1 / 20

Reappraising Cognitive Styles in Adaptive Web Applications

Reappraising Cognitive Styles in Adaptive Web Applications. Liz Brown, Tim Brailsford, Tony Fisher, Adam Moore & Helen Ashman. Introduction. Evolution of web applications Personalisation mechanisms Cognitive styles for user profiling Case study: student revision guide Findings of study

zona
Télécharger la présentation

Reappraising Cognitive Styles in Adaptive Web Applications

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. Reappraising Cognitive Styles in Adaptive Web Applications Liz Brown, Tim Brailsford, Tony Fisher, Adam Moore & Helen Ashman

  2. Introduction • Evolution of web applications • Personalisation mechanisms • Cognitive styles for user profiling • Case study: student revision guide • Findings of study • Conclusions and discussion

  3. Welcome to our “25% off” sale Web server Evolution of web applications • Shift of web sites: • Widespread use of web applications with underused potential for individualisation • The power of personalisation static information repositories dynamic applications Hello Bob! Welcome back. Find out about our “25% off” sale Web server Database

  4. Cognitive styles in educational web applications • Cognitive style is a psychological construct • Most web sites modelled on either informational or navigational concepts • Cognitive styles can be used to inform either of these to provide personalisation for the user

  5. Cognitive styles and learning • Cognitive styles vs learning styles • Types of styles: • Field dependence vs field independence • Visual/imager vs verbal • Global vs sequential • Reflector/reflective vs activist/impulsive • Convergers vs divergers • Tactile/kinaesthetic • Which is best and how should it be used?

  6. Experimental study • User trials carried out with an online revision guide for a taught module • Over 200 university students involved • Used a visual-verbal approach, investigating 2 variables: • Visual and verbal environments • Visual-verbal learning style of students • Feedback/evaluation via assessment data, questionnaires, interviews and log files

  7. Chunks Lesson Plan User Model Links The Title Some text some text some text some more text some more text. Text text text Some text some text some text some more text some more text. Text text text. Some text some text some text some more text some more text. Text text text Some text some text some text some more text some more text. Text text text. Adaptation Filter Skin Display Engine Virtual Document WHURLE revision guide: system architecture + +

  8. Learning styles in WHURLE • Lesson plan produced for visual, verbal and no preference users • Chunks created: mix of visual, verbal, no preference or universal • Students filled in a learning styles questionnaire during first log-in • Users then randomly assigned to matched group, mismatched group or neutral group

  9. Student information • Mostly 2nd/3rd year undergraduates • Average age was 21, gender ratio of 3.6 males:1 female • Out of 221 students who logged on at least once: • 105 were visual • 105 were bimodal (no preference) • 11 were verbal

  10. Screenshots Visual environment No preference environment Verbal environment

  11. What were we investigating? • To see if matching or mismatching would make a difference • To see if there were any differences between students with different learning styles • To see if there were any differences between students who used the different environments

  12. Main findings of the study • Matching or mismatching made no difference to student performance • No difference between students with different learning styles • No difference between students who used the different environments

  13. Statistical results

  14. Secondary findings • No correlation between amount of use of the system and student performance • Qualitative data suggests students found it an enjoyable and useful resource • All students interviewed agreed that personalisation was important

  15. Conclusions • Personalising for visual-verbal learning style does not seem to have much educational benefit • However, many students studying for Computer Science degrees seem to be visual learners • Students feel that personalisation in web-based learning is important

  16. Discussion - 1 • Were we using suitable test subjects? • Are learning styles static or dynamic? … and should the system cater for this? • Cognitive processing and dual encoding

  17. Discussion - 2 • What constitutes a truly "visual" representation of information? • Are learning styles important? … or were we not using the "right one"? • Is one learning style better than another?

  18. Discussion - 3 • What more needs to be done with learning styles and adaptive web-based education? • Should we be looking at other methods of personalisation for web-based education?

  19. The next phase… • User trials with primary school children (aged 7-10) • Investigations into other learning styles • More discussion needed about adaptation and user control, and matching/mismatching

  20. Acknowledgements • Many thanks to Dr Shaaron Ainsworth (School of Psychology) and members of the Web Technologies Lab in the School of Computer Science & IT for all their help and support • Also to the students who participated in the study and subsequent evaluations • This research is supported by a PhD scholarship from the University of Nottingham ejb@cs.nott.ac.uk www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~ejb

More Related