Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

Impact of Different Quality of Service Mechanisms on Students' Quality of Experience in Videoconferencing Learning Environment

Pages
24–37
Publication Date
2018-07-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, AQoS controls had greater impact on perceived students’ QoE than NQoS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Videoconferencing technology is a successful tool for expanding possibilities for collaborative and distance learning, while bridging the distance between the teacher and students, providing time and cost savings.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It involved 263 faculty students that participated in 42 learning sessions via videoconferencing during their academic activities, while the infrastructure was subjected to Quality of Service mechanism in the network, as well as application enhancement in the videoconferencing platform, or both.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, AQoS controls had greater impact on perceived students’ QoE than NQoS.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Videoconferencing · learning environments · Quality of Service

Abstract

Videoconferencing technology is a successful tool for expanding possibilities for collaborative and distance learning, while bridging the distance between the teacher and students, providing time and cost savings. Recently, the focus in literature and practice for quality requirements are shifting from deterministic behavior of the infrastructure in videoconferencing learning environments to students’ Quality of Experience, as subjective measure that involves human dimensions. Hence, this study evaluates the impact of different Quality of Service mechanisms utilized in the infrastructure on students’ Quality of Experience in videoconferencing learning environments. It involved 263 faculty students that participated in 42 learning sessions via videoconferencing during their academic activities, while the infrastructure was subjected to Quality of Service mechanism in the network, as well as application enhancement in the videoconferencing platform, or both. The performance counters from the technical equipment and results from the survey regarding students’ perceived experience, showed definite Quality of Service to Quality of Experience correlation. When network and application Quality of Service were considered complementary, students’ Quality of Experience was in average 18.5% higher compared to network and 15% to application Quality of Service implementations. Similarly, best technical performance was achieved when both mechanisms were consider as a whole, such as 34% decrease in average transmit delay compared to application and 62.5% to network Quality of Service mechanisms, etc. Finally, application controls had greater impact on perceived students’ Quality of Experience than the network ones, which correlated to performance behavior of the infrastructure.Videoconferencing technology is a successful tool for expanding possibilities for collaborative and distance learning, while bridging the distance between the teacher and students, providing time and cost savings. Recently, the focus in literature and practice for quality requirements are shifting from deterministic behavior of the infrastructure in videoconferencing learning environments, or quality of service (QoS), to students’ quality of experience (QoE), as subjective measure that involves human dimensions. Hence, this study evaluates the impact of different QoS mechanisms utilized in the infrastructure on students’ QoE in videoconferencing learning environments. It involved 263 faculty students that participated in 42 learning sessions via videoconferencing during their academic activities, while the infrastructure was subjected to QoS mechanism in the network (NQoS), as well as application enhancement in the videoconferencing platform (AQoS), or both. The performance counters from the technical equipment and results from the survey regarding students’ perceived QoE after each learning session, showed definite QoS/QoE correlation. Even though students’ were not aware of the technical setup during the learning sessions, the highest level of students’ QoE was achieved when NQoS and AQoS were considered complementary, rather than as a single mechanism. In addition, AQoS controls had greater impact on perceived students’ QoE than NQoS.

🔖

Cite This Article

MALINOVSKI, T., TRAJKOVIK, V., VASILEVA-STOJANOVSKA, T. (2018). Impact of Different Quality of Service Mechanisms on Students' Quality of Experience in Videoconferencing Learning Environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 24–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/139927

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Agboma, F., & Liotta, A. (2007). Addressing user expectations in mobile content delivery. Mobile Information Systems, 3(3-4), 153-164
  2. Aldrich, S. E., Marks, R. T., Frey, M. M., Goulde, M. A., Lewis, J. M., & Seybold, P. B. (2000). What kind of the total customer experience does your e-business deliver. Patricia Seybold Group. Borodakiy, V. Y., Samouylov, K. E., Gudkova, I. A., Markova, E. V., & Last_Name, F. (2015). Algorithm for Calculating QoS Parameters of Video Conferencing and Video on Demand Services in Wireless Next Generation Networks. Journal of ICT Standardization, 3(1), 3-28
  3. Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐ learning courses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305
  4. Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., Sezgin, S., Karadeniz, A., Sen-Ersoy, N., Goksel-Canbek, N., & Dincer, G. D. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009-2013. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1) Chen, Y., Farley, T., & Ye, N. (2004). QoS requirements of network applications on the Internet. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 4(1), 55-76
  5. Chen, Y., Wu, K., & Zhang, Q. (2015). From QoS to QoE: A tutorial on video quality assessment. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(2), 1126-1165
  6. Chodorek, R. R., Chodorek, A., Rzym, G., & Wajda, K. (2017, June). A Comparison of QoS Parameters of WebRTC Videoconference with Conference Bridge Placed in Private and Public Cloud. In Enabling Technologies: Infra 36 Egilmez, H. E., Civanlar, S., & Tekalp, A. M. (2013). An optimization framework for QoSenabled adaptive video streaming over OpenFlow networks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 15(3), 710-715
  7. Harris, D. A., & Krousgrill, C. (2008). Distance education: New technologies and new directions. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(6), 917-930
  8. Hossain, M. S. (2014, February). QoS in web service-based collaborative multimedia environment. In Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2014 16th International Conference on (pp. 881-884).
  9. IEEE Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C. A., & Simmons, L. L. (2016). Understanding transactional distance in web‐ based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 734-747 ITU-T (2007, January). Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE). International Telecommunication Union, Liaison Statement, Ref.: TD 109rev2 (PLEN/12) Jarschel