Art History Data

Number of respondents was 8, 6 female students and 2 males students. Half attended all the lectures, the others attended one lecture. Of these 4 students, 2 attended the first lecture and 2 the second lecture. Data presented is from all students responses combined.

  1. Students were asked the following questions about audio and video quality:
  2. Please grade the overall quality of the tutor's audio in the sessions between 0 and 100, where 100 is the best quality you can imagine and 0 equals totally inaudible.

    Please grade the overall quality of the tutor's video in the sessions between 0 and 100, where 100 is the best quality you can imagine and 0 means that the video picture was no use at all.

    TABLE 1: MEAN OVERALL QUALITY RATING FOR AUDIO AND VIDEO OF TUTOR

    see above for description of scale.

    no. of respondents = 8
     
     
    AUDIO 
    VIDEO 
    MIN-MAX
    70-100
    65-100
    STANDARD DEVIATION
    9.54
    13.09
    MEAN RATING OUT OF 100 
    81.25 
    82.50 
     

  3. Students were asked the following question about the amount of effort required to understand the tutor compared to face to face.
  4. Did you feel it required more effort to understand the tutor than it would have done in a face to face tutorial? yes/no response options.

    TABLE 2: MORE EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND TUTOR COMPARED TO FACE TO FACE?

    no. of respondents = 8.
     
    RESPONSE
    YES
    NO
     
    5
    3
     

  5. Students were asked whether they thought audio quality varied in the following question
Did you feel that the quality of audio varied during a session (i.e. it was better at some points and worse at others) yes/no response.

TABLE 3: VARIATION IN AUDIO DURING A SESSION

no. of respondents = 8.
 
 
YES
NO
RESPONSE
3
5
 

  1. Students were asked to give their impression of audio problems using a list of descriptors in the following question.
  2. If you experienced problems with the quality of audio, please indicate your impression of the audio by selecting three of the following words to describe the audio quality:

    broken up, crackly, bubbly, cut up, irregular, choppy, echoed, disconnected, lossy, fuzzy, distant

    Table 4 gives the descriptors chosen and the frequency with which they were chosen for all students.

    TABLE 4: WORDS CHOSEN TO DESCRIBE AUDIO PROBLEMS

    no. of respondents = 6 chose at least 1 descriptor, (3 chose 3 descripts, 1 chose 2 descripts, and 2 chose 2 descript.)
     
    DESCRIPTORS CHOSEN
    FREQUENCY
    IRREGULAR
    3
    BROKEN UP
    2
    CRACKLY
    2
    CHOPPY
    2
    ECHOED
    2
    FUZZY
    1
    DISCONNECTED
    1
     

  3. Students were asked if they found the tutor's image helpful in the following question
  4. Did you find the image of the tutor helpful for the tutorial or was it irrelevant (i.e. might as well not been there at all) helpful/irrelevant response
     

    TABLE 5: TUTOR IMAGE HELPFUL OR IRRELEVANT

    no. of respondents = 8
     
     
    HELPFUL
    IRRELEVANT
    RESPONSE
    8
    0
     

     

  5. Students were asked give their impression of video problems using a list of descriptors in the following question.
  6. If you experienced problems with the quality of video image of the tutor, please indicate your impression of the video by selecting three of the following words to describe the audio quality:

    frozen, delayed, blocky, broken up, patchy, variable, inconsistent, disjointed, jerky, fuzzy

    Table 6 gives the descriptors chosen and the frequency with which they were chosen for all students.

    TABLE 6: WORDS CHOSEN TO DESCRIBE VIDEO IMAGE OF TUTOR PROBLEMS

    no. of respondents = 4 choosing at least 1 descriptor, (4 chose 3 descript, 1 chose 2, and 1 chose 1)
     
    DESCRIPTORS CHOSEN
    FREQUENCY
    JERKY
    4
    DELAYED
    3
    DISJOINTED
    3
    BROKEN UP
    2
    PATCHY
    1
    FROZEN
    1
    VARIABLE
    1
     

  7. Students were asked an open-ended question about what would make video better?
3 students responded, responses given below:
 

    8.    Students were asked how important it was that lip synchronisation didn't occur in the following question

    Audio and video are said to be synchronised when the lip movements of the speaker closely match the words of the speaker. For this videoconference the audio/video were not synchronised. Was this important?

     

    TABLE 7: HOW IMPORTANT WAS IT THAT AUDIO/VIDEO WAS NOT SYNCHRONISED

    no. of respondents = 8.
     
     
    YES
    NO
    RESPONSE
    6
    2
     
    9.    Students were asked questions about the quality of the art images, and what would in their opinion make them better.

Please grade the overall quality of the art images in the sessions between 0 and 100, where 100 is the best quality you can imagine and 0 equals images totally unhelpful.

 

TABLE 8: MEAN RATING OF ART IMAGE QUALITY

see above for description of scale.

no. of respondents = 8
 
MIN-MAX
75-100
STANDARD DEVIATION
10.01
MEAN
89.25
 

Responses to the open ended question about what would make the images better are given below, the number of respondents was 6.
 

 

10. Students were asked: Is the ability to view the images on the Web after the tutorial was useful? yes/no response

 

TABLE 9: VIEW IMAGES ON WEB USEFUL?

No. of respondents =7
 
 
YES
NO
RESPONSE
7
0
 
    11.    Students were asked: would you recommend a friend to take a similar videoconference seminar?

     

    TABLE 10: RECOMMEND TO A FRIEND?

    No. of respondents =8
     
     
    YES
    NO
    RESPONSE
    8
    0
     
    12.    Students were asked: if you wanted to ask a question at the end of the seminar would you feel more intimidated than doing so in a face to face seminar?

 

TABLE 11: FELT IMTIMIDATED ASKING QUESTION COMPARED TO FACE TO FACE?

No. of respondents =8
 
 
YES
NO
RESPONSE
3
5
 

If students responded yes they were asked to select reasons why from the following list:

not knowing the tutor, intimidated by the technology, other.

 

TABLE 12: REASONS CHOSEN FOR FEELING INTIMIDATED TO ASK A QUESTION

No. of respondents = 3, 1 student gave 2 reasons, the other 2, gave 1 each
 
REASON FREQUENCY
NOT KNOWING TUTOR 2
INTIMIDATED BY THE TECHNOLOGY 1
OTHER 1 - mostly that the tutor didnít know I wanted to ask a question so it felt like interrupting also the practical necessity of having to pass the microphone around.