IJCRR - Vol 07 Issue 14, July, 2015
A FRAMEWORK FOR A HEURISTIC APPROACH TO EVALUATING AND ASSESSING ADAPTIVE HYPERMEDIA LEARNING SYSTEMS
Author: Jean-Pierre Kabeya Lukusa
This article provides a holistic view of e-Learning as a by-product of Adaptive Hypermedia Learning Systems (i.e. AHLS). It aims at proposing a generic framework for evaluating and assessing AHLS. While many of the existing assessment and evaluation instruments yield useful findings (1), most of them seem to be revolving around one key problem – with so many variables that can potentially be considered of impact to the quality of these instruments, how do we re-adapt the assessment and evaluation instruments to produce results that are relevant to our learners’ ethnographic background1, pedagogical paradigm2, and the actual AHLS. It was also found that many authors choose to disregard (i.e. consciously or otherwise) some variables (2). This practice needs to be discouraged as it not only results in constraining findings but also distorts analysis of the flaws (and strengths) in current AHLS deployments. The proposed framework is designed on a premise that considers a number of studies namely; the E-VAL project models - considering factors from ethnographic, pedagogical, and applicable AHLS; and the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) – considering the nine dimensions of quality (3).
Keywords: Adaptive hypermedia learning system (i.e. AHLS), Ethnographic research methods, Pedagogical paradigm, Heuristic approach, e-Learning assessment, Evaluation framework
Jean-Pierre Kabeya Lukusa. A FRAMEWORK FOR A HEURISTIC APPROACH TO EVALUATING AND ASSESSING ADAPTIVE HYPERMEDIA LEARNING SYSTEMS International Journal of Current Research and Review. Vol 07 Issue 14, July, 61-68
1. Alomyan H. Individual Differences: Implications for WebBased Learning Design. International Education Journal. 2004; 4(4): p. 188-196.
2. Attwell G. Evaluating E-Learning: A Guide to the Evaluation of E-Learning. 2nd ed. Gremen: Evaluate Europe Handbook Series; 2006.
3. Leacock TL,and NJC. A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources. Educational Technology and Society. 2007; 10(2): p. 44-59.
4. Hall Haley M. Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners. The Teachers College Record. 2004; 106(1): p. 163-180.
5. Graf S,and KK. Providing Adaptive Courses in Learning Management Systems with Respect to Learning Styles. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. 2007; 2007(1): p. 2576-2583.
6. Schumacher P,and MMJ. Gender, Internet and Computer Attitudes and Experiences. Computers in Human Behavior. 2001; 17(1): p. 95-110.
7. Mitchell TJF,CSY,and MRD. Cognitive Styles and Adaptive Webbased Learning. Psychology of Education Review. 2005; 29(1): p. 34-42.
8. Morrison GR,RSM,KJE,and KH. Designing Effective Instruction New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2010.
9. Oneto L,AF,HE,and SD. Making Today's Learning Management Systems Adaptive. In ; 2009: Learning Management Systems meet Adaptive Learning Environments, Workshop at European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL).
10. Cheniti-Belcadhi L,BR,HN,and NW. A Generic Framework for Assessment in Adaptive Educational Hypermedia. In ; 2004; Madrid: Springer. p. 397-404.
11. Henze N,and NW. Logically characterizing adaptive educational hypermedia systems. In ; 2003; Budapest: International Workshop on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems.
12. Morrison DG. Measurement Problems in Cluster Analysis. Management Science. 1967; 13(12): p. 775-80.
13. MacQueen J. Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkely Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. 1967; 1(14): p. 281-297.
14. Van der Laan M,PK,and BJ. A New Partitioning Around Memoids Algorithm. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 2003; 73(8): p. 575-584.
15. Angelo TA,and CKP. Classroom Assessment Techniques. In Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Wiley Imprint; 1993. p. 427.
16. Russel S.NP. Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 2009.
17. Brusilovsky P,and ME. User Models for Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Educational Systems. 1st ed. Pittsburgh: SpringerVerlag Berlin, Heidelberg; 2007.
18. Kenneth D. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. 102nd ed. Oaks: Sage; 1994.
19. Hair JF, BWC, BBJ, ARE, and TRL. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
20. Reynolds A, RG, and RSV. The Application of K-Memoids and PAM to the Clustering of Rules. In 2004 I, editor. Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning - IDEAL 2004. Exeter: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2004. p. 173-178.
21. Pressey SL. A Simple Apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches. School and Society. 1926; 23(586): p. 373-376. 7; 25(645): p. 549-552.
22. Pressey SL. A Machine for Automatic Teaching of Drill Material. School and Society. 1927; 25(645): p. 549-552.