Debajyoti Pal
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced educational institutes worldwide to resort to an "online only" mode of teaching delivery. As a consequence, throughout the globe there has been an increasing trend among the students to use different videoconferencing applications for the purpose of learning online. However, the multimedia quality provided by these different applications provides the key to their success i.e. whether or not the students will be willing to use those for learning online. Consequently, three popular applications (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Cisco Webex) are taken up in this work for the purpose of multimedia quality evaluation by using an objective based approach. Results from both the models are in close agreement with each other. Microsoft Teams provides the least experience, whereas those from the others vary depending upon the objective models used. The results obtained are further verified by conducting relevant hypotheses tests.
- E. J. P Hidalgo, C. A. H. Abril, and M. E. G. Parra. 2020. MOOCs: Origins, Concepts and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012-2019). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1--27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09433-6Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- W. A. Rahmi, A. Aldraiweesh, N. Yahaya, Y. B. Cumin, and A. M. Zeki, 2019. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Data on Higher Education. Data in Brief, 118--125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.139Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lewis Keegan. 2020. Video Conferencing Statistics (All You Need to Know!). (April 2020). Retrieved May 4, 2020 from https://skillscouter.com/video-conferencing-statistics/Google Scholar
- Laurent Giret. 2020. Microsoft Shares New Usage Numbers on Teams, Announces New Education Features. (April 2020). Retrieved May 4, 2020 from https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-shares-new-usage-numbers-on-teams-announces-new-education-featuresGoogle Scholar
- Sarah Perez. 2020. Videoconferencing Apps Saw a Record 62M Downloads During One Week in March. (March 2020). Retrieved May 4, 2020 from https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/30/video-conferencing-apps-saw-a-record-62m-downloads-during-one-week-in-march/Google Scholar
- Y. Chen, K. Wu, and Q. Zhang. 2015. From QoS to QoE: A Tutorial on Video Quality Assessment. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 17, 2, 1126--1165. DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2014.2363139Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. J. Kim, and S. G. Choi. 2014. QoE Assessment Model for Multimedia Streaming Services using QoS Parameters. Multimedia Tools and Applications 72, 2163--2175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1507-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- ITU-T E.800. 2008. Definitions of Terms Related to Quality of Service. ITU-T Recommendation E.800 (09/08), Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- ITU-T P.10. 2017. Vocabulary for Performance, Quality of Service and Quality of Experience. ITU-T Recommendation P.10 (11/17), Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- D. Pal, and T. Triyason. 2018. A Survey of Standardized Approaches towards the Quality of Experience Evaluation for Video Services: An ITU Perspective. International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting 2018, Article 1391724, 25 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1391724Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. S. Kapov, and M. Varela. 2012. A Multi-dimensional View of QoE: The ARCU Model. In Proceedings of the 35th International Convention MIPRO, May 21-25, 2012, Opatija, Croatia, 662--666.Google Scholar
- J. You, U. Reiter, M. M. Hannuksela, M. Gabbouj, and A. Perkis. 2010. Perceptual-based Quality Assessment for Audio-visual Services: A Survey. Signal Processing: Image Communication 25, 7, 482--501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.image.2010.02.002Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Pornpongtechavanich, and T. Daengsi. 2019. Video Telephony- Quality of Experience: A Simple QoE Model to Assess Video Calls Using Subjective Approach. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78, 31987--32006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-07928-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- A. N. Moldovan, I. Ghergulescu, and C. H. Muntean. 2016. VQAMap: A Novel Mechanism for Mapping Objective Video Quality Metrics to Subjective MOS Scale. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 62, 3, 610--627. DOI: 10.1109/TBC.2016.2570002Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Zinner, O. Abboud, O. Hohlfeld, T. Hossfeld, and P. T. Gia. 2010. Towards QoE Management for Scalable Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 21st ITC Specialist Seminar on Multimedia Applications- Traffic, Performance, and QoE, March 2-3, 2010, Miyazaki, Japan, 64--69.Google Scholar
- S. Möller, W. Chan, N. Côté, T. H. Falk, A. Raake and M. Wältermann. 2011. Speech Quality Estimation: Models and Trends. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28, 6, 18--28. DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2011.942469Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Weiss, S. Möller, B. Belmudez and B. Lewcio. 2014. Analysis of Call-quality Prediction Performance for Speech-only and Audio-visual Telephony. In Proceedings 2014 Sixth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), September 18-20, 2014, Singapore, 263--268.Google Scholar
- L. Yu, T. Tillo and J. Xiao. 2017. QoE-Driven Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming Strategy with Future Information. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 63, 3, 523--534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TBC.2017.2687698Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Pal, and V. Vanijja. 2017. Effect of Network QoS on User QoE for a Mobile Video Streaming Service using H.265/VP9 Codec. Procedia Computer Science, 111, 214--222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.056Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hoßfeld., L. S. Kapov, P. E. Heegaard, M. Varela, K. Chen. 2016. On Additive and Multiplicative QoS-QoE Models for Multiple QoS Parameters. In Proceedings 5th ISCA/DEGA Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems (PQS 2016), August 29-31, 2016, Berlin, Germany, 44--48, DOI: 10.21437/PQS.2016-10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. S. Hands. 2004. A Basic Multimedia Quality Model. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 6, 6, 806--816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2004.837233Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Winkler and C. Faller. 2006. Perceived Audiovisual Quality of Low-Bitrate Multimedia Content. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 8, 5, 973--980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TM.2006.879871Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Belmudez, and S. Möller. 2013. Audiovisual Quality Integration for Interactive Communications. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 24, Article 24, 23 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-4722-2013-24Google ScholarCross Ref
- ITU-T G.1070. 2018. Opinion Model for Video-telephony Applications. ITU-T Recommendation G.1070 (06/18), Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- D. Pal, and V. Vanijja. 2018. A No-Reference Modular Video Quality Prediction Model for H.265/HEVC and VP9 Codecs on a Mobile Device. Advances in Multimedia, 2017, Article 8317590, 19 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8317590Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Pornpongtechavanich, and T. Daengsi. 2020. Audiovisual Quality Assessment: A Study of Video Calls provided by Social Media Applications. The Journal of Industrial Technology, 16, 1, 31--46. DOI: 10.14416/j.ind.tech.2020.03.003Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Online Learning During COVID-19: Students' Perception of Multimedia Quality
Recommendations
Fostering Interaction to Enhance Learning in Online Learning Environments
Interaction is central to educational experiences in online learning environments. Interaction enhances learning by fostering three types of learning interaction: learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content. Additionally, online students ...
Online Learning Platform Analysis During COVID- 19 Pandemic in Indonesia
AbstractCovid-19 forces Indonesia's education institutions to operate learning online. The continuity of online learning is influenced by several factors, such as personal space, environment, and learning system. Out of all categories, Learning Management ...
Online Collaborative Learning Using Microsoft Teams in Higher Education Amid COVID-19
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most universities needed to move to online teaching and learning, in some cases with very limited knowledge or experience in running online programmes. Engaging students online has become an imminent challenge that ...
Comments