Evaluating a Wireless Course Feedback System: The Role of Demographics, Expertise, Fluency, Competency, and Usage.

By: Rice, Ronald ,2006

This study analyzed the influences on the student evaluation of a wireless course feedback system in two Master's classes, using a baseline influence survey, two later evaluation surveys, system data about answering review questions, and ratings and open-ended comments on the final course evaluation. Influences studied include demographics, variety of computer usage, web expertise, computer-email-web fluency (three dimensions), computer-mediated competency (eight dimensions), levels of exposure to the system, and use of the system for in-class reviews and discussions.

The study sample were graduate students enrolled in one or two courses (Research Methods, and Mediated Communication in Organizations) in a Master's program at a large Northeastern research university. A total of 61 students were enrolled in both courses (37 and 24, respectively). However, 10 students were enrolled in both courses so were asked to complete only one of the surveys. Also, a few others completed only one of the baseline or evaluation questionnaires.

The participants completed three questionnaires, one baseline and two evaluation surveys; the study tracked two kinds of CPS usage during the semester; and the participants completed the normal, university-wide instructional ratings course evaluation forms at the end of the semester.

The questionnaires consisted of 114 items and was administered during the second week of classes, one week before the CPS(Classroom Performance System ) technology was first used. It contains four sets of questions: 1. demographics and usage 2. a web expertise scale 3. a computer-email-web fluency scale 4. a computer-mediated communication competency scale.

.........................

Reference: file:///F:/EBSCOhost%20Evaluating%20a%20Wireless%20Course%20Feedback%20System%20The%20Role%20of%20Demographics,%20Exp__.htm#db=lxh&AN=22591099

Is text-to-speech synthesis ready for use in computer-assisted language learning?

In Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) environments, learners have been provided with a new way of spoken language input. A program, called Text-to-speech (TTS) synthesizer, is used to generate speech out of text input in the computer. This program can is beneficial for creation and editing of speech models, generation of speech models and feedback on demand. In addition, it can be used in talking dictionaries, talking texts, dictation, pronunciation training, dialogue partner.. etc. Many attempts were conducted to evaluate Text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis. They only addressed the comprehensibility of TTS synthesis, which make the program not widely accepted and used. In Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) environments, and beside the focus on comprehensibility, the naturalness, accuracy, register and expressiveness of the output of TTS synthesis were main aspects of demands. This paper evaluates the quality of the output of four state-of-the-art French TTS synthesis systems, considering their use in the three different roles that TTS synthesis systems may assume within CALL applications, namely: reading machine, pronunciation model and conversational partner.

The results of this evaluation suggest that the best TTS synthesis systems are ready for use in applications in which they ‘add value’ to CALL, i.e. exploit the unique capacity of TTS synthesis to generate speech models on demand (An example of such an application is a dialogue partner). Unfortunately, most of the French systems cater attention to these 'add value' applications. The results of this study suggest that further research into the requirements imposed on the flexibility of TTS synthesis is necessary to draw any general conclusions about the readiness of TTS synthesis for use in CALL.

Regarding evaluation criteria, this study highlights the importance to CALL of two characteristics which are not currently addressed by general purpose evaluation tools,
namely naturalness and expressiveness. It is recommended that general purpose tools for the evaluation of TTS synthesis and comparative evaluation campaigns address these criteria.



* Reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V1C-4V761Y1-1-5&_cdi=5671&_user=912155&_orig=search&_coverDate=12%2F25%2F2008&_sk=999999999&view=c&wchp=dGLzVtz-zSkWz&_valck=1&md5=7acfb7c76f4794eb56c91beda3c8dcd4&ie=/sdarticle.pdf