Download - Educational Technology & Society

1(students can complete without any assistance) in an assignment during assignment 5-7 (mean=0.64) is
approximately the same with the average number of answer 1 in an assignment during assignments 1-3 (mean=0.60),
so the PADS in some degree did not assign easiler exercises than the conventional method. Therefore, we tend to
believe that the e-dictionary and peer recommendation systems could support the students in completing their
exercises.
Table 4. Comparing students’ responses when doing coursework without WCSS and with WCSS
Without WCSS
Mean SD
With WCSS
Mean SD
t-statistic df
Answer1 (completed without any assistance) 0.60 0.31 0.64 0.48 -0.447 49
Answer2 and 3 (completed with assistance 0.81 0.49 1.81 0.39 -11.366** 49
Answer4 (far beyond my ability)
* p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01
1.59 0.70 0.55 0.44 9.376 ** 49
Experimental results about the e-dictionary system
The e-dictionary system was evaluated according to students’ perceptions. In general, an information system is more
highly used and accepted when users have a more positive attitude toward it. Thus, a questionnaire, used in Davis’s
technology acceptance model, was chosen as an evaluation tool to measure the effects (Davis, 1989). The
questionnaire using 7-point Likert scales (from “1” which means “strongly disagree” to “7,” “strongly agree”) was
devised with twelve items to investigate whether the students perceived that the e-dictionary system was useful and
easy to use for completing their programming exercises. The Cronbach alpha reliability for perceived usefulness is
0.94, and for perceived ease of use is 0.94. The total Cronbach alpha reliability is 0.97; this implies the questionnaire
data have a high reliability. Analytical results indicated that students’ attitude of perceived usefulness (mean=5.10,
SD=1.35) and perceived ease of use (mean=5.20, SD=1.13) were all high, and thus the students perceived that the edictionary
system was useful and easy to use for completing their programming exercises.
Experimental results about peer recommendation system
Table 5 lists the statistics of the students’ discussions in the discussion forum for each coursework assignment. The
first column, “Question,” represents the number of questions posted on the discussion forum. The second column,
“Reply,” represents the number of replies for each posted question. The third column, “Question solved,” represents
the number of posted questions that were solved as determined by the teacher.
The peer recommendation system was able to be used after coursework assignment three was completed. This
system selected two students for each posted question. Accordingly, the reply rate (Reply /Question) increased once
the peer recommendation system was employed. The average reply rate from assignments 1–3 (without the peer
recommendation system) was 0.43, which was lower than the average reply rate from assignments 4–7 (with the peer
recommendation system), which was 1.14. The analysis may indicate that the peer recommendation system can
motivate students to participate in discussion. The number of questions posted and answered declined in assignment
7, since the final exam was taken during this time, causing the students to spend less time on the web-based learning
system.
Additionally, the questions-solved rate (Questions solved / Question) increased after assignment three. The average
questions-solved rate (0.82) in assignments 4–7 (with the peer recommendation system) was higher than the average
questions-solved rate (0.21) from assignments 1–3 (without the peer recommendation system). The peers selected by
the peer recommendation system successfully solved 82% of the posted questions. These results may represent that
most of the selected peers are willing to answer the assigned questions and are able to help questioners solve the
questions. However, there were still 18% of the posted questions that can not be solved by the selected peers and the
reply rate for each coursework session during assignment 4-7 was not anticipated. Theoretically, if the peer
recommendation system requested two students to answer a question, then each question would be answered by at
least two students. The reasons for this unanticipated reply rate and unsolved question rate may be: (1) some
questions were too difficult for the selected students to answer, and (2) one student answered the question and,
consequently, the second student did not feel obliged to answer the question.
216