Impact of Different Quality of Service Mechanisms on Students' Quality of Experience in Videoconferencing Learning Environment
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.
___
- Agboma, F., & Liotta, A. (2007). Addressing user expectations in mobile content delivery.
Mobile Information Systems, 3(3-4), 153-164
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
Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐ learning courses. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305
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
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
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
Harris, D. A., & Krousgrill, C. (2008). Distance education: New technologies and new
directions. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(6), 917-930
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). 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, M., Schlosser, D., Scheuring, S., & Hoßfeld, T. (2011, June). An evaluation of QoE in
cloud gaming based on subjective tests. In Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in
Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS), 2011 Fifth International Conference on (pp. 330-335).
IEEE
Kalliris, G., Matsiola, M., Dimoulas, C. A., & Veglis, A. (2014, July). Emotional aspects in Quality
of Experience and Learning (QoE & QoL) of audiovisual content in mediated learning.
In Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications, IISA 2014, The 5th
International Conference on (pp. 198-203). IEEE
Karadimce, A., & Davcev, D. (2014, October). Model for collaborative and adaptive multimedia
content delivery in a collaborative m-learning environment. In Collaborative
Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom), 2014
International Conference on (pp. 431-434). IEEE
Kilinc, C., & Andersson, K. (2014). A congestion avoidance mechanism for WebRTC interactive
video sessions in LTE networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 77(4), 2417-
2443
Kim, H. J., & Choi, S. G. (2010, February). A study on a QoS/QoE correlation model for QoE
evaluation on IPTV service. In Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2010
The 12th International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 1377-1382). IEEE
Kuipers, F., Kooij, R., De Vleeschauwer, D., & Brunnström, K. (2010, June). Techniques for
measuring quality of experience. In International Conference on Wired/Wireless
Internet Communications (pp. 216-227). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Laghari, A. A., He, H., Zardari, S., & Shafiq, M. (2017). Systematic Analysis of Quality of
Experience (QoE) Frameworks for Multimedia Services. IJCSNS, 17(5), 121
Laghari, K. U. R., & Connelly, K. (2012). Toward total quality of experience: A QoE model in a
communication ecosystem. Communications Magazine, IEEE, 50(4), 58-65
Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum‐ Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for
education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 19(3), 295-314
Lee, M., & Copeland, J. A. (2009, August). An adaptive end-to-end delay assurance algorithm
with diffserv architecture in IEEE 802.11 e/IEEE 802.16 hybrid mesh/relay networks.
In Computer Communications and Networks, 2009. ICCCN 2009. Proceedings of 18th
Internatonal Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE
Lee, Y., Lou, J., Luo, J., & Shen, X. (2007). An efficient packet scheduling algorithm with
deadline guarantees for input-queued switches. IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking (TON), 15(1), 212-225
Li, J., Yang, L., Fu, X., Chao, F., & Qu, Y. (2017). Dynamic QoS Solution for Enterprise Networks
Using TSK Fuzzy Interpolation. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy
Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2017)
37
Likert, R. (1931). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. New
York: Columbia University Press
Malinovski, T., Vasileva, M., Vasileva-Stojanovska, T., & Trajkovik, V. (2014). Considering high
school students’ experience in asynchronous and synchronous distance learning
environments: QoE prediction model. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 15(4)
Nahrstedt, K., Xu, D., Wichadakul, D., & Li, B. (2001). QoS-aware middleware for ubiquitous
and heterogeneous environments. IEEE Communications magazine, 39(11), 140-148
Neeman, H., Severini, H., Wu, D., & Kantardjieff, K. (2010). Teaching high performance
computing via videoconferencing. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 67-71
Nikravesh, A., Hong, D. K., Chen, Q. A., Madhyastha, H. V., & Mao, Z. M. (2016, August). QoE
Inference Without Application Control. In Internet-QoE@ SIGCOMM (pp. 19-24)
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Parakh, S., & Jagannatham, A. K. (2012, July). Game theory based dynamic bit-rate adaptation
for H. 264 scalable video transmission in 4G wireless systems. In Signal Processing
and Communications (SPCOM), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE
Pathak, K. C., Singh, S., & Patel, J. N. (2016, December). Error detection and concealment
algorithm for compressed video transmission. In Humanitarian Technology
Conference (R10-HTC), 2016 IEEE Region 10 (pp. 1-5). IEEE
Rajani, P. K., Khaparde, A., & Ghuge, A. D. (2017, March). Implementation of Video Error
Concealment Using Block Matching Algorithm. In International Conference on
Information and Communication Technology for Intelligent Systems (pp. 357-364).
Springer, Cham
Rajkumar, R., Lee, C., Lehoczky, J., & Siewiorek, D. (1997, December). A resource allocation
model for QoS management. In Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1997. Proceedings.
The 18th IEEE (pp. 298-307). IEEE
Richards, A., Antoniades, M., Witana, V., & Rogers, G. (1998). Mapping user level QoS from a
single parameter. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia
Networks and Services (MMNS '98)
Romero, D. (2008). Context-aware middleware: An overview. Paradigma, 2(3), 1-11
Saxena, P. C., Jasola, S., & Sharma, R. C. (2006). Impact of VoIP and QoS on Open and
Distance Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3)
Siller, M., & Woods, J. (2003, April). Improving quality of experience for multimedia services
by QoS arbitration on a QoE framework. In Proc. of the 13th Packed Video Workshop
2003
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning at a
distance: Foundations of distance education. IAP
Stankiewicz, R., & Jajszczyk, A. (2011). A survey of QoE assurance in converged networks.
Computer Networks, 55(7), 1459-1473
Sudarsono, A., Siswanto, A., Iswanto, H., & Setiawan, Q. (2016). Traffic Analysis of Quality of
Service (QoS) for Video Conferencing between Main Campus and Sub Campus in
Laboratory Scale. EMITTER International Journal of Engineering Technology, 3(2)
Szigeti, T., Hattingh, C., Barton, R., & Briley Jr, K. (2013). End-to-End QoS Network Design:
Quality of Service for Rich-Media & Cloud Networks. Cisco Press.
Usman, M., He, X., Xu, M., & Lam, K. M. (2015, May). Survey of error concealment techniques:
Research directions and open issues. In Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 2015 (pp.
233-238). IEEE