Assumption University

Graduate School of eLearning

Master of Education in Teaching & Technology
Final Examination Semester 1/2013
TT 6001 Teaching and Learning with Technology
Date

Saturday 21 September 2013

Time

13.00 - 16.00

(Closed Book Exam)

Venue
Not allow to bring

text books, sheets, handouts, written notes, dictionary, notebook , smart phone
and other electronic devices in the examination room

***Cell phones need to be turned off at all time in the examination room.***
*** Dressing unproperly is not allowed to enter the examination room.***
Seat No.
1

STD_ID

STD_NAME AND SURNAME

567-1705 Mr. Brendan D. McKell

Room

Off-campus
test center

STD_Signature

ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY
Graduate School of eLearning

Master of Education in Teaching & Technology

Final Examination
TT 6001 Teaching and Learning with Technology
Semester 1/2013

QUESTION PAPER

Instructions :
1. This exam is 30% toward final grade.
2. This is a closed book examination.
3. There are 4 questions in this question papers; you are required to answer 3 questions.
4. Allocate your time wisely and attempt all the questions in the test. You are given 3 hours
for the exam. All question papers and answer sheets must be submitted back to the proctor
at the end of the test.
5. Any electronic accessory equipment such as mobile phone, calculator, and computer are not
allowed to bring to the examination room.

Name of Student: __________________________________

ID. ________________

Assumption University
Graduate School of eLearning
Master of Education in Teaching & Technology
Final Examination Semester 1/2013
Instruction: Please try your best in answering questions within the time allowed.
Question 1 and 2 : Choose One of the two questions only. Please write a discussion paper based
on the article and question you chose. The length of the discussion is between 1 and 11/2 page
long.
1. According to the article by Richard E. Clark and Thomas R. Ramage, the research that compare
different types of media did not show any learning differences between the media that are being
compared. (Details can be read in the provided abstract and conclusion for each paper.) In your
opinion, how does the information provided in the abstract/introduction and the conclusion of
these two research articles would impact your choices of choosing technology or media to use in
education settings (Classroom or others)? (30 Points)
2. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is becoming a new trend of technology integration into education.
According to the article titled BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom, students using
their devices during class can disrupts learning, while there are potential of using the devices to further
engage students into learning. Different points of views happen for any new technology trend. In your
opinion, please discuss the following question. (Note: the discussion can be based on any education
settings such as: classroom, online-learning, training, or others. Please describe the environment that
you will base your discussion on as well.) (30 Points)
-

How does the BYOD impact learning? (Both positively and negatively)

Question 3 and 4 : Please answer both (3 & 4) questions. The length of the answer should be
between to 1 page for each question.
3. Virtual communities, social networks, and other online social interactions are becoming normal
activity when people are online. (15 Points)
a. How do you think the social activity would promote learning?
b. Are there negative effects towards usage of social network for the purpose of learning?
Please, express your thoughts towards this notion.
4. An instructor is planning to use a learning object to be part of the English course for students. There are
2 learning objects that the instructor found. Both provide the same content that the instructor wants to
use. However, the learning objects need to be purchased and the instructor only have a budget for only
one learning object. The instructor asked you to help evaluate each of the learning objects.You
evaluated with 5 of your friends using the LOEM table for evaluation. The results show the following
average score for each of the learning objects. (15 Points)

Interactivity
Design
Engagement
Usability
Total

LO1
7.5
9.4
10.3
12.5
39.7

LO2
8
8.5
9.5
14
40

Full Score
9
12
12
15
48

In your opinion, which of the learning object would you recommend to the instructor and why?
----------------------------------------- End of Examination. Good Luck! --------------------------------2

Review of Educational Research

Winter, 1983, Vol. 53, No. 4, Pp. 445-459

Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media

Richard E. Clark
University of Southern California
ABSTRACT.
Recent meta-analyses and other studies of media's influence
on learning are reviewed. Consistent evidence is found for the generalization that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing
any specific medium to deliver instruction. Research showing performance
or time-saving gains from one or another medium are shown to be
vulnerable to compelling rival hypotheses concerning the uncontrolled
effects of instructional method and novelty. Problems with current media
attribute and symbol system theories are described and suggestions made
for more promising research directions.

Studies of the influence of media on learning have been a fixed feature of

educational research since Thorndike (1912) recommended pictures as a laborsaving device in instruction. Most of this research is buttressed by the hope that
learning will be enhanced with the proper mix of medium, student, subject matter
content, and learning task. A typical study compares the relative achievement of
groups who have received similar subject matter from different media. This research
has led to so-called "media selection" schemes or models (e.g., Reiser & Gagne,
1982). These models generally promise to incorporate existing research and practice
into procedures for selecting the best medium or mix of media to deliver instruction.
Most of these models base many of their prescriptions on presumed learning
benefits from media (Jamison, Suppes, & Welles, 1974).
However, this article will argue that most current summaries and meta-analyses
of media comparison studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning
under any conditions. Even in the few cases where dramatic changes in achievement
or ability have followed the introduction of a medium, as was the case with
television in El Salvador (Schramm, 1977), it was not the medium that caused the
change but rather a cumcular reform that accompanied the change. The best
current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not
influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries
causes changes in our nutrition. Basically, the choice of vehicle might influence the
cost or extent of distributing instruction, but only the content of the vehicle can
influence achievement. While research often shows a slight learning advantage for
newer media over more conventional instructional vehicles, this advantage will be

The author wishes to acknowedge the substantive advice of Gavriel Salomon, William
Winn, and anonymous reviewers without making them responsible for errors.

to avoid investing the effort required by the more structured approaches to achieve
the same disappointing results. These more unstructured approaches offer relative
anonymity and the chance to invest less effort for the less able student who, on the
other hand, actually needs the greater structure of the methods they like less. While
medium and method are not the same experience, the methods conveyed by the
media in studies such as these probably account for different levels of achievement
while subject attributions about media influence their preferences.

Attitudes Toward Computers

Hess and Tenezakis (1973) explored the affective responses of predominantly
Mexican-American, low SES seventh, eighth and ninth graders to remedial mathematics presented by computer or teacher. Among a number of interesting findings
was an unanticipated attribution of more fairness to the computer than to the
teacher. It seems that these subjects felt that the computer treated them more
equitably (kept promises, did not make decisions based on their heritage) than
some of the teachers. They consistently trusted the computer more but also found
the computer to be less "flexible" and unresponsive to student desires to change
the course or content of their instruction. Stimmel, Connor, McCaskill and Durrett
(1981) found strong negative affect toward computers and computer instruction
among a large group of preservice teachers. These same teacher trainees had similar
reactions to mathematics and science teaching, and they may have associated
computers with these disciplines.

Conclusions
One might reasonably wonder why media are still advocated for their ability to
increase learning when research clearly indicates that such benefits are not forthcoming. Of course such conclusions are disseminated slowly and must compete
with the advertising budgets of the multimillion dollar industry which has a vested
interest in selling these machines for instruction. In many ways the problem is
analogous to one that occurs in the pharmaceutical industry. There we find
arguments concerning the relative effectiveness of different media (tablets, capsules,
liquid suspensions) and different brand names carrying the same generic drug to
users.
An equal contributor to this disparity between research and practice is the high
expectation we have for technology of all kinds. Other machine-based technologies
similar to the newer electronic media have revolutionized industry and we have
had understandable hopes that they would also benefit instruction. And, there is
the fact that many educators and researchers are reserved about the effectiveness
of our system of formal education. As environments for learning, media seem to
offer alternative and more effective features than those available from the conventional teacher in the conventional classroom. Tobias (1982) for example, has
provided evidence that we can help overcome student anxiety by allowing anxious
students the chance to replay a recording of a lesson. This quality of "reviewability"
is commonly thought to distinguish some of the newer media from the conventional
teacher's lecture. It is important to note however, that teachers are entirely capable
of reviewing material for anxious students (and probably do so often). It is what
the teacher does-the teaching-that influences learning. Most of the methods

carried by newer media can also be carried or performed by teachers. Dixon and
Judd (1977), for example, compared teacher and computer use of "branching"
rules in instruction and found no differences in student achievement attributable
to these two "media."
The point is made, therefore, that all current reviews of media comparison studies
suggest that we will not find learning differences that can be unambiguously
attributed to any medium of instruction. It seems that existing research is vulnerable
to rival hypotheses concerning the uncontrolled effects of instructional method and
novelty.
More recent evidence questions the evidence for the media-based attempts to
determine the components of effective instructional methods. These symbol system
or media attribute theories seem to be useful for instructional design but of limited
utility in explicating the necessary conditions that must be met by effective methods.
Future research should therefore focus on necessary characteristics of instructional
methods and other variables (task, learner aptitude, and attributions), which are
more fruitful sources for understanding achievement increases. Recent studies
dealing with learner attributions and beliefs about the instructional and entertainment qualities of different media seem particularly attractive as research directions.
There are no media variables in attribution research, however. Independent variables are concerned with learner beliefs, and outcome measures are typically some
measure of learner persistence at a task. It seems reasonable to recommend,
therefore, that researchers refrain from producing additional studies exploring the
relationship between media and learning unless a novel theory is suggested.
References
Blake. T. Motion in instructional media: Some subject-display mode interactions. Perceptual
and .Motor Skills. 1977, 44, 975-985.
Bovy. R. A. Defining the psycliologicall~~
active.feaiures of instrlrcfional treatmenis designed
to /ucilitate crrc attc>ndance.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 1983.
Clark. R. E. Constructing a taxonomy of media attributes for research purposes. ill' Comtnlrnication Rellicu,, 1975, 23(2), 197-2 15.
Clark. R. E. Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in AT1 studies. The Educa1982. 17(2), 92- 10 1.
tional P.\~~cl~ologi.st.
Clark. R. E.. & Snow. R. E. Alternative designs for instructional technology research. A V
Cotnmlmicution Reraiot., 1975. 23(4). 373-394.
Cohen. J. Statistical power analj~sis,for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York:
Academic Press. 1977.
Cohen. P.. Ebling. B.. & Kulik, J. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual based
instruction. Ed~rcutionalComm~inicationand Technology Journal, 198 1, 29(1), 26-36.
Dixon. P.. & Judd. W. A comparison of computer managed instruction and lecture mode for
teaching basic statistics. Jolrrnal ofcomputer Based Instruction, 1977, 4(l), 22-25.
Glaser. R. Components of a psychology of instruction: Towards a science of design, Review
ofEd~rcutiona1Research, 1976, 46( 1 ), 1-24.
Glaser. R.. & Cooley. W. W. Instrumentation for teaching and instructional management. In
R. Travers (Ed.). Sccvnd handbook ofresearch on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally College
Publishing. 1973.
Glass. G. V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Edltcational Researcher,
1976. S(10). 3-8.

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational Technologies Center

9/18/12 10:15 AM

Educational Technologies Center

Princeton University
Home
Lunch n Learn
The Productive Scholar
Screencasts
Tech Spotlights
Feedback

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Angel Brady

A new technology trend has been making the rounds in educa

tion. The technology trend is called BYOD or Bring Your Own Device. In higher education, this idea is not really
that new. It has become second nature for a student to bring a laptop and their mobile device to a class. But
with the increase access to more mobile devices (such as tablets, smartphones, eReaders, and laptops), an
instructor might wonder, how can I engage my student in class while their use their own devices (or should I)?
Some see the BYOD trend as a negative trend. Having devices floating around during a lecture may cause a stu
dent not to focus on the content of the lecture. Others have taken that point of view and flipped it, and asked,
how can I get the student to become engaged with my content by using their own device? We have blogged
about using software to set up polling questions and that students can answer using their laptops and mobile
devices. That is one way BYOD could work in the classroom.
Another way BYOD can work, is by inviting a guest lecturer to speak to your students through a webcam. Pro
grams like Skype can open a whole new world to your students and if they need to interview somebody that is
not in the local area or if they are studying a language and need a native speaker of that language to help them
along (or lecture to the students) their devices may come in handy in the classroom. Also, students can use their
devices to capture the audio and video and later use it as a study aid or reference for a research project.
Connecting with people live is a great tool in the classroom, but one can also have students view clips of a pub
lished video lecture (iTunesU or TedEd) as an introduction to a new topic in the classroom. They can always
bookmark the content and review it later since they are viewing it in a device they own.

http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/

Page 1 of 4

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational Technologies Center

9/18/12 10:15 AM

Web based applications are perfect to use (such as Google Docs) for collaboration during a class or visualization
applications like Google Maps or Earth to help emphasize a topic in your lecture. Most classroom have wireless
access and some web applications like Google Docs can work offline. Students can view maps and add notes
inside a web published document right on their own devices.
If BYOD is implemented in the correct way and with a directed purpose in the classroom, it can provide the stu
dents with a more engaging and memorable experience during a lecture.
This entry was posted in Educational Technology and tagged byod, classroom, device, Educational Technology,
mobile. Bookmark the permalink.
Screencast: Changing Your Site Layout and Theme in OpenScholar
Princeton learns at lynda.com top ten courses for Spring 2012

2 Responses to "BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the

Classroom"
By Annotated Bibli catherinestephensondotme July 8, 2012 - 11:07 pm

[] http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/ []
Log in to Reply
By BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational | eduhacks.in June 8, 2012 - 2:47 pm

[] View original post here: BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational []
Log in to Reply

Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search for:

Search

Visit our centers

Categories
Educational Technology
Featured
http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/

Page 2 of 4

The "No Significant Difference" Phenomenon:

A Literature Review
Thomas R. Ramage
!""#$%&'()*%$()+,("%-(.'
!$&-(/%$)0(,1%$("
+&,23&.-)4#33(5(
6788)9:);,&-3(<)!1(:
4=&/>&%5.?)@3)ABC6B
D/&%3E)!&/&5(F>&,23&.-:(-G
Introduction
!)HG%$2)3##2)&')'=()IJ#)0%5.%K%$&.')L%KK(,(.$()+=(.#/(.#.I)M(N"%'()/%5=')3(&-)'=()$&"G&3)#N"(,1(,)'#
'=()$#.$3G"%#.)'=&')&.)#1(,M=(3/%.5)&/#G.')#K)-&'&)(O%"'")'#)"G>>#,')'=().#'%#.)'=&'
'($=.#3#5%$&33<P/(-%&'(-)%."',G$'%#.)&.-Q#,)-%"'&.$()(-G$&'%#.?)%.).(&,3<)(1(,<)K#,/)%/&5%.&N3(?)=&"
>,#1(.)'#)N()&.)(KK($'%1()&.-)"#/('%/(")>,(K(,,(-)/('=#-)#K)(-G$&'%.5)"'G-(.'")#G'"%-()'=()$#.K%.(")#K
M=&')%")$#//#.3<),(K(,,(-)'#)&")'=()I',&-%'%#.&3)$3&"",##/IRS=#/&")TG""(33?)688BU:)V,#/)BW6C)'#)'=(
>,("(.'?)TG""(33)=&")$&'&3#5(-)&')3(&"')XYY)"'G-%("?)'($=.%$&3),(>#,'"?)&.-)-%""(,'&'%#.")'=&')=&1(),(1%(M("'G-(.')3(&,.%.5)#G'$#/(")%.)'=()K#,/)#K)"&'%"K&$'%#.)"G,1(<"?)5,&-()$#/>&,%"#."?)"'&.-&,-%Z(-)'("'
"$#,("?)$#//#.)(/N(--(-)HG("'%#."?)K,(HG(.$<)#K)%.'(,&$'%#.)N('M((.)"'G-(.'")&.-)K&$G3'<?)&.-)&
-%ZZ<%.5)&,,&<)#K)#'=(,)I/(&"G,("I)#"'(."%N3<)&%/(-)&')-('(,/%.%.5)%K)&.<)/(&"G,&N3()#,)"'&'%"'%$&33<
"%5.%K%$&.')-%KK(,(.$(")(O%"':
!')K&$()1&3G(?)%')"((/")'=&')$#/>&,%"#.)#,)#G'$#/(")"'G-%(")M#G3-)N()#.()#K)'=()/#"')(KK($'%1()/('=#-"
K#,)-('(,/%.%.5)'=()(KK($'%1(.("")#K)1&,%#G")(-G$&'%#.&3)'($=.#3#5%(":)0%.$()'=()BWW7)>GN3%$&'%#.)#K
T%$=&,-)43&,2[")K&/#G")"'&'(/(.')$&G'%#.%.5)(-G$&'%#.&3),("(&,$=(,")'#)I5%1()G>)<#G,)(.'=G"%&"/)K#,)'=(
N(3%(K)'=&')/(-%&)&'',%NG'(")$&G"()3(&,.%.5I?)=()=&")$#.1%.$(-)/&.<),("(&,$=(,")%.)'=()K%(3-)'=&')/#"')%K
.#')&33)#K)IJ#)0%5.%K%$&.')L%KK(,(.$(I)"'G-%(")M(,()%.)"#/()M&<)K3&M(-:)S=("()"'G-%(-)%.&-1(,'(.'3<)=&&'',%NG'(-)#G'$#/(")'#)-%KK(,(.$(")%.)/(-%&),&'=(,)'=&.)/('=#-)RT%$=&,-)43&,2?)BWW7?)>:)6CU:)0%/>3<
"'&'(-?)43&,2)>,("(.'")'=()%-(&)'=&')/(&"G,&N3()3(&,.(,)#G'$#/("?)M=(.),(>3%$&N3()G"%.5)-%KK(,(.')/(-%&?
%.-%$&'()'=&')'=()"(3($'%#.)#K)'=()/(-%&)=&")3%''3()'#)-#)M%'=)3(&,.(,)#G'$#/("?),&'=(,)'=()/('=#-)'=&')'=(
/(-%&)"=&,()%.)-(3%1(,%.5)$#.'(.')%")'=()',G()$&'&3<"')'=&')3(&-")'#)G.-(,"'&.-%.5:)VG,'=(,?)43&,2)"'&'('=&'?)I'=(,()&,().#)N(.(K%'")'#)N()5&%.(-)K,#/)(/>3#<%.5)-%KK(,(.')/(-%&)%.)%."',G$'%#.IRT%$=&,-)43&,2?
BWCX?)>:)7Y8U:);&"(-)#.)43&,2[")'=%.2%.5?)%')M#G3-)"((/)'=&')'=()XYY),(>#,'")$#.'&%.(-)%.)TG""(33[")IJ#
0%5.%K%$&.')L%KK(,(.$()+=(.#/(.#.I)M(N"%'()=&1()K#$G"(-)>,%/&,%3<)#.)-%KK(,(.$(")%.)'=()/(-%&),&'=(,
'=&.)'=()/('=#-")(/>3#<(-)via)'=()/(-%G/:
S=%")3%'(,&'G,(),(1%(M)M%33)K#$G")#.)'=()N#-<)#K),("(&,$=)&1&%3&N3()">($%K%$&33<),(3&'(-)'#)#.3%.()#,
@.'(,.('PN&"(-)-(3%1(,<)"<"'(/"?)M=(.)$#/>&,(-)M%'=)T%$=&,-)43&,2[")'=(#,%("?)1(,"G")&)"&/>3%.5)#K
,("(&,$=)"G>>#,'%.5)'=()IJ#)0%5.%K%$&.')L%KK(,(.$(I)$#.$(>':
Methodology
V#,)$#/>&,%"#.)>G,>#"("?)"(1(,&3),($(.')"'G-%("),(3&'(-)'#)'=()(KK%$%(.$<?)(KK($'%1(.(""?)&.&>>,#>,%&'(.("")#K)#.3%.()%."',G$'%#.)M(,(),(1%(M(-:)S=()'(,/)I#.3%.()%."',G$'%#.I)%")&)5(.(,%$)'(,/)'=&'?
N<)-(K%.%'%#.?)%/>3%(")'=&')'=()"'G-(.')%")>=<"%$&33<)"(>&,&'(-)K,#/)'=()K&$G3'<)&.-)I$#..($'(-I)'=,#G5=

!"#$%&'(&)'*)$&+,%)-'.&$%*/)*0.+)'*)1,'%(!(2)&'*3*/)1,'%(,%).+'%'.&,%!*&!.*/)*&04,(&)"$&!5'&!$(/)'(4)&+,
!(*&%0.&$%6)78+!##*)9):,%!*$&!*/);<<</)#=)>;?=)@+!*)A1'%3!'()'%20",(&)!*).$0(&,%,4)BC)D'B')7;<<</)#=)E?/
,F#1'!(!(2)&+'&/)6===&+,)#%$#,%)G0,*&!$()!*)($&)H+,&+,%)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$()!*).$"#'%'B1,)&$)')+C#$&+,&!.'1
6&%'4!&!$('1/6)$%)-'.,I&$I-'.,/)!(*&%0.&!$(/)B0&)!-)&+,%,)!*),($02+)!(&,%'.&!$()B,&H,,()&+,)1,'%(,%)'(4)&+,
!(*&%0.&$%)-$%)&+,)1,'%(,%)&$)-!(4)",'(!(2)'(4)4,5,1$#)(,H)3($H1,42,6=)J'%C)K%$H()'(4):'%C)L'.3)#0&
-$%&+)'()!(&,%,*&!(2)%,*#$(*,)&$)&+,).%!&!G0,)$-)effectiveness)BC)'*3!(2)!-)6.$"#,11!(2),5!4,(.,)!*
'&&'!('B1,/)'(4/)*,.$(4/)&+'&/),5,()'"!4)64!MMC!(26)&,.+($1$2!.'1).+'(2,)'(4)*+!-&!(2)*&04,(&)#$#01'&!$(*/
*0.+).$"#'%!*$(*)H!&+).$(5,(&!$('1),40.'&!$()'%,)%,1,5'(&67K%$H(/)J=)9)L'.3/):=/);<<</)#=)E?=
Conclusion
@+,%,)'%,)'*)"'(C)4,-!(!&!$(*)$-)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$()'*)&+,%,)'%,)&,%"*)&$)4,*.%!B,)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$(=)@+,
-'.&)&+'&)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$()+'*)B,,()'%$0(4)!()')"C%!'4)$-)-$%"*)*!(.,)&+,)-!%*&)*#$3,()H$%4)H'*)0&&,%,4/
"'3,*),F#1'!(!(2)H+'&)!&)!*)'(4)H+'&)!&)!*)($&)')4!--!.01&/).$(5$10&,4/)'(4)BC)($)",'(*/)G0!.3),(4,'5$%=
N,*,'%.+,%*)+'5,)1$$3,4)'&)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$()-%$")"'(C)#,%*#,.&!5,*/),F.104!(2)'(4)!(.104!(2)5'%!$0*
&,.+($1$2!,*)-%$")4,-!(!&!$(*/)!()$%4,%)&$)"'3,)')4,-!(!&!5,)#%$(0(.!'&!$()!()%,*#$(*,)&$)H+'&)H$014
*,,")&$)B,)')5,%C)*!"#1,)G0,*&!$(O)P$,*)&,.+($1$2C)!"#'.&)1,'%(!(2Q)@+!*)%,5!,H)-$0(4)($)*&04C/)($
,5!4,(.,)$-)'(C)3!(4)&+'&).'&,2$%!.'11C)#%$5,*)&+'&)&,.+($1$2C)does not !"#'.&)1,'%(!(2)!()*$",)H'C/
#$*!&!5,1C)$%)(,2'&!5,1C=)@+,%,)!*)2%,'&)4,B'&,/)H!&+)*0B*&'(&!'1)'%20",(&*)'(4)*0##$%&!(2)4'&')$()B$&+
*!4,*/)'(4)"'(C)*022,*&!$(*)-%$")&+$*,)4$!(2)&+,)%,*,'%.+)$()+$H)!&)"!2+&)B,)!"#%$5,4=)L+C)&+,(/).'(R&
')4,-!(!&!5,)*&04C)B,).$(*&%0.&,4)&+'&).$(&'!(*)&+,)*'1!,(&)5'%!'B1,*/)!4,(&!-!,*)'(4)'..$0(&*)-$%)2'#*)!(
#'*&)%,*,'%.+/)'(4).$",)0#)H!&+)')",'*0%'B1,)4!--,%,(.,)$(,)H'C)$%)&+,)$&+,%Q
N0((!(2)&+,)%!*3)$-)$5,%I*!"#1!-!.'&!$(/)&+,)%,'*$(*)H+C)&+!*)2$'1)"!2+&)(,5,%)B,)%,'.+,4)'%,)$B5!$0*=
@+,)*'",)%,*,'%.+)2'#*)$0&1!(,4)BC)8+!##*)9):,%!*$&!*)H!&+)%,*#,.&)&$),--,.&!5,(,**),F!*&)!()&+,
&%'4!&!$('1).1'**%$$")'*)H,11=)A$(*!4,%)1,'%(!(2)*&C1,*/)"01&!#1,)!(&,11!2,(.,*/)*$.!$I,.$($"!.)-'.&$%*
!(-10,(.!(2)1,'%(!(2)'(4).$2(!&!$(/)*&04,(&)#%,-,%,(.,*/)-'.01&C)&,'.+!(2)*&C1,/)'.&!5,I1,'%(!(2
&,.+(!G0,*/).$(*&%0.&!5!*")5*=)B,+'5!$%!*")5*=)!(*&%0.&!5!*&)",&+$4*/)'!%)&,"#,%'&0%,/)%$$")*!M,/)&!",)$4'C/)'(4)4'!1C).'1$%!.)!(&'3,=)S5,%C)$(,)$-)&+,*,)5'%!'B1,*)+'*)B,,()*&04!,4)&$)*$",),F&,(&)'(4)H+,(
'**,**,4)!(4!5!40'11C/)*$",)2,(,%'1!M'&!$(*).'()B,)"'4,/)B0&)'1H'C*)H!&+),F.,#&!$()'(4)(,5,%)H!&+
'B*$10&,).,%&'!(&C=)L+C)*+$014)&+,)*&04C)$-)4!*&'(.,),40.'&!$()$%)&+,),--,.&*)$-)&,.+($1$2C)$()1,'%(!(2
B,)+,14)&$)')+!2+,%)*&'(4'%4Q)6@+,%,)!*)'*)"0.+)4!--,%,(.,)B,&H,,()&H$)&,'.+,%*)4$!(2/)#0%#$%&,41C/)&+,
*'",)&+!(2)!().$(5,(&!$('1).1'**,*)'*)&+,%,)!*)B,&H,,()&H$)&,'.+,%*)4$!(2)4!--,%,(&)&+!(2*6)7L$%&+,(/),&
'1=/);<<T)'*).!&,4)!()K%$H()9)L'.3/);<<<?=)U&)!*)4!--!.01&/)!-)($&)!"#$**!B1,/)&$)'##1C)*.!,(&!-!.)",&+$4*)&$
*$.!'1)*.!,(.,)+C#$&+,*!*=)V0"'().$2(!&!$()+'*/)&$)4'&,/)#%$5!4,4)($)G0'(&!-!'B1,)'B*$10&,*)$%)B'*,1!(,
-%$")H+!.+)%,*,'%.+).'()B,(.+"'%3=)W&)&+,)"$",(&/)&+,)B,*&)&+'&).'()B,)4$(,)!*)&$)&%C)I)BC).$(*&%0.&!(2
*&04!,*)'(4)%,*,'%.+)&+'&)'44%,**)B$&+)*!4,*)$-)&+,),--!.!,(.C)G0,*&!$(=)D&04!,*)(,,4)&$)%,5!,H)&+,)!"#'.&
$-)",4!')'(4)",&+$4/)'..$0(&)-$%),--!.!,(.C)$-)4,*!2()'(4).$2(!&!5,),--!.!,(.C/)'(4)&$),(*0%,)&+'&)&+,
%!2+&)G0,*&!$(*)'%,)'*3,4)'(4)&+,)%!2+&)",**'2,*)'%,)&'02+&=
References
K%$H(/)J=)9)L'.3/):=)7;<<<?=)@+,)4!--,%,(.,)-%,(MC)'(4)"'&.+!(2)B0.3*+$&)H!&+)B0.3*+$&=)@,.+($1$2C
D$0%.,/):'CXY0(,=
A1'%3/)N=)7;<Z>?=)N,.$(*!4,%!(2)%,*,'%.+)$()1,'%(!(2)-%$")",4!'=)N,5!,H)$-)S40.'&!$('1)N,*,'%.+/
[>7\?/)\\[I\[<=

ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY OF THAILAND

Graduate School of eLearning
Master of Education in Teaching & Technology
Final Examination Answer Sheets

Student ID : .
Name/ Surname : ..
Course Name : ..

Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10

Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10

ASSUMPTION UNI VERSI TY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF e LEARNI NG
th

SCIT Building 9 floor, 88 Moo 8 Bangna-Trad Km 26, Bang Sao Thong, Samutprakarn 10540 Thailand
Tel: + 66 2 7232944 Fax: + 66 2 7232959

COURSE EVALUATION
SEMESTER / .
COURSE ID COURSE NAME
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CONTENT EXPERT
Exhibited sound knowledge of the course.
Spoke clearly and distinctly.
Explained content clearly.
The objectives of the course were clearly stated.
The content of the course clearly reflected the stated objectives.
The lectures helped me develop my analytical skills.
I would like to study with this content expert again.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

FACILITATING INSTRUCTOR(S)
Exhibited sound knowledge of the course.
Encouraged student participation in learning activities.
Was open to students' comments and suggestions.
Was accessible for consultation (e.g. questions, calls, email, etc).
The score and grading of student were fair.
I received adequate feedback on my work.
The instructional tutorials activities are adequate.
The instructional case studies activities are adequate.
The instructional practices activities are adequate.
Course assignments/projects are sufficient.

3
4
5
6

COURSEWARE
The instructional materials (e.g. lectures, assignments, handouts,
study guides, reading list etc) were helpful in directing my learning.
The textbooks were valuable for my understanding of the course.
All units were well sequenced and organized and they were easy to
understand.
Text, pictures and graphics were clear.
Quality of videos and audios were acceptable.
The courseware and website interface were easy to use.

OVERALL
The courseware was effective and very helpful for my studies.

1
2

N/A

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Not
Applicable

QUESTIONS

4
Agree

NO

5
Strongly Agree

On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, please the most appropriate answer:

Additional Comments :
.
.
.
...