3 rd a3eh workshop at 12 th international conference on artificial intelligence, amsterdam, 2005 tu/...

3rd A3EH workshop at 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Amsterdam, 2005

TU/e

eindhoven university of technology

Evaluation of Interoperability of Adaptive 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 Eindhoven2 - School of Computer Science and IT, University of

Nottingham3 - Digital Signal Processing Laboratory,

“Politehnica” University of Bucharest


TU/e


Outline

• Introduction• MOT• WHURLE• MOT2WHURLE conversion• Student Evaluation

– Hypotheses– Results

• Conclusion


TU/e


Introduction

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


TU/e


Introduction

• Ideal creation of adaptive hypermedia content:– Automated (this will aid with the time

and complexity factors)– Interoperable (conversion, common

language)– Standardised


TU/e


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, uses a pre-adapted methodology)


TU/e


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


TU/e


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


TU/e


MOT

• Domain Maps


TU/e


MOT

• Goal and Constraint Maps– AND/OR– Weights– Labels


TU/e


WHURLE

• An adaptive XML learning environment

• Basic content building block: Chunk

• Structure applied using Lesson Plans


TU/e


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.


TU/e


MOT2WHURLE


TU/e


MOT2WHURLE

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


TU/e


MOT2WHURLE


TU/e


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

• Ideal representation for non-AH expert authors.

• After initial lectures, they were given the following task:


TU/e


Student Evaluation1. Create 2-3 MOT Domain Concept Maps, with

approximately 5-10 concepts on the http://e-learning.dsp.pub.ro/mot/ MOT server

2. 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).

3. Create a single MOT Lesson (Goal & Constraints Map) using their Concepts maps.

4. Alter the lesson so that the weights and labels of each concept agreed with those described in the second Table previously.

5. Run the ‘mot2whurle’ conversion program and copy the files to WHURLE.


TU/e


Student Evaluation6. Check that the WHURLE XML files are well-formed.7. Run and login to WHURLE to check that the lesson

matches their design and make any necessary changes.

8. 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.


TU/e


Evaluation hypotheses• The hypotheses that we wished to examine were:

1. The systems (MOT, mot2whurle, WHURLE) are simple and intuitive to use, with a minimum amount of explanation.

2. The students understood the theoretical background (Adaptive Hypermedia, LAOS, Adaptive Strategies) of these systems.

3. The students understood the connection between LAOS and MOT.

4. The students used MOT purely for authoring adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such.

5. The students used WHURLE solely for delivering adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such.

6. Students consider automatic conversion between one-to-many or many-to-many adaptive hypermedia systems useful.


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• SUS scores:– MOT

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

use frequently

complex

easy

need support

well integrated

inconsistency

learn quickly

cumbersome

confident to use

need to learn a lot to use

75%


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• WHURLE

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

use frequently

complex

easy

need support

well integrated

inconsistency

learn quickly

cumbersome

confident to use


66.6%


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• MOT2WHURLE

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

use frequently

complex

easy

need support

well integrated

inconsistency

learn quickly

cumbersome

confident to use


60.7%


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• Hypothesis 1:– Overall SUS scores:

• MOT: 75% ±15%• WHURLE: 66.6% ±19.1%• MOT2WHURLE: 60.7% ±19%

– NB: SUS scores are comparative


TU/e


Evaluation Results• Hypotheses 2-5 extracted from

questionnaires.• Hypothesis 2:

[The students understood the theoretical background (Adaptive Hypermedia, LAOS, Adaptive Strategies) of these systems.]

– 70% ±24% • Hypothesis 3:

[The students understood the theoretical background (Adaptive Hypermedia, LAOS, Adaptive Strategies) of these systems.]

– 70% ±21.7%• Indicates that students on average

understood the theoretical background after an intensive introduction.

• However the wide SD indicates a great range of abilities.


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• Hypothesis 4:[The students used MOT purely for authoring adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such.]

– 25 students out of 29 (86%) selecting MOT to be an adaptive hypermedia authoring system

– Indicates that students understand the benefits of using MOT as an authoring system.


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• Hypothesis 5:[The students used WHURLE solely for delivering adaptive hypermedia, and perceived it as such.]

– 21 students out of 29 (72%) selecting WHURLE as an adaptive hypermedia delivery system

– Indicates that students understand the benefits of using WHURLE as a delivery system.


TU/e


Evaluation Results

• Hypothesis 6:[Students consider automatic conversion between one-to-many or many-to-many adaptive hypermedia systems useful.]

– 4.57 (out of 5) approval rating.– Indicates that students understand

the benefits of the paradigm shift that we are proposing.I.E. away from a ‘one-to-one’ paradigm.


TU/e


Conclusion

• There has been one previous attempt to convert content between systems: AHA! & Interbook.

• This is the first (that we are aware of) to empirically test the actual authoring and conversion process between two systems.


TU/e


Conclusion

• The responses from this study have validated our efforts to:– Create a powerful & flexible authoring

environment– Create an interoperable methodology– Use a single authoring environment to

deliver content to other AEH delivery systems


TU/e


Conclusion

• Major disadvantages:– The majority of which concerned the

lack of ‘polish’ for the MOT2WHURLE conversion program.

– This does not invalidate our methodology but does indicate that additional work needs to be done.


TU/e


Conclusion

• It appears that a “write once, use often” authoring methodology is desired by authors.

• MOT is a simple to use, yet flexible authoring system.

• Conceptual mapping between MOT and other authoring systems demonstrates the feasibility of such and approach


TU/e


Questions … ?

3 rd a3eh workshop at 12 th international conference on artificial intelligence, amsterdam, 2005 tu/...

Documents

th international conference

rd a3eh workshop

artificial intelligence

technical university

university of nottingham

common slide

mot concept

mot weights