1 / 22

Alexandra Cristea 1 , Craig Stewart 2 , Tim Brailsford 2 and Paul Cristea 3

Evaluation of Interoperability of Adaptive Hypermedia Systems: testing the MOT to WHURLE conversion in a classroom setting. Alexandra Cristea 1 , Craig Stewart 2 , Tim Brailsford 2 and Paul Cristea 3

crispin-holley
Download Presentation

Alexandra Cristea 1 , Craig Stewart 2 , Tim Brailsford 2 and Paul Cristea 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Interoperability ofAdaptive Hypermedia Systems: testing the MOT to WHURLE conversion in a classroom setting Alexandra Cristea1, Craig Stewart2, Tim Brailsford2 and Paul Cristea3 1 - Information System Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Computing Science, Technical University Eindhoven 2 - School of Computer Science and IT, University of Nottingham 3 - Digital Signal Processing Laboratory, “Politehnica” University of Bucharest

  2. Outline • Introduction • MOT • WHURLE • MOT2WHURLE conversion • Student Evaluation • Hypotheses • Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Creation of adaptive hypermedia content: • Extremely time intensive • Complex • Platform lockdown • Lack of standard tools

  4. Introduction • Ideal creation of adaptive hypermedia content: • Automated (this will aid with the time and complexity factors) • Interoperable • Standardised

  5. Introduction • Our answer: • Develop a series of tools that will allow for interoperability between different systems • We use MOT as an authoring system to author materials for: • AHA! (an AEH) • WHURLE (an AEH) • Blackboard (a non-adaptive commercial system)

  6. Introduction • Here we present an evaluation of the authoring process using MOT and WHURLE • A class of 31 students were introduced to this new authoring paradigm

  7. MOT • My Online Teacher • Based on the LAOS framework • Is a generic AEH delivery system • Also a powerful and simple authoring system • Web-form, therefore a non-technical author can easily use it • Very flexible, as it is easy to extend

  8. MOT • Domain Maps

  9. MOT • Goal and Constraint Maps • AND/OR • Weights • Labels

  10. WHURLE • An adaptive XML learning environment • Basic content building block: Chunk • Structure applied using Lesson Plans

  11. MOT2WHURLE • Currently a command line environment • Conceptually maps the MOT Goal & Constraints map structure to the WHURLE Lesson Plan • A MOT Concept = WHURLE chunks(s) • It does this using the MOT weights and labels.

  12. MOT2WHURLE

  13. MOT2WHURLE • These rules are used to determine which MOT attributes are to be aggregated into WHURLE chunks. • ’35’ = visual • ’75’ = verbal • ‘0’ = common

  14. MOT2WHURLE

  15. Student Evaluation • A class of 31 students in the 4th year of study for a technical Masters degree at the University of Bucharest, Romania • All subjected to a week long intensive course on AH • After initial lectures, they were given the following task:

  16. Student Evaluation • Create 2-3 MOT Domain Concept Maps, with approximately 5-10 concepts on the http://e-learning.dsp.pub.ro/mot/ MOT server • The attributes of each concept were: title; keywords; introduction; text; conclusion and figure. With limits placed on the type and amount of content in each one (this was done so as that each group would not spend their limited time creating a vast corpus of information). • Create a single MOT Lesson (Goal & Constraints Map) using their Concepts maps. • Alter the lesson so that the weights and labels of each concept agreed with those described in the second Table previoiusly. • Run the ‘mot2whurle’ conversion program and copy the files to WHURLE.

  17. Student Evaluation • Check that the WHURLE XML files are well-formed. • Run and login to WHURLE to check that the lesson matches their design and make any necessary changes. • Finally at the end of the week, each student was asked to complete a series of questionnaires: three generic SUS (System Usability Scale) questionnaires, one for each system (MOT, mot2whurle and WHURLE) and a single specific questionnaire designed to determine their level of knowledge about each system, as well as to gather non-statistical information.

  18. Evaluation hypotheses • The hypotheses that we wished to examine were: • The systems (MOT, mot2whurle, WHURLE) are simple and intuitive to use, with a minimum amount of explanation. • The students understood the theoretical background (Adaptive Hypermedia, LAOS, Adaptive Strategies) of these systems. • The students understood the connection between LAOS and MOT. • The students used MOT purely for authoring adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such. • The students used WHURLE solely for delivering adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such. • Students consider automatic conversion between one-to-many or many-to-many adaptive hypermedia systems useful.

  19. Evaluation Results • SUS scores: • MOT

  20. WHURLE

  21. MOT2WHURLE

  22. Conclusion

More Related