 Pretest (online)

45

6
5

Frequency

4
3
2
1
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 32. Mark Distribution: Topic 1 Posttest (online)

30
25

Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 33. Mark Distribution: Topic 1 Pretest (paper based)

46

6
5

Frequency

4
3
2
1
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 34. Mark Distribution: Topic 1 Posttest (paper based)
Note: The above graphical summaries (mark distribution) include everybody who
attempted either a pretest or posttest or both.
Comparisons for pretest/posttest individual scores for topic 1:
Note: The below graphical summaries exclude participants who were absent in either of
the two tests

120

Score (%)

100
80

Pretest60

Posttest

40
20

Pa
rti
cip
Pa a nt
rti
cip
1
Pa a ntrti
cip
3
Pa a ntrtici
5
Pa pa nt
rtic
7
Pa ipant
rti
cip
9
Pa a ntrtici
11
Pa pa n
t
rti
cip
13
Pa a ntrtici
15
Pa pa ntrti
cip
a n 17t190Participant

Figure 35. Topic 1 pretest/posttest comparison for online mode47

Pretest
PosttestPartic
Pa iparti ntc
1
Pa iparti ntc3
Pa iparti ntc
5
Pa iparti ntPa cip7
rti a n
cip t
Pa a
9
rti ntcip
11
Pa a
rti ntc
13
Pa iparti ntc
15
Pa iparti ntcip
17
Pa a
rti ntcip
a n 19t
21

Score (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Participant

Figure 36. Topic 1 pretest/posttest comparison for paper based mode

Topic 2 Summary:Note: The below graphical summaries (mark distribution) include everybody who
attempted either a pretest or posttest or both.

18
16
14

Frequency

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 37. Mark Distribution Topic 2 Pretest (paper based)

48

6
5

Frequency

4
3
2
1
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 38. Mark Distribution: Topic 2 Posttest (paper based)

20
18
16

Frequency

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 39. Mark Distribution: Topic 2 Pretest (online)

49

6
5

Frequency

4
3
2
1
0
0%-34%

35%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-74%75%-100%

Undoubted
failureMarginal
failureBare pass

Clear passCredit pass

Marginal
distinction

Undoubted
distinction

Score Range

Figure 40. Mark Distribution: Topic 2 Posttest (online)

Comparisons for pretest/posttest individual scores for topic 2:
Note: The below graphical summaries exclude participants who were absent ineither of the two tests

90
80

Score (%)

70
60
50

Pretest40

Posttest

30
20
10
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

Participant

Figure 41. Topic 2 pretest/posttest comparison for online mode

50

13

Score (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

PretestPosttest

20
10
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Participant

Figure 42. Topic 2 pretest/posttest comparison for paper based mode
Note: The scores were set at 100 maximum points

51

Chapter Five
Discussion of results
After t-test analysis for pretest, there was no statistical significance in the p-values
for both group A and B which indicated that there was group equivalence for theexperimental groups A and B before the participants studied the instructional materials
hence the acceptance of null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 Results:
In order to compare which of the two modes of the content delivery was more effective
than the other, differences between pretest and posttest were used for t-test (Table 9).
The t-test results show significance for topic 1(t (40) = -2.12, p < .05)), but no significancewas found in topic 2 (t (26) = .60, p > .05)).
My expectation was that those studying online instructional materials would get ahigher average score as compared to those studying paper based instructional materials.
The research results for topic 1 proved contrary to my expectations while in topic 2
research results agreed with my expectation though the difference was not statisticallysignificant according to the t-test results.
The reason might be the lack of anytime, anyplace feature in the online learning
system during the research. In an ideal online learning environment, learners haveaccess to learning contents anytime and anywhere. In this research context access tocomputers was limited because participants had no personal computers. They had tocome to the computer laboratory to access the online contents which defeats the purposeof anyplace anytime learning of online distance learning.
The other reason for the contrary results to my expectation would be an effect of order.
Group A began the studying of the contents online while group B started it on paper.
Those studying on paper continued coming to the computer laboratory to learn basic ICT
skills which I think enabled them to gain more ICT skills before starting studying theonline contents in the following week. The other reason might be a factor of novelty effectwhere participants studying the online contents were more motivated to study the online

52

contents as compared to studying paper based contents which shows a mean response
rate to motivation of 3.00 for those studying online version of a topic 1 against 2.42 when
the same group studied the paper based version of topic 2. On the other hand thosestudying topic 1 on paper (group B) showed a mean response rate on motivation of 2.88
while studying on paper and 3.41 while studying an online version of topic 2 (Table 11
and 12).
Participants studying the online versions of instructional materials also had thefollowing complaints which might have affected their results. The orientation time for the
online instructional materials was not enough. They said they needed more time for theorientation exercise especially in basic ICT skill training part since they were notconversant with such skills. They also indicated that the online study time was notenough due to the fact that most of the participants had not yet mastered and familiarized
themselves with the online learning environment. They said much of the time when they
had wanted to do the online study, there was no electricity or sometimes no internet
network available.
The effect of order is clearly seen when we come to topic 2 where group A studying apaper based version scored a lower average score of 45.50% as compared to group B
which scored an average of 50.15%. This might be the case because group B which
studied topic 1 on paper might have gained more ICT skills as they continued coming to
the computer laboratory for practice in basic ICT skills.
Hypothesis 2 Results:
On interactivity, participants’ questionnaire ratings show that there was minimal or notenough online and paper based lecturer to learner interaction (item 3 on a questionnaire)with mean ratings of 2.55 and 2.75 respectively for topic 1 but higher learner to learner
online and paper based interaction (item 1 on a questionnaire) of 3.00 and 3.13
respectively for the same topic 1.
For topic 2, participants’ questionnaire ratings show that there was minimal or notenough online and paper based lecturer to learner interaction with a mean of 2.65 and53

2.42 respectively and still minimal learner to learner online interaction of 2.59 but higher
on paper of 3.00.
This is contrary to my expectations. This was due to limited implementation time. The
lecturer might have replied late to participants’ postings and group members also might
have posted their contributions to the discussion topics late. The reason for this might bebecause of lack of full access to computers which also defeats the purpose of anyplaceanytime learning of online distance learning. Participants had no personal computers andthey had to come to the college computer laboratory to access the online contents. The
other factors which might have led to these results would be frequent power outages
during the research period, slow internet connectivity and minimal competencies in basic
ICT skills.
Hypothesis 3 Results:
On feedback (item 4 on the questionnaire) for either version of the instructional
materials, participants’ questionnaire ratings show an overwhelming high rating of 3.82
for topic 1 online version and low rating for the paper based version of 2.50. For topic 2
participants questionnaire ratings also show a higher rating of 3.35 for the online version
compared to 1.83 for the paper based version. This was inline with my expectation. Thisis a confirmation of results of previous studies which have shown that online quizzes,
discussions are more effective by providing immediate feedback by the learning system.
Researcher’s observations
Some participants lost their usernames and passwords and the researcher had tocome in and reissue the same since he had a list of usernames and passwords which hecreated in advance for the research participants. There was insufficient time for the
researcher because the distance residential program was postponed due to otheractivities which were taking place on campus. In view of this the research had to skip
some important research activities such one on one formative evaluation. He instead justdid small group formative evaluation. The other challenge was that the research was
taking place during the residential session for the distance students. These resulted in54

participants having divided attention and not study the research experimental contents
thoroughly as anticipated. This was clearly seen when an increased attrition rate wasobserved especially towards the end of the research activities.
Suggestions for improvement
I suggest that if the similar research is to be conducted in the future, more subjects
should be used in case some may drop out. I also suggest that the similar research bedone in an actual school setting where some participants can study exclusively online
and others exclusively on paper and let both sets of participants sit for the end of year
examination and then compare examination results. I feel this is necessary because theparticipants would take the study seriously both online and on paper since they are to be
rewarded at the end of study through certification. This will also give a researcher anample time to observe and monitor the participants.

55

Chapter six
Conclusion
Performance results for the first topic (ASSURE Model) indicate that paper based
method of content delivery was more effective than online method. This might be thecase because participants had just been oriented to the online learning environment andhad not yet been familiarized with it. In topic 2 (Visual Principles), it shows better
performance for those studying online though the difference is not statistically significant.
This would be the case because the participants might have familiarised themselves withthe online learning environment when studying topic 2. This is contrary to my expectation(hypothesis 1) where it was expected to have better learning outcomes for theparticipants studying online versions of instructional materials.
For hypothesis 2 (interactivity of instructional materials) the results indicated that there
was more learner to learner, learner to lecturer and learner to contents interaction for thepaper based instructional materials than online instructional materials. This is also
contrary to my expectation where it was expected to have more of the interactions for the
online mode of instruction because of anytime, anyplace learning feature of online
contents. This was not the case in this research because participants had limited accessto online contents due to such factors as studying the online contents in the computerlaboratory only, slow internet connectivity and frequent power interruptions. The otherfactor that might have affected interactions for those studying online would be the novel
learning environment (online) which might pose some challenges as a new learning
environment to individuals who are used to paper based learning environment.
Additionally the majority of the research participants had no basic ICT skills as they werebeing oriented to the online learning environment.
By looking at the results of this research especially the inputs from the research
participants’ responses it shows that online learning is favoured by the participants as abetter method of content delivery in distance education as compared to paper based
method for hypothesis 3 (Online instructional materials will result in prompt feedback to56

learners’ tasks than paper based instructional materials). This was made possible due tothe computer assisted learning feature in the learning system which provided an
immediate feedback upon participant submission of a quiz item.
All in all, although hypotheses 1 and 2 are rejected, although there was still
substantial learning and interaction in both modes of content delivery as seen above. For
hypothesis 3 there was an overwhelming higher rating of an online mode than paper
based mode. From these findings, it can therefore be concluded that online mode (elearning) would be equally effective as a paper based delivery mode if the learning
environments are conducive.

57

References:
Broadbent, B. (2002). ABCs of e-Learning: Reaping the benefits and avoiding the pitfalls.
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. A Willey Company. San Francisco (www.pfeiffer.com).
Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003), e-learning and the science of instruction: Provenguidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, John Wiley&Sons Inc.
San Francisco.
Schank, C. Roger, & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey and Hove, UK.
Mutula S.M, (2002) "E-learning initiative at the University of Botswana: challenges andopportunities", Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 19 Iss: 3, pp.99 – 109
Ravjee, N. (2007, December 24). The politics of e-learning in South African higher
education. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT [Online], 3(4).
Available:
http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=424.
Reigeluth C.M. (1999), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume II, A New
Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey
Reigeluth C.M. (1987), Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected
Theories and Models, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, London
www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/news27.php - Cached - Similar
www.gsis.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/research_info/shuron2009/stanley09.pdf

58

Appendix:
Pretest/posttest questions
Pretest/Posttest for ASSURE Model
22 marks
Instruction: Answer all questions
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

Which of the following is not included in Keller’s motivational model?
(a)Attention(b)
Relevance(c)
Confidence(d)Reinforcement(e)Satisfaction(1 mark)
Which of the following is not a reason for stating objectives in the instructional
process?
(a)
To make appropriate selection of methods and media(b)
To know the individual differences among learners(c)
To help ensure proper evaluation(1 mark)
Which class or domain of instructional objectives is missing from the following?
(a)Interpersonal domain(b)
Cognitive domain(c)Psychomotor domain(1 mark)
If media and technology are to be used effectively, there must be a match
between the characteristics of the _________and the content of the methods,_______, and materials. In a classroom situation, the audience is the________.
The first step in the ASSURE model, therefore is analysis of your audience. It is
not possible to analyze every trait of your learners. Several factors however are
critical for making good media and methods decisions.
(3 marks)
By the end of this lesson learners should be able to label five parts of a leaf withan aid of a specimen of a mango leaf. From this objective identify:(a)Audience(b)
Behavior(c)
Condition(d)Degree(4 marks)
Name three steps that are followed in the selection of methods, media andmaterials(3 marks)
Explain four factors that are considered when selecting teaching materials(4 marks)
Describe five factors that have to be considered when designing new materials(5 marks)

Pretest/Posttest for Visual Principles
25 marks
Instruction: Answer all questions
True/false items (Answer by writing either true or false at the end of the item)
1.
2.

Visuals motivate learners by attracting their attention, holding their attention andgenerating emotional responses(1 mark)
Visuals prevent learning from taking place because they prevent learners fromconcentrating on teacher’s instruction.
(1 mark)

Multiple Choice Items (Answer by circling the correct options)

59

3.

4.

5.

6.

Which one is not the role of visuals among the following?
(a)
To provide a concrete referent for ideas. Words do not look or sound(usually) like the thing they stand for but visuals are iconic. They havesome resemblance to the thing they represent.
(b)They motivate learners by attracting their attention, holding their attention
and generating emotional responses(c)They simplify information that is difficult to understand. Diagrams canmake it easy to store and retrieve such information(d)
They also serve as an organizing function by illustrating relationships
among elements, as in a flowchart or timeline(1 mark)(e)
They do the work of the teacher when he/she is not available
What are the goals of visual design among the following?
(a)Ensure legibility(b)Help in lesson planning(c)
Help in learner assessment(d)
Focus attention on the most important parts of the message(1 mark)
Which one is not an element of design from the following?
(a)Balance(b)Colour
(c)
Line
(d)
Shape
(e)
Texture(1 mark)
What are the principles of design from the following?
(a)Balance
(b)
Unity
(c)
Contrast(d)Value(1 mark)

Fill in question
7.

8

Visuals provide for redundant_______, that is, when accompanying spoken or
written verbal information they represent that information in a different modality,
giving some learners a chance to comprehend _________what they miss________.
(3 marks)
Match the following descriptions with the right terms:(a)Brightness or dullness of a hue(b)
The difference in appearance between the shape (object) with its
background (space)(c)
The center of interest or focus in a visual(d)
The principle or rule of breaking down an image into nine (9) equal
squares or parts(4 marks)
Choose from the following terms!
Rule of Thirds, Emphasis, Contrast, Value

9.

List three functions of elements of design in a teaching process.

10.

Describe four factors that affect the overall outlook of visuals.

11.
12.

Differentiate decoding and encoding of visuals
Describe three factors that affect decoding of visuals.

(3 marks)

60(4 marks)(2 marks)(3 marks)

Answers to pretest/posttest question items
Answers to pretest/posttest Questions for ASSURE Model Course
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

(d)
(b)
Affective domain
audience, media, learners
Audience=
learners
Behaviour=label
Condition=with an aid of a mango leaf
Degree
=
five

6.

(a)
(b)
(c)

7.

Any four of the following:

Deciding on the appropriate method for the given learning tasks.
Choosing a media format that is suitable for carrying out the method
Selecting, modifying, or designing specific materials within that media
FormatDoes it match the curriculum?
Is it accurate and current?
Does it contain clear and concise language?
Will it motivate and maintain interest?
Does it provide for learner participation?
Is it of good technical quality?
Is there evidence of its effectiveness?
Is it free from objectionable bias and advertising?
Is a user guide or other documentation included?
8.

Any five of the following:
Objectives:
What do you want your students to learn?
Audience:
What are the characteristics of your learners/students? Do you
have pre-requisite knowledge andskills to use or learn from the materials
Cost:
Is sufficient money available in your budget to meet the cost of
supplies (videotapes, audiotapesetc.) you will need to prepare the materials
Technical expertise: Do you have the necessary expertise to design andproduce the king of materials you
wish to use? If not, will the necessary technical assistance beavailable to you? Try to keep your design within the range of yourown capabilities. Don’t waste time and money trying to produce
slick professional materials when simple inexpensive products will
get the job done.
Equipment:
Do you have the necessary equipment to produce or use thematerials you intend to design?
Facilities:
If your design calls for use of special facilities for preparation or
use of your materials, are such
facilities available?
Time:
Can you afford to spend whatever time necessary to design andproduce the kind of materials
you have in mind?

61

Answers to pretest/posttest Questions for Visual Principles Course
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

True
False
(e)
(a), (d)(a)(a), (b), (c)medium, visually, verbally
(a)
Value
(b)
Contrast(c)
Emphasis(d)Rule of Thirds

9.

These include:
Add surprise: Think of what grabs attention. You could think of unusual metaphor,etc!
Add texture: Most visual are two dimensional. Think of how you can add a third
dimension by using texture or actual material
Add interactivity: Give an opportunity to the students to manipulate the materials.
i.e. sensory interaction with the materials during the learning process.

10.

These include:
Proximity
Directionals
Figure-background contrast
Consistency

11.

Decoding means interpreting Visuals while encoding means creating Visuals

12.

These include:
Developmental effects: Age affects the ability of a learner to interpret the visual.
Young learners interpret visuals in parts or section by section while older learners
can interpret the visuals as a whole.
Cultural effects: Sometimes the act of interpretation of visuals may be affected by
the viewer’s cultural background. Different cultural groups may perceive visualmaterials in different ways.
Visual Preferences: In selecting visuals you have to make appropriate choices
between the sorts of visuals that are preferred and those that are most effective.
People do not necessarily learn best from the kinds of pictures they prefer to lookat.

62

Questionnaire items
Questionnaire for research participants(Revised Version)

August 20, 2010
107g8819
robert@st.gsis.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Robert Chagwamtsoka Kalima

Choose your rating for each item given in the left column by ticking in an appropriate box
Part 1: For online version of Instructional materials
Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

No
idea

If strongly
disagree,give yourreason1. This instructional
material makes you
to easily exchange
ideas in group
discussion
2. This instructional
material makes you
more motivated toread the instructional
contents
3. This instructional
material makes you
to interact with thelecturer more
frequently duringgroup discussions
4. This instructional
material gives
feedback to you more
quickly during quiz
5. It is easy for you tonavigate throughonline contents
6. Online instructional
material has goodvisual appeal to you
7.

Suggest any improvements which you may want to be made to the online
instructional materials.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

63

Part 2: For paper based version of Instructional materials

Strongly
disagreeDisagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

No
idea

If strongly disagree,
give a reason

8. Thisinstructional
material makes
you to easily
exchange ideas
in group
discussion
9. Thisinstructional
material makes
you moremotivated toread theinstructional
contents
10. This
instructional
material makes
you to interact
with the lecturer
more frequently
during group
discussions
11. This
instructional
material gives
feedback to you
more quickly
during quiz
12. It is easy for
you to navigate
through paper
based contents
13. Paper based
instructional
material has
good visualappeal to you

14.

Suggest any improvements which you may want to be made to the paper based
instructional materials.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

64

65