Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
as well, thus from students, as represented by the
Warwick group of students.
The evaluations reported here are based on
the comparative analysis of two stages of experi-
ments. The first stage involved two experiments,
one carried out by the course designers and one
by the students, separately, and each consisting
of participants following five scenarios within
the authoring system for adaptive hypermedia
MOT 1.0 (Cristea & De Mooij, 2003). Similarly,
the second stage involved two experiments, also
carried out by the course designers and the stu-
dents respectively, this time using MOT 2.0. The
results of stage one were collected before the start
of the second stage in both cases. In the second
stage, the course designers and the students were
asked to perform some standard authoring tasks
as in MOT 1.0, as well as specific new tasks with
the MOT 2.0 system, which highlighted the new
social layer. These tasks involved also reusing the
adaptive lectures that they had created previously,
as well as creating material from scratch, and,
of course, using the social tools (rating, tagging,
feedback, etc.).
After performing each experiment, partici-
pants in all experiments were asked to respond
to specially neutralized questions (i.e., questions
starting with 'what do you think of …?' instead
of 'Do you like..?') as shown in Figures 9-12. The
bulk of the questions were kept identical in the
two stages of the experiments, in order to compare
the two systems, representing the initial LAOS-
framework and the extended social one. A few
extra questions were added in the second stage in
order to extract feedback on some specific issues
related to the social aspects. However, here we
concentrate only on the identical set of questions
and its comparative results. Figures 9-12 also show
the mean values of their responses on a scale of
1-5 (1: not at all useful, 5: very useful), as well
as the variance of the results. The scale was kept
numerical for further interval processing.
These questions are: What do you think
about…:
Visualisation:
Q1. browsing other authors' domain maps
/ modules?
Q2. browsing other authors' lessons?
Manual collaborative authoring:
Q3. keyword-based access for other au-
thors' content?
Q4. copying a domain concept / items across
domain map(s) / modules?
Q5. linking to concepts from someone else's
domain map(s)?
Semi-automatic collaborative authoring:
Q6. creating a lesson based on someone
else's domain map(s)?
Figure 9. The means before (MOT 1.0) and after (MOT 2.0) by the authors
Search WWH ::




Custom Search