End-Users' Preferences Applicable to Quality ...

D

US-China Education Review A, ISSN 2161-623X September 2013, Vol. 3, No. 9, 673-684

DAVID

PUBLISHING

End-Users’ Preferences Applicable to Quality Landscape Design Course Material Production for Distance and E-learning in Ghana Albert Amoah Saah Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

In fast developing countries, such as Ghana, physical development increasingly competes for space with relatively dwindling natural environment in human communities. This brought design complexities for development in Ghana to the fore with implications for educational and developmental strategies in architecture. Landscape design may be a sustainable design interface, between physical development and natural environment, to conserve nature, enhance aesthetics and efficient land use as solution. Government of Ghana in 2005 mandated KNUST (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology), Kumasi to urgently provide learning experience for increasing number of students and professional architects, quantity surveyors, and horticulturist by using traditional face-to-face as well as distance and e-learning. However, much as there was curriculum for landscape design for regular students, there existed no quality course material for distance and e-learning pathways. Study therefore sought to explore and develop end-user preferences applicable to landscape design course material that is appropriate for distance and e-learning at KNUST. Survey methods and descriptive statistics were employed in data collection and analysis respectively, using sample size of 178. Results showed VARK (visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic sensory modalities) model’s kinetic learners style had a mean of 1.46 which was higher than the mean (x = 1.26). End-users in the study access learning process x = 1.24 and assess their learning progress with x = 1.34. They perceived quality in distance learning material product (x = 1.05) with 145 (81.5%). However, existing materials designed allowed them access presentation to their senses: sight (58.4%), hearing (29.8%), and touch (10.7%). Study concluded that producing quality landscape design course material for distance and e-learning will be enhanced by applying end-users’ preferences. Keywords: curriculum and learning, landscape design course, distance and e-learning

Introduction Background of the Study Ghana’s physical development increasingly competes for space with relatively dwindling natural environment, making design complexities for development imperative. Landscape design may be a sustainable design interface for solution. Those seeking further training have the opportunity to do so in the dual mode institution of KNUST, Kumasi. Its current academic programmes in landscape design reach only residential Albert Amoah Saah, Ph.D., researcher, Centre for E-learning Technologies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

674

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

on-campus students, though their urgent needs and demands require a distance learning mode as well. Distance learning materials for landscape design courses will have to be produced for use by the increasing number of the would be end-users who are professional architects, quantity surveyors, and horticulturists, and cannot leave their home and work to study in residence. Distance and e-learning strategies grant the learner autonomy and advantage to learn anywhere, anytime, and at their own pace accessing open educational resource or course writer-customised material design. Research Problem Course developers and curriculum designers will have to produce distance learning materials that result in a learning experience that impacts the learner’s cognition, skills, and behaviour enriching learner’s total life. The course developer and writer, therefore, require knowledge and application of those end-users’ preferences to develop quality landscape design course material for distance and e-learning at KNUST (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology), Kumasi, Ghana. Current landscape design courses available at the College of Planning and Architecture have been designed not for the distance and e-learning pathways. This creates a gap in curriculum and a lack of course material that would have been suitable for the distance learners or students described in this study as the end-users, based on their preferences. The study, therefore, sought to identify these preferences by determining the perceptions of quality course materials and application of end-users’ preferences to developing quality landscape design course materials for distance and e-learning. Research Objective and Questions In general, the study sought to determine the influential factors that affect the development and production of distance learning materials. The objective of study stated above led to the following research questions: (1) What demographic and distance learning experience of respondents predisposed them to their perception of quality and participation in distance learning at KNUST? (2) What learning styles will be most suitable for end-users of the course materials for landscape design course at KNUST? (3) What quality-components do end-users prefer in course materials when accessing the distance learning process, and assessing their own learning progress at KNUST? (4) What are learners’ perceptions of production system and of quality in product of the learning materials? Literature Review End-user and learning style. Course designers and especially writers need to identify and apply learning styles of their end-users. There is a correlation between learning style and preferences (Kolb, 1984). Based on Kolb’s theory, Kvan and Yunyan (2005) also concluded from their learning style experiment on architecture students that there is significant correlation between students’ learning styles and academic performance in architectural studio. They further suggested that studio teachers assess students’ learning styles early and fashion studio programmes to cover the diverse learning styles. Learning style is an individual’s natural or habitual pattern of acquiring and processing information in learning situations. A core concept is that individuals differ in how they learn (James & Gardner, 1995). The idea of individualized learning styles originated in the 1970s, and has greatly influenced education (Pashler,

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

675

McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). One of the most common and widely-used (Leite, Svinicki, & Shi, 2009) categorizations of the various types of learning styles is Fleming’s (2001) VARK model (visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic sensory modalities, sometimes VAK), which expanded upon earlier neuro-linguistic programming (VARK) model. Hawk and Shah (2007) summed this up in the following: (1) visual learners; (2) auditory learners; and (3) kinaesthetic learners. The work of Learning Disabilities Pride Online (2008) is supportive of this model. End-users’ quality preferences echoed. In literature, the end-users of course materials, understand quality in terms of what authorities describe as follows. Kolarik (1999) indicated that quality concept is complicated. Some authorities have defined quality based on customer benefits as well as customer burden. Some authorities stated the definition of quality in rigid term as follows: “Meeting and exceeding customer needs and expectations; common expression” and “fitness for use” according to Juran (1989). Further, Crosby (1979) stated it as “conformance to requirements”. Others are “to be aimed at the needs of the consumer, present and future” (Deming, 1986); and “The total composite product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering, manufacture, and maintenance through which the product and service in use will meet the expectations of the customer” (Feigenbaum, 1983); “The loss (from function variation and harmful effects) a product causes to society after being shipped, other than any losses caused by its intrinsic function” (Taguchi, 1986); In a more flexible manner, Radford (1992), Shewhart (1980), and Ishikawa (1985) respectively as follows, stated some quality definitions; Mishra (2007) also applied the ISO 9000:2000 (International Organization for Standardizition) quality definition “The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs” to quality assurance to higher education. Quality in course materials. Course material is distinct from learning material: One is subject specific while the other refers to the medium that carries the material (Saah, 2012). They are distance learning materials. Quality is “the standard of how sound something is as measured against other similar things; general excellence; a distinctive feature” (Soanes, 2001). Literature explains that different persons and professions have described quality differently (Stewart-Smith, 1994). The individuals may describe quality based on their personal experience that associates with a good or service; and what burden it takes in acquiring and using the product and the satisfaction derives (Kolalik, 1999). A working group from the Board of Education in Finland, groups their guidelines for producing educational content of high quality in four sections. These include pedagogical quality that refers to features in the learning materials that support learning and the applicability of the material in teaching and learning processes. Usability refers to the technical structure and interface design of the learning materials as well as the ease of use arising from these features. Usability is dependent on the users’ experience. Accessibility in this context means that the learning materials are accessible to everyone, regardless of their age, physical or mental capacity, disabilities, or health. Production quality refers to the concept that the production of online learning materials fulfils quality criteria if it is carried out in a controlled and documented manner, steered by knowledge-based, skills-based, and learning-based goals, and if the product meets professional standards (Lind, 2005). Quality products demanded and supplied in distance education system. Quality products demanded by distance learners and supplied by course developers and writers are paramount in the distance education

676

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

system. To this end, Nunan (1991) commented that what is lacking in terms of quality in distance education are the perceptions of teachers (facilitators and course writers). They judge quality from the perspective of a particular discipline. Their perception is generally academic or subject-oriented. Furthermore, Lampikoski (1992) concluded his study of external and internal factors, which influence the quality in distance education that, the influence of the internal factors is greater than the influence of the external factors. In the end, students in distance education systems are in the best position to assess the quality of any particular distance education program. Ehlers (2004) argued for a quality concept focusing on a learner’s or end-user’s perspective. Quality theories for production. Concerning process theories for production, Kolarik (1999) had established that the “process” (input—throughput—output) is an important aspect of the production system for every “product”. He further indicated that “people” (who are the customers and consumers, the target groups whose choices affect characteristics of the product) are part of the production system. Also, those principles (of quality standards of practice and values) are required for quality products to be made. For Project Management Theories for Production, a quality product requires a perspective of it as a “project” (constraints of time, cost, quality, and risk). These theories see production of course materials as a project (Good, 2003). In project management objectives, a project is a planned series of related activities for achieving a specific business objective (C. K. Laudon & J. P. Laudon, 2007). Production system for quality learning product is also important. In creating quality, a process designed for end-user effectiveness and efficiency is also necessary. Kolarik (1999) proposed a production system very helpful in this study. The effect of production system is benefit or has added value. From the field of production and quality, in combination with scientific bases for production, researcher formulated the conceptual framework for production theories and best practices that factor into the production of distance learning materials produced by distance learning institutes. The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1.

Optimum inventory level: how much to produce, when to produce

Project panagement (Project lifecycle)

The Theory Mix for a production model

Human Expertise (Knowledge & Technical skills) & Experience (organizational) in open distance and e-learing publishing industry

Quality distance learning material

Quality control: what to produce, for whom to produce

Technology (Equipment, Software applications, & Material resources)

End-user preference embedded QCMW (quality course material writing) template (see Table 3)

Field of production

Marketing concepts (market mix) product, price, place, people, and publicity

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for theory mix and quality product output for the QCMW (quality course matrial writing) template. (Source: Adapted from A. A. Saah, 2012).

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

677

Method Research Design Study is an exploratory research type (Weiers, 2002), hence, the following research design is adopted. Data collection and processing, as well as data presentation and analysis were done accordingly for this study in quality course material development and production for distance and e-learning pathways. Population of the study. The accessible population comprised the 460 students who were final-year students and graduates of KNUST, Department of Horticulture and Department of Architecture. They formed the social system of the study. They were of a target population of distance and e-learners who would be combining their working with studying. Sampling method and sample. The study employed non-probability sampling methods. Quota sampling techniques were used for stratifying population into sub-groups including final-year students and graduated professionals. Also, convenience sampling was adopted for selecting the individual members in each sub-group of the population. Sampling methods yielded 201 respondents. Sample size was determined with method by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). Data Collection and Processing Gosling (1995) recommended survey for this type of study. Experience survey was, therefore, used to collect a broad range of information (quantitative and qualitative) about the population. The emphasis was on quantitative data, which could be analyzed, using statistical methods which gave precise estimates. The qualitative information was used to help interpret the quantitative finding. Data collection. Information was needed to answer questions regarding respondents’ demographic and distance learning experience that influenced their perception of quality and participation in distance learning; their learning styles that will be most suitable for end-users of the course materials landscape design course; quality-components end-users prefer in course materials when accessing the distance learning process, and assessing their own learning progress; and learners’ perceptions of production system and of quality in product of the learning materials. Questionnaire as a data collection instrument (Weiers, 2002) was designed in the Likert 5-scale format to measure the respondents’ attitudes or perceptions of variables that are related to research questions 2, 3, and 4. Data for research question 1 were collected with closed single or dichotomous questions for respondents’ sexes. Closed multiple was used for information regarding respondents age, education, and distance learning experience. The entire questionnaire was structured into 17 items/variables in four sections. It was finally self-administered to respondents after a pre-test with a similar representative sample. Field data for the study were accessed in 2010 and 2013. Data processing. Information from respondents was processed. This involved editing for corrections and consistency of returned questionnaire entries for accurate responses and inputting into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The process yielded 178 respondents viable for analysis. Presentation and Analysis of Data After collecting and processing data, the next step was presenting and analysing them. This was done as follows. Presentation of data. Data processed were presented in chart and tabular forms to make analysing easier and clearer. One figure and four tables were generated from the study. Figure 1 represented the conceptual framework for theory mix and quality product output for the QCMW template; Table 1 was a tabular

678

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

presentation of respondents’ demographics; Table 2 was tabular presentation showing VARK model styles respondents identified themselves with; Also, Table 3 was tabular presentation of responses showing respondents’ preferences for quality components in course material; and the forth was Table 4 which was a tabular presentation of responses measuring respondents’ perception of production system. Data analysis. The study analyzed the measured perceptions and preferences of respondents. The SPSS was used in the analysis for descriptive statistics in Table 1. As shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4, the mean and x were also determined and compared for their respective variables to make the statistical analysis possible and discussion coherent.

Results and Discussion Presentation and Analysis of Responses to Research Question 1 Research question 1: What demographics and distance learning experience of respondents predisposed them to their perception of quality and participation in distance learning? Presentation of findings for research question 1. Sex, age, and educational and professional background were presented in Table 1. Table 1 Tabular Presentation of Respondents’ Demographics

Variables

Values Student architects f %

Sex Female Male Total Age (yrs.) < 20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Total Educational & professional background Bachelor degrees Master degrees Postgradute/professional diploma Total

Respondents Professional Professional architects horticulturists f % f %

Total f

%

12 71 83

6.74 39.89 46.63

6 23 29

3.37 12.92 16.29

9 57 66

5.06 32.02 37.08

27 151 178

15.17 84.83 100

0 60 22 1 0 0 83

0 1.12 4.49 3.37 3.37 3.93 46.63

0 0 4 9 11 5 29

0 0 2.25 5.06 6.18 2.80 16.29

0 0 19 16 6 25 66

0 0 10.67 8.99 3.37 14.05 37.08

1 6 33 46 51 41 178

0.56 3.37 18.54 25.84 28.70 23.04 100

56 23 4 83

31.46 12.92 2.25 46.63

2 8 19 29

1.12 4.49 10.68 16.29

41 2 23 66

23.04 1.12 12.92 37.08

91 5 82 178

51.12 2.81 46.07 100

Statistical analysis of data from research question 1. Statistical analysis covered responses to respondents’ sex, age, and educational and professional qualification. They were discussed as follows. Sex of respondents. Sex of respondents distributed as follows: female 27 (15.17%) and male 151 (84.83%). This compares with the view that more men than women access tertiary education (Dzidonu, 2003). Age of respondents. Respondents’ age showed that most of the respondents were mature students, 30 years old and above within 30-34 years old (46, 25.84%), 35-39 years old (51, 28.65%), and 40+ years old (41,

679

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

23.04%). This showed that they were adults, and pursuing an adult learning strategy. Respondents’ educational and professional qualification. Regarding academic program pursued by respondents, results showed that 91 (51.12%) were enrolled for bachelor degrees, 5 (2.81%) master degrees, and 82 (46.07%) reading for their postgraduate diploma and professional certificates. It is observed that undergraduate and graduate programs were equally being pursued by learners. Respondent’s distance learning experience. In their response to the questions, “Which of your senses have been engage in distance learning by distance learning materials?”, the following were realised: sight (58.4%), hearing (29.8%), touch (10.7%), smell (0.6%), and taste (0.6%). This implied that quality course materials had been mostly accessed by sight (technical presented quality) and hearing, showing that audio visual was key in distance learning materials. Presentation and Analysis of Responses to Research Question 2 Research question 2: What learning styles will be most suitable for end-users of the course materials landscape design course at KNUST? Presentation of finding for research question 2. Below, in Table 2, is the tabular presentation of learners’ responses to learner/learning styles based on VARK model. Table 2 Tabular Presentation Showing VARK Model Styles Respondents Identified With Themselves Values Variables VARK model Auditory learners Visual learners Kinaesthetic learners

SD -2 f 10 10 7

% 5.6 5.6 3.9

D -1 f 8 7 4

%

U 0 f

4.5 18 3.9 15 2.2 10

%

A 1 f

10.1 8.4 5.6

55 51 36

%

SA 2 f

%

30.9 28.7 20.2

87 95 121

48.9 53.4 68.0

Mean, x 1.26 1.13 1.20 1.46

Notes. SD = Strongly disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly agree.

Statistical analysis of research question 2. For students and professional architects, quantity surveyors, and horticulturists in the study, the mean scores of auditory learners (x = 1.13), visual learners (x = 1.20), and kinaesthetic learners (x = 1.46). This showed that much as course materials had to employ auditory and visual learning styles, the kinaesthetic style devices were to be used mostly in practical work. Fleming (2001) claimed that visual learners have a preference for seeing (think in pictures; visual aids, such as overhead slides, diagrams, handouts, etc.). Auditory learners do best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.). Tactile or kinaesthetic learners prefer to learn via experience—moving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world; science projects; experiments; etc.). Its use in pedagogy allows curriculum and course developers as well as writers to prepare course materials that address each of these areas. Students can also use the model to identify their preferred learning style and maximize their educational experience by focusing on what benefits them the most. Presentation and Analysis of Responses to Research Question 3 Research question 3: What quality components do learners prefer in course materials when accessing the distance learning process, and assessing their learning own progress? Presentation of finding for research question 3. Below, in Table 3, is the tabular presentation of

680

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

learners’ responses to the two major factors: (1) accessing the learning process; and (2) assessing the learning progress. Table 3 Tabular Presentation of Responses Showing Respondents’ Preference for Quality Components in Course Materials Values Variables Learners access the learning process with: (1) Preliminary pages features Title page: course code and course title Copyright page: publisher logo, name and contact of publisher, copyright information, ISBN (international standard book number) Note from publisher to learner (how to use the learning/course material) Author: name and qualification, occupation, and professional memberships (2) Course introduction Course description or overview, course outline Course objectives Evaluation and grading policy Resources required for course Citations and bibliography, reading list/textbooks List of abbreviation, list of symbols, notes on symbols and abbreviations Course study schedule, and learning journal (3) Reference items Table of contents, table of figures, and footnotes/endnotes Captions: tables, figure, equation, and appendices (4) Technical features (readability) Visuals with colour: graphics, illustrations, and figures Appropriate page size and volume of material Links and transitional phrases/words Comfortable font size, type face, and style Comfortable line spacing Language appropriateness and level (5) Technical features (usability) Video clip/interactive CD-ROM Links Icons and dialogue boxes (6) Pedagogy outline of unit (subject matter content) Unit introduction Unit learning objectives Unit content Unit interactive sessions (deductive and inductive reasoning) with examples, exercises/solutions Numbering and bulleting: learning points

SD -2 f

%

D -1 f

%

U 0 f

%

A 1 f

%

SA 2 f

%

Mean, x

8

4.5

1

0.6

6

3.4 90

50.6

1.24 1.08 73 41.0 1.23

6

3.4

13

7.3

30

16.9 80

44.9

49 27.5 0.86

3

1.7

8

4.5

11

6.2 83

46.6

73 41.0 1.21

4

2.2

13

7.3

8

4.5 89

50.0

64 36.0 1.03

3 3 5 5 5

1.7 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.8

8 8 6 4 6

4.5 4.5 3.4 2.2 3.4

7 7 14 15 14

3.9 3.9 7.9 8.4 7.9

76 76 80 60 80

42.7 42.7 44.9 33.7 44.9

84 84 73 94 73

4

2.2

2

1.1

5

2.8 87

48.9

80 44.9 1.33

3

1.7

9

5.1

17

9.6 66

37.1

6 2

3.4 1.1

4 4

2.2 2.2

4 18

2.2 87 10.1 96

48.9 53.9

6 6

3.4 3.4

6 7

3.4 3.9

11 7

6.2 64 3.9 85

36.0 47.8

83 46.6 1.22 1.53 77 43.3 1.26 58 32.6 1.80 1.19 91 51.1 1.28 73 41.0 1.19

3 8 3 2

1.7 4.5 1.7 1.1

5 11 8 6

2.8 6.2 4.5 3.4

20 20 16 12

11.2 11.2 9.0 6.7

86 68 70 80

48.3 38.2 39.3 44.9

64 71 81 78

4 6 6

2.2 3.4 3.4

8 8 12

4.5 4.5 6.7

35 28 35

19.7 50 15.7 55 19.7 72

28.1 30.9 40.4

81 45.5 81 45.5 53 29.8

4 5 5

2.2 2.8 2.8

0 1 8

0.0 0.6 4.5

2 7 18

1.1 61 3.9 81 10.1 79

34.3 111 62.4 45.5 84 47.2 44.4 68 38.2

4

2.2

4

2.2

8

4.5 64

36.0

98 55.1 1.39

3

1.7

6

3.4

21

11.8 80

44.9

68 38.2 1.15

47.2 47.2 41.0 52.8 41.0

36.0 39.9 45.5 43.8

1.26 1.29 1.29 1.18 1.31 1.18

1.14 1.03 1.22 1.27 1.03 1.10 1.11 0.87 1.32 1.54 1.34 1.11

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION (Table 3 to be continued) Course material divided into topical units Supportive data and worked examples New terms and key words Reading activity Web activity Learners assessing the learning progress with: (7) Questions and problems Self-assessment questions Unit assignment questions Discussion questions, review questions Course quizzes (8) Summaries Unit summary Course summary (9) Answers and feedbacks Author feedback: in self-grading answers and answer tips Learner feedback: of learning material quality, subject matter Facilitator feedback: from facilitator to assignments

681

3 4

1.7 2.2

3 5

1.7 2.8

13 5

7.3 72 2.8 42

40.4 87 48.9 1.33 23.6 122 68.5 1.53

5 4 4

2.8 2.2 2.2

5 8 2

2.8 4.5 1.1

15 15 9

8.4 70 8.4 90 5.1 60

4 2 3 4

2.2 1.1 1.7 2.2

1 2 3 5

0.6 1.1 1.7 2.8

6 11 9 8

3.4 6.2 5.1 4.5

4 2

2.2 1.1

4 4

2.2 2.2

11 8

6.2 67 4.5 79

7 3 4

3.9 1.7 2.2

3 6 7

1.7 3.4 3.9

8 13 11

4.5 69 7.3 76 6.2 97

39.3 83 46.6 1.24 50.6 61 34.3 1.10 33.7 103 57.9 1.44 1.34 1.44 30.3 113 63.5 1.52 35.4 100 56.2 1.43 30.9 108 60.7 1.47 41.6 87 48.9 1.32 1.35 37.6 92 51.7 1.34 44.4 85 47.8 1.35 1.23 38.8 91 51.1 1.31 42.7 80 44.9 1.26 54.5 59 33.1 1.12

54 63 55 74

Notes. SD = Strongly disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly agree.

Statistical analysis of research question 3. Descriptive statistics showed generally higher agreements with the assertion that learners do have quality components they would prefer to see in course materials for accessing learning process and assessing learning progress. For accessing learning process, respondents expressed agreement on preliminary pages features (x = 1.08), reference items (x = 1.53), pedagogy outline of subject matter content (x = 1.32), course introduction (x = 1.26), technical features of readability (x = 1.19), preliminary pages features (x = 1.08), and technical features of usability (x = 1.03). All of these contributed to the mean score for accessing learning process to be 1.24. Respondents also showed agreement with statements on technical features (readability) of materials (x = 1.19). For technical features (usability, x = 1.03). Further, questions and problems had the mean score of 1.44, summaries 1.35, and mean score 1.23 for answers and feedbacks. These did contribute to overall mean score of respondents assessing learners’ progress, as x = 1.34. This was higher than that of accessing the learning process, which was x = 1.24. This means that highly valued internal factors do increase distance learners’ demand for quality in distance education. Kolarik (1999) agreed that those who directly benefit from their use of a good or service do demand quality thereof. And this is what is of value to customers and end-users (Bradbery, 1991). This meant that a course writing template that will enhance end-users’ accessing learning process and assessing their learning progress should contain end-users’ preferences in Table 3. Presentation and Analysis of Responses to Research Question 4 The research Question 4: What are learners’ perceptions of quality in product of the learning materials? This was answered below by presenting and analyzing its data. See Table 4 below. Presentation of Finding for Research Question 4. Below, in Table 4, is the tabular presentation of learners’ responses to perceiving quality in distance learning material product.

682

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

Table 4 Tabular Presentation of Responses Measuring Respondents’ Perception of Production System Values Variables Perceive quality in distance learning material product as in the: (1) Pedagogy (it does assist learner to access learning process and assess learner’s progress in learning) (2) Presentation (what is presented to the senses of the learner) (3) Policy direct by what policy exist in the distance learning institute, Tertiary Education Project of Ghana (4) Personal being selective choice depending on adult experience and learner characteristics

SD -2 f

%

D -1 f

%

U 0 f

%

A 1 f

%

SA 2 f

%

Mean, x 1.05

5

2.8

3

1.7

29

16.3 85

47.8 56

31.5 1.03

5

2.8

2

1.1

26

14.6 87

48.9 58

32.6 1.07

5

2.8

2

1.1

27

15.2 87

48.9 57

32.0 1.06

8

4.5

14

7.9

16

9.0

38.8 71

39.9 1.02

69

Notes. SD = Strongly disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly agree.

Statistical analysis of research question 4. With respect to how learners perceive production system for distance learning material to be, the learners had a positive perception of the system that will ensure the quality they required. Overall, respondents expressed agreement with the production system. They expressed satisfaction with the efficiency of the system (x = 0.84), product supporting pedagogy and learning (x = 1.03), presentation engaging the senses (x = 1.07), and distance learning policy (x = 1.06), personal being selective choice depending on adult experience and learner characteristics (x = 1.02). In summary, respondents’ end-users’ preferences have been determined to support VARK model (see Table 2) and QCMW template (see Table 3 and Figure 1), and been successfully applicable to production of quality landscape design course material for distance and e-learning at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Quality, production, and project management theories and practice explained by Good (2003), C. K. Laudon and J. P. Laudon (2007), Kolarik (1999), Hill (1992), Adam and Ebert (1987), and Heizer and Render (1993) did support effective and efficient development and production of distance learning materials.

Conclusion The study successfully determined the influential factors that affect development and production of course writing template for distance and e-learning materials from the end-users’ preferences. Existing materials designed to allow end-users access presentation to their senses: sight (58.4%), hearing (29.8%), and touch (10.7%). And end-users in the study having accessed learning process x = 1.24 and assessed their learning progress with x = 1.34; and having perceived quality in distance learning material product (x = 1.05) with 145 (81.5%), respondents have more than agreed to the entire variables. Study identified end-user’s preferences; knowledge of which course developers and writers required for designing, developing, and deploying quality landscape design course materials for distance and e-learning pathways. When applied, there will no longer be gap in curriculum and course material quality suitable for the distance learners. This will go a long way to provide landscape design course leverage to make the landscape design at Department of Architecture and Planning, a sustainable design interface for solution in fast developing country Ghana, where physical development increasingly would have competed for space with relatively dwindling natural environment in human communities. The educational strategy would have been delivered. Study concluded with the

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

683

proposition: Application of end-users’ quality preferences enhances production of quality landscape design course materials for distance and e-learning at KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.

References Adam, Jr. E. E., & Ebert, R. J. (1987). Productions and operations management concepts models and behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bradbery, P. (1991). The process is the content. In R. Atkinson, & C. McBeath (Eds.), Quality in distance education: Australian and South Pacific External Studies Association Forum 1991 (pp. 90-101). Bathurst, Australia: Charles Sturt University. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free—The art of making quality certain. New York: Mentor. Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Dzidonu, C. K. (2003). An integrated ICT-led socio-economic development policy and plan development for Ghana—The Ghana ICT for accelerated development (ICT4 AD) process. Accra: Institute for Scientific and Technological Information, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Ehlers, U. D. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective. Third EDEN Research Workshop 2004, Oldenburg, Germany. Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Online_Master_COPs.html and http://www.eurodl.org Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total quality control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Honolulu Community College. Good, P. (2003). Project management guidebook. Buffalo: Project Management Institute. Gosling, L. (1995). Toolkits—A practical guide to assessment, monitoring, review and evaluation. Development Manuals 5. London: Save the Children, Inc.. Hawk, T. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19. Retrieved May 9, 2013, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ j.1540-4609.2007. 00125.x/full Heizer, J., & Render, B. (1993). Production and operations management. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hill, T. (1992). The essence of operations management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. James, W., & Gardner, D. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 19-32. Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality—An executive handbook. New York: The Free Press. Kolarik, W. J. (1999). Creating quality: Process design for results. USA: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from http://opa.uprrp.edu/InvInsDocs/KrejcieandMorgan.pdf Kvan, T., & Yunyan, J. (2005, January). Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0142694X04000493 Lampikoski, K. (1992). Teleconferencing: A step towards synchronous dsistance learning. In G. Ortner, K. Graff, & H. Wilmersdoerfer (Eds.), Distance education as two-way communication (pp. 185-195). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Laudon, C. K., & Laudon, J. P. (2007). Management information systems—Managing the digital firm (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.. Learning Disabilities Pride Online. (2008). An introduction to understanding learning styles. Retrieved May 9, 2013, from http://www.ldpride.net/Understanding-Learning-Styles.pdf Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2010, April). Attempted validation of the scores of the vark: Learning styles inventory with multitrait—Multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement 70, 2, 323-339. Lind, L. (2005). Defining the quality of online learning materials in Finland. Reteieved August 16, 2011, from http:// www.insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/thematic_dossiers/articles/quality_criteria/quality3.htm Mishra, M. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: An introduction (p. 4). Retrieved March 23, 2013, from http:// www.col.org/ SiteCollectionDocuments/PUB_QAHE_Intro.pdf

684

QUALITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN COURSE MATERIALS PRODUCTION

Nunan, T. (1991). University academics’ perceptions of quality in distance education. Quality in Distance Education: Australian and South Pacific External Studies Association Forum 1991, 387-397. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119. Radford, G. S. (1992). The control of quality in manufacturing. New York: Ronald Press. In A. Mital, A. Desai, A. Subramanian, & A. Mital (Eds.), Product development: A structured approach to consumer product development (2008, p. 91). Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. Saah, A. A. (2012). Quest & questions for quality course material production: An experience of applying learner quality-factors at KNUST. Accra: African Institute for Researching and Development. Shewhart, W. A. (1980). Economic control of quality of manufactured product/50 anniversary commemorative issue. Milwaukee: Quality Press. Soanes, C. (2001). Oxford dictionary of current English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stewart-Smith, Y. C. (1994, May). Bringing quality to higher education. In First National Conference on Quality in Education (pp.18-19). Dipoli, Espoo, Finland. Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to quality engineering. White Plains, N.Y.: Asian Productivity Organization, UNIPUB. Weiers, R. M. (2002). Business statistics (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning Inc..