The Learning Benefits of Hypermedia Environments.

University Degree Mathematical and Computer Sciences

(2) Non-adaptive session

Introduction

There are two principal consequences of this inappropriate emphasis on what hypermedia can be made to do, instead of how this technology can empower the learning process. Firstly and quite naturally, the inherent and well known problems of hypermedia systems are imported and amplified in educational applications. Learners get lost in hyperspace, due to cognitive overload. This results in the learning process being interrupted by navigation concerns and software mastering, and finally, the lack of guidance means that learners end up studying less meaningful topics and omit to study crucial ones. Secondly, and potentially more importantly, the focus on the technology neglects educational and pedagogic issues as well as systematic analysis and design. Unsuitable educational models may hence be adopted, usually based on behaviorist paradigms.

It is assumed that educators and pedagogues are the fundamental instructional designers in the creation of educational software, and the model must thus be workable and understandable by such people. Additionally, the gap between expert/professional and non-expert/non-professional developer is narrowing, due to the improved facilities of modern hypermedia authoring tools, which aim at supporting both professional quality and do-it-yourself endeavors (). Thus, the developer of an educational application could ultimately be the educator him/herself, without the need for professional assistance; even so, there would still be a need for the model and the design process.

In this report we are going to discuss the effectiveness of hypermedia in educational programs based on bibliography references. Despite of the benefits there are a lot of problems that are causing learners confusion. Due to those problems many researches suggested that this information technology is an inappropriate support for learning systems.

We are going to discuss about adaptive hypermedia and compare them with the usage of hypermedia. Finally we are going to present a learning system designed for financial students as a best practice of designing a learning system trying to avoid the disorientation of hypermedia. Appropriate and careful analysis and design are the unique solution to minimize disorientation.

The Learning Benefits of Hypermedia Environments

The instructional paradigm is shifting from a teaching environment to a learning environment, with a focus on "practice-centered learning." This orientation aligns with adult learning theory, in which the notion of self-directed learning is fundamental to the design of learning contexts. Hypermedia environments support self-directed, life-long learning if structured to stimulate and motivate learners to be able to independently locate the resources necessary to continue learning (Diaz, 1998).

Technologies that facilitate self-directed and practice-centered learning include hypermedia, real-time chats, threaded discussion, and tools such as VRML, Shockwave, and Java applets that make the Web interactive while delivering rich content. These technologies have been related to both learning and cost effectiveness, as they tend to influence the ways in which a learner represents and processes information (Kozma, 1991) as an active strategy in which he/she is required to structure the learning process as a co-designer of his/her own experience. Diverse learning and cognitive styles are supported through multiple presentations of information, improving retention and performance, and increasing motivation to learn (Crosby & Stelovsky, 1995).

Educators and researchers increasingly accept the views of Vygotsky, (1978) and Bruner (1986) that interaction is the origin of all mental activity and grown, student learning is increasingly analyzed in a social context. From this perspective, meaning is seen as a negotiation and knowledge building process within a learning community (Bonk & Reynolds, 1998). These communities, characterized by their open-ended nature, are exemplified by the Web, which shows significant promise by its very structure, or lack of it, and in its support of communication tools that enable dialogue across and among diverse communities of knowers.

The social environment results in learning gains and increased creativity of outcomes that develops from collaborating and working in groups (Nelson & South, 1999). Internet-based communication tools such as e-mail, Internet-relay chat (IRC), threaded discussion forums, and synchronous conferencing enable dialogue that can help students think critically and make better decisions. Using computers as collaborative tools can be seen as a type of social constructivism whereby knowledge is generated problem-solving skills are scaffolded through group activity (Clements & Natasi, 1992). In these groups, students frequently reach a state of conflict that must be reconciled in the form of a solution. The solution represents a "qualitatively different third perspective (combining) two opposing ideas into a coherent, higher-level idea" (p. 243). Cooperative learning and cooperative problem-solving groups enhance opportunities for generative learning, generating a wider diversity ! of ideas, most reflective thinking, and increased creative responses (Oliver, Omari, and Herrington, 1998, in Oliver, 1999, p. 10)

Problems of hypermedia in educational applications

) defined disorientation as the tendency to lose the sense of location and direction in a non-linear environment, to 'get lost in hyperspace'. The main causes to that problem are due to navigation and content difficulties. The first refers to the difficulty in accessing required information, and the second addresses the problem of knowing what information is available (Mayes et al, 1990). Poor or inadequate design will certainly increase the hypermedia’s inherent flaws creating what ironically designates as hyperchaos.

Hypermedia is a web of information rather than a sequential and cohesive expository presentation. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Problems of hypermedia in educational applications

Hypermedia is a web of information rather than a sequential and cohesive expository presentation. Therefore, if the links, paths and guidance are ill-designed, navigation and browsing becomes very difficult and disorientation is dramatically increased. Another of the hypermedia lacunae is the omission of user interface specifications. Consequently, lack of or poor interface design will not help the learner in the choice of paths nor in the identification of the web structure. Thus, the cognitive overload of browsing the hypermedia web is increased.

After such an extensive enumeration and description of the problems involving hypermedia usage, it might seem that this information technology is an inappropriate support for learning systems. Quite to the contrary, hypermedia is a very useful medium for the development of educational software.

Adaptive Hypermedia

Hypermedia can be defined as information supported by different media and structured according to the hypertext principle. The term hypermedia encapsulates the terms hypertext and multimedia. Multimedia means that more than one media is used (ex. video, sound and text, interactive application).Hypertext signifies the logic structure, the organizing principle behind the architecture. Hypertext is an enhanced version of text by classical definition. In classical text; we are used to find information in the renowned articulation of introduction, augmentation, conclusion, while Hypertext is a system that allows access to different information in a non-linear way.

Hypertext is consists of nodes and links. Nodes, or the pages, of hypertext are made of textual information while links allow the user to activate other pages.

Hypermedia differs from hypertext in the contents of the nodes. Nodes in a hypermedia system are not only made by textual data, but they can be or they can contain multimedia data. .In Hypermedia every piece of information can be, at the same time, center and periphery, introduction and conclusion, important and unimportant according to the knowledge, interests and navigational choices operated by the user. (Retalis,1997)

Adaptive Hypermedia systems reflect some features of the user in the user model and apply this model to adapt various visible aspects of the system to the user.

To be categorized as adaptive hypermedia, a system should satisfy three criteria: It should be a hypermedia system, it should have a user model, and it should be able to apply hypermedia using this model (Brusilovsky,1996) In other words .adaptive hypermedia systems build a model of goals, preferences and knowledge of each user, and use this model throughout the interaction with user, in order to adapt to his needs.

Adaptation techniques refers to methods of providing adaptation in existing AH systems. These techniques are a part of the implementation level of an AH system. Each technique can be characterized by a specific kind of knowledge representation and by a specific adaptation algorithm.

Adaptation methods are defined as generalizations of existing adaptation techniques. Each method is based on a clear adaptation idea which can be presented at the conceptual level. For example, "...insert the comparison of the current concept with another concept if this other concept is already known to the user", or "...hide the links to the concepts which are not yet ready to be learned". The same conceptual method can be implemented by different techniques. At the same time, some techniques are used to implement several methods using the same knowledge representation (Brusilovsky, 1996)

The hypermedia form supports student-driven acquisition of the learning material. The most important user feature in educational hypermedia is user knowledge of the subject being taught. Adaptive hypermedia techniques can be useful to solve a number of the problems associated with the use of educational hypermedia. Firstly, the knowledge of different users can vary greatly and the knowledge of a particular user can grow quite fast. The same page can be unclear for a novice and at the same time trivial and boring for an advanced learner. Second, novices enter the hyperspace of educational material knowing almost nothing about the subject. Most of the offered links from any node lead to the material which is completely new for them. They need navigational help to find their way through the hyperspace. Without such a help they can "get lost" even in reasonably small hyperspaces, or use very inefficient browsing strategies (Hammond, 1989).

3.4.1. Hypermedia versus Adaptive hypermedia

The contribution of educational multimedia in terms of value and attractiveness is undeniable. .Multimedia learning operates by immersion: from reading, listening and watching to understanding. (Morganti, 2001)

Educational Hypermedia systems offer the user the opportunity of being a coauthor of the learning environment, of being actively involved in the learning process. Learners in an educational hypermedia system can: choose the pieces of knowledge they want to acquire and have a personal trajectory in knowledge hyperspace.

Hypertextual structure can enhance educational quality, as a structure akin to what is called in instructional theories .cognitive schemas.. Cognitive schemas are well-interconnected concepts. These schemas are gradually formed and perfected, as a learner gains more expertise in a specific domain. Accordingly, a learner using an educational hypermedia system, is accommodating in structuring his own cognitive schemas, i.e. including the concepts and links On the other hand, hypermedia structure becomes a disadvantage as .being lost in Hyperspace. is a crucial problem. This problem is one of disorientation and cognitive overflow (surfeit). Disorientation is the consequence of moving freely in hyperspace, which can lead the learner to wonder about where he is, why, and where to go. Cognitive overload is a compound result of short memory capacity but not the real avalanche of information, which is provided by a hypermedia system.

Adaptive hypermedia systems resolve disorientation and cognitive overload as they allow personalized guidance through hyperspace. Adaptive hypermedia systems act toward mentoring the user in the learning endeavor. .Adaptive hypermedia systems counterbalance the lack of interpersonal interaction in distance learning as they can act like personal desktop teachers.

According to Brusilovsky et al (1998) research in AEH field can be grouped in four directions:

Evaluation of how much and why an adaptive system supports the educational process;
Investigation of student features that are suitable as a basis for adaptation;
Investigation of system features that may be changed and maintained by adaptation;
Research of different “adaptive goals”, methods and techniques for achieving them and evaluation of the gains and failures in different approaches.

System description

The system contains courseware for students in defining Investment Valuation Analysis

And Portfolio Construction. The chapters chosen for the study contain scientific concepts, principles, and equation that are used to evaluate stock fair prices. The first (adaptive) session contains the courseware on Dividend Discount Model(DDM) and the second (non-adaptive) session contains the courseware on the Capital Asset Pricing Model(CAPM). Each session contains the same number of pages, and the student’s knowledge is accessed at the end of each lesson. As part of the system usage, the students browse the adaptive session first and then complete the post test, followed by a non adaptive session and second post-test. The post tests contain the same number of questions, and they are tied to lesson objectives and three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956). The results of the post tests between adaptive and non adaptive sessions are compared.

Page layout

The basic structure of the page layout is that the pages are divided into two formats:

S-type for the summarizing strategy and
Q-type for the questioning strategy

The “summarizing” strategy (S) provides the opportunity to identify, paraphrase, and integrate important information. The “questioning” (Q) strategy enables students to generate questions and identify the kind of information that is significant enough that it could provide the substance for a question. Students pose this information in a question form and self-test themselves to ascertain that they can indeed answer their own question

One of the definitions of learning strategies used by the students was described by Garner (1987), who suggested that ‘text summarization is a tool for making a cognitive process and for monitoring it. As a cognitive strategy, it allows learners to synthesize information from multiple sources and diverse perspectives”.

Three factors were viewed as essential and sufficient to design the layout of an environment conducive to studying: the learning strategy, the text and link presentation and the structural signals.

The S-type pages have a top-down approach where the material is presented with key-points summarized at the end of each page. The S-type page presentation provides contextual clues to help students with getting the gist of information (by using headings, diving text in small chunks etc). The aim is to provide the students with some elements of a summarizing strategy.

The Q-type pages have a question asked after each paragraph (which contains an explanation of a concept). Arburn and Bethel (1998) suggest that directing the attention to deliberate questioning activities may encourage the students to confront misconceptions which they have grown comfortable with, so that in resolving their discrepancies more meaningful learning may occur.

Adaptive features of the system

The system allows the user interface, linking and content structure to change according to student’s knowledge state. Student’s recall and understanding of content is continuously checked and an appropriate strategy is selected. The adaptive techniques used are adaptive presentation (adaptive layout presentation) and adaptive navigation support (Brusilovsky, 1996), (adaptive annotation and hiding of links) in the table of contents and the adaptive side bar.

For adaptive presentation a set of pedagogical rules of knowledge prerequisites is created, that determines which layout and which pages should be presented. These rules also determine which additional information should be presented along with a concept and which examples should be shown. Students are prevented from jumping to pages for which they lack prerequisite knowledge. (The pages that describe concepts are divided into prerequisite concepts by the author). Some pages have examples of concepts associated with them and some do not. The links to the pages that the student is not ready to learn become hidden and a cross icon is placed next to them. The links to lessons that the student is ready to cover are displayed in the table of contents with a green tick icon next to them. The percentage of completed material is also displayed in the table of contents. Previously viewed chapters, currently available pages and newly available links to chapters are presented in the adaptive side bar.

The basic hypermedia philosophy, which supports its use for educational purposes, is based on the belief that learners can forge their own paths through the richly interconnected information web in a self-directed manner, assembling the subject matter materials in accordance with their educational goals and their individual learning styles, rather than having slavishly to follow some form of linear tutorial ().

Student model (SM)

The student model is used to adapt the display characteristics of the interface and the appropriate learning strategy, to the needs of the student. Student’s interaction is reflected immediately in the system and in the learning strategy selection. The knowledge that the student has attained is collected through direct questioning methods. The student model is dynamically updated and triggers the system to select the most appropriate learning strategy for each lesson. The student model contains the following information: Student _ID, History of visited links, time spent on each page, learning strategy preference and the number of switches between the two strategies

(1) Adaptive session

In this first, adaptive part of the system the students log in and start browsing. The students are not able to see all the pages at first. The links that the system provides become available as the student learns more. The students start browsing pages that embed summarizing strategy elements (S-type page layout). At the end of a lesson the student is asked to summarize it (summarizing strategy check) and the student fails to provide a correct answer, then a different learning strategy (questioning strategy) is provided (the Q-type page layout). At the end of that lesson, when a strategy check point is reached, and if the student fails to answer, then the students can continue to browse the lesson, but the links to the pages they can browse are restricted until a concept is mastered.

(2) Non-adaptive session

This is the second part of the system where students re-log in. This version of hypermedia courseware offers students unrestricted navigation throughout the lessons. The students can apply whatever learning strategy they wish. Summaries of key points are provided in the non adaptive side bar. The student’s comprehension is tested after each lesson, but no clues are given if they provided an incorrect answer. At the end of the chapter they take another post-test. The student’s behavior is monitored and the history of links is logged. Questions asked at the end of adaptive and non-adaptive parts of the system follow Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives on knowledge, comprehension and synthesis of information. The questions were created so that the students were asked to demonstrate that they fulfill these conditions by being asked to demonstrate these cognitive levels by having to define match and classify information, as well as to describe and explain concepts in their own words.

Conclusions

When faced with any computer-mediated learning system, the learner has to manage the demands of three types of complexity: managing himself in the complex learning environment, facing conflicts with previously acquired intuitive models of the world, and adapting to the new approach to learning which would be working in the content domain as provided by the system and trying to learn simultaneously (). This last type of complexity management is particularly difficult to handle when using hypermedia systems, due to their inherent navigational and browsing characteristics. The system often becomes yet another source of complexity for the learner, thus reflecting the second major problem in hypermedia systems: cognitive overhead, which refers to the need of constantly being aware of the process to use the system in addition to the learning process in course.

Like all other designers, hypermedia designers call on prior knowledge and experience when developing their applications. They call to mind previous solutions and strategies they have used, have experienced, or have seen that fits the particular constraints of the current situation (). These previous experiences play a central role in specifying the structure, contents and instructional strategies. Therefore, if the pedagogical component of the design is not consciously considered and planned, the designer will tend to incorporate in the application its own model of learning, which maybe not correct or adequate for the learning activity planned. Furthermore, the lack of an overall pedagogical strategy implies a lack of a consistent and adequate educational approach throughout the hypermedia application

Hypermedia philosophy and characteristics are particularly appropriate for the production of exploratory environments where large numbers of links and cross-references are provided, so that the learner can explore his own interests according to his own experience, background and perspective. Nevertheless, the mere presence of hypermedia in the learning process will not improve learning. Hypermedia is merely an educational technology, and it can be used correctly or incorrectly, just like any other technology. If hypermedia educational applications are implemented without bearing in mind basic design principles such as why, how, where and by whom they will be used, they will result in failures that will ultimately be reflected in the technology itself.

REFERENCES

Arburn T. and Bethel L.M (1998) ,Teaching strategies designed to assist community college science student’s critical thinking, The University of Texas, Austin.
Bloom, B.S, Englehart, M.B., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Kratwohl, O.R. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Bonk, C.J., Reynolds, T.H. (1997). Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. in B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp.167-178). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Bruner, J. (1986), Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Brusilovsky, P. (1996), Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia, User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, v 6, n 2-3, pp 87-129
Brusilovsky P. A. Kobsa and J. Vassileva. (1998) Adaptive Educational Hypermedia, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Clements, D.H., & Natasi, B.K. (1992). The role of social interaction in the development of higher-order thinking in Logo environments, in E.D. Corte, M.C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 229-248). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Conklin, J. (1987), Hypertext: an introduction and a survey, Computer, 20(9), 17-41.
Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. and Knuth, R. (1993). The textbook of the future, in McKnight, C., Dillon, A. and Richardson, J. (editors) Hypertext: a Psychological Perspective. London: Ellis Horwood, pp. 17-49.
Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology, in Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (editors) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 1-16.
Garner, R. (1987), Metacognition and reading comprehension, Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex Publishing, pp.105-126.
Crosby, M.E., & Stelovsky, J. (1995), From multimedia instruction to multimedia evolution. Journal of Educational Media and Multimedia, 4, 147-162.
Diaz, D.P. (1998). CD/Web Hybrids: Delivering multimedia to the online learner. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia 8(1), 3-22.
Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology, in Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (editors) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 1-16.
Hammond, N. (1989), .Hypermedia and learning: Who guides whom? in : H. Maurer (ed.) Computer Assisted Learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 360, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 167-181.
Hill, J. (1998). Distance learning environments via the World Wide Wed. in B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. (pp. 75-80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Jones, A. and Mercer, N. (1993). Theories of learning and information technology, in Scrimshaw, P. (editor) Language, Classroom and Computers. London: Routledge, pp. 11-26.
Kozna, R.B. (1991), Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Mayes, T., Kibby, M. and Anderson, T. (1990), Signposts for conceptual orientation: some requirements for learning from hypertext, in McAleese, R. and Green, C. (editors) Hypertext: State of the Art. Oxford: Intellect Ltd., pp. 121-129
Morganti, L.(2001), Educational Hypermedia: Challenges and perspectives for Lifelong Learning, Kenniscentrum EVC, Lifelong learning: which ways forward?, chapt. 3, 2nd ed. Utrecht;
Nelson, L.M., & South, J.B. (1999), A process model for guiding naturally effective collaborative problem-solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communication Technology, Houston, Texas.
Oliver, K., Omari, A., & Herrington, J. (1998), Exploring student interactions in collaborative World Wide Web computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 263-287.
Pfeiffer, J. and Ballew, A. (1998), Using Structured Experiences in Human Resource Development. San Diego: University Associates.
Reader, W.,Hammond, N (1994). Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers and Education, 22, 99-106.
Retalis, S (1997) , A Coureseware Development Methodology for ODL, Proc. of CAISE' 97, Barcelona, Spain, May 1997.
Semper, R. (1990), HyperCard and education: reflections on the HyperBoom in Ambron, S. and Hooper, K. (editors)
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.