Authoring for Adaptive Presentation
Authors:
Adam Moore, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, Notts., NG7 2RD adam.moore@nottingham.ac.uk
Tim Brailsford, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, Notts., NG8 1BB tim.brailsford@nottingham.ac.uk
Craig Stewart, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, Notts., NG8 1BB craig.stewart@nottingham.ac.uk
Peter Davies, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, Notts., NG8 1BB peter.davies@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract  An increasing number of adaptive hypertext systems are being used in education, for example, to deliver
courses appropriately for each learner, or to deliver a tailored support experience. However, there is little in the way of
guidelines available to content authors, on how to best tailor their material for delivery in such systems. This paper will
attempt to address this lack by outlining some simple approaches to the preparation of such material. Firstly, we will
examine sourcing material, especially the conversion of extant, legacy sources. Next we will expound on the many
assumptions made when writing non-adaptive material, and attempt to show where these are also appropriate in writing
adaptive material, and where their application is counter productive. Finally, we will address specific authoring
requirements that are required to deliver material suited for the different types of adaptation that takes place in modern
systems.
Index Terms  Adaptive learning, authoring guidelines, content authoring, virtual learning environments
INTRODUCTION
An increasing number of adaptive hypertext systems are being used in education, for example, to deliver courses
appropriately for each learner, or to deliver a tailored support experience. However, there is little in the way of guidelines
available to content authors, on how to best tailor their material for delivery in such systems.
The following paper will attempt to address this lack by outlining some simple approaches to the preparation of such
material. It should be noted that this is general advice, and may need to be further tailored to individual applications. This
document is not a discussion of the pros and cons of adopting electronic delivery of learning material, nor does it discuss the
balance between electronic and face-to-face teaching, both of which are important issues, which must be considered by
educators wishing to utilise this technology.
It is, however, based on real experience, preparing material for WHURLE, the Web-based Hierarchical Universal
Reactive Learning Environment [1-3] and research currently underway for the ADAPT project [4].
Types and Methods of Adaptation
There are more and more learning environments with some level of adaptation becoming available, but they can be simply
divided by the appraoches they take to delivering an adaptive experince:
 Link / Navigational adaptation – Here the adaptation is in the path that the user is allowed to take/view through the
material, where a link to more advanced material may be hidden or deprioritised (e.g. moved further down a page or
menu) until it is appropriate to present it to the learner.
 Structural adaptation – Here the adaptation is concerned with altering the structure of the material the learner
encounters.
 Content adaptation – Here each learner is presented with the appropriate content. Content that is not appropraite is
hidden. As the learner progresses, new material may become available and old material inaccessible.
 Presentational adaptation – This type of adaptation is usually done on the basis of either particular learning styles of
the learner, or to address particular interface issues, such as accessibility or localisation (e.g. menus in the appropraite
language).
Models of Learners and Authoring Strategies
Adaptation is based on a system responding to the inbuilt model of the user of the system (learner). There are currently two
most commonly used types of user model:
Stereotyping – here each learner is assigned to a group, each group having particular properties.
Overlay model – here the knowledge of the learner in each domain is used to determine what material is appropriate
International Conference on Engineering Education
July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.
1
Most systems will use one or the other, and it is important to know which model is being used in your target system, so
that your material takes this into account. An interesting system which uses a combination of both is the hybrid model,
developed by Zakaria et al at the University of Nottingham [5,6].
Consciously or subliminally, learner models shape the way all teachers do their work. In some contexts, these models
are explicit and consistent with the findings of research, but more often (certainly in higher education) they are tacit,
unsupported by evidence and rooted in traditional disciplinary practices that seem impervious to criticism and resistant to
change [7,8]. Most of the computer-based learning developments in UKHE during the 1990s suffered from the same
uncritical acceptance of outdated traditional approaches to teaching and learning (the ‘information transmission’ model).
Against this background, what are the lessons for the next generation of technology-mediated learning support systems, those
that seek to accommodate learner diversity through the use of adaptive technologies?
To be effective, an adaptive learning system (ALS) must know the learner, know about learning and know how to
respond when the learner is engaged in learning.
Knowing the learner means having access to relevant personal information about the learner’s background, capabilities
and needs (the ‘user profile’).
Knowing about learning means using a learner model (a) that embodies what is known about learner diversity and the
psychology of learning (learning theories [9], cognitive styles, learning styles and learning strategies [10]) and (b) that
accommodates creatively what is not yet known about the workings of the learning mind (a great deal).
Knowing how to respond means being able to match system output to user need
Since learning theories abound and learning styles are diverse and our ignorance is profound, the challenge confronting
ALS designers may seem insurmountable. Furthermore, adaptive learning systems require adaptable content, and as yet there
are no discipline-independent, pedagogically credible rules or systems for producing it. A core requirement in this context is
a credible developmental model of learning: is it like a string of beads that grows longer as new knowledge is acquired, or
more like a living organism that grows and become internally more complex as it develops? It matters, because each model
has different implications for the authoring process. Could it be that both models are applicable in different contexts, in
which case authoring becomes more complex still.
We should pause for a moment to consider what a working ALS should be, in metaphorical terms. Should it be a
surrogate lecturer or a responsive and adaptable learning aid? A ‘sage on the stage’ or a ‘guide on the side’? The distinction
matters here too, because the former would be more costly to implement and much less effective. A ‘surrogate lecturer’
would embody a familiar but outdated pedagogy according to which teaching is a process of transmitting information /
knowledge / wisdom, and learning is a process of passive absorption and assimilation. Content volumes and production costs
in such systems tend to be high, while learning effectiveness tends to be low. Much of the courseware produced in UK
universities during the nineties was like this. Research, however, points in the opposite direction: that teaching is most
productive when it is learner-centred; and that learning is most profound when it is active, independent, enquiry-based and
critical.
The implications of this insight for ALS authors are clear: powerful though modern technologies may be, learning
systems are tools, not teachers, and their effectiveness will depend on the extent to which they allow the learner to remain in
control. That being the case, the shortcomings of our explicit understanding of how deep learning occurs will be offset by the
learners’ tacit (intuitive) understanding of how best to get to grips personally with new challenges and learning opportunities.
The role of the ALS in this model is therefore to facilitate learning, not by teaching didactically but by providing the
‘personalised’ scaffolding within which deep and independent learning can occur. Such a scaffolding would, among other
things, motivate the learner and respond to ongoing needs, and it would be generated, not by the author alone but by an
authoring system he has been trained to operate productively.
Against this background, the authoring challenge becomes a little less daunting. Subject specialists who become authors
would not be expected to become pedagogues or experts in adaptive technology. Neither would they be expected to produce
large volumes of didactic text. Rather they will be required, under system guidance, to specify objectives, delineate
conceptual frameworks and learning pathways, identify problem-solving opportunities and relevant online and other
resources, produce commentaries and guidelines for the proper use of these resources, and devise strategies for assessment.
Much of this contribution would be delivered via a ‘knowledge-eliciting’ form designed in accordance with accepted
pedagogical principles but not necessarily understood in every detail by the content provider, at least initially. In most cases,
some training would probably be desirable and more efficient. But crucially, the authoring system would ultimately become
part of the learning environment itself, one of the many creative tools at the disposal of both author and learner. In this more
learner-centred system, the burden of responsibility for gathering, delivering, interpreting and ultimately assimilating
information would, to a significant extent, shift from the teacher / author to the active, semi-independent learner.
Underpinning the learning system’s adaptive responses would be a structuring and guidance technology responding to
the combined effect of (i) the learner’s user profile, (ii) the course’s learning objectives, and (iii) the user’s decision-making
activities during engagement with the system, which would generate adaptation and feedback. Nebel et al list and compare
International Conference on Engineering Education
July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.
2
some sixteen adaptive methods and algorithms, the most common two of which (Stereotypes and Overlay Model) are
described above [11]. They classify the methods into three broad categories: stereotype-based, rule-based and mathematical
& statistical approaches. How generic and transferable these technologies are is not clear. Weber describes an adaptive
learning system developed for use on the web, and reports some positive early evaluations [12].
SOURCING MATERIAL
The first consideration when preparing material for delivery via an adaptive learning environment is where to source such
material from. The next sections cover the two options available – converting extant legacy material, or starting from scratch.
Legacy Material
There has been an enormous growth in the quantity of material prepared for electronic delivery in the last fifteen or so years,
propolled by an increased interest in both educators and administrators in utilisng this delivery format, and by government
initiatives, such as TLTP (Teaching and Learning Technology Programme [13]) in the UK.
However, in many cases this material has been created and locked into proprietary, closed formats, making reusability of
this material a difficult process. Here are some simple guidelines to ease the conversion:
 Don’t throw anything away – although your current target of the conversion may not require some of the information,
structure or meta-information in your legacy material, you may have a use for it in the future.
 Use a long-term intermediate – whilst the target of your conversion may be to one of the closed, proprietary platforms,
in order to gain maximum benefit from your conversion process, it is important to have your material in a form which
allows you to reuse it again, if your delivery platform subsequently changes, or if you wish to distribute your material. In
the authors’ opinion, the current most suitable formats for this are XML [14] and SQL-compliant databases (such as
MySQL [15]) which allow both structure and content to be represented.
 Use standards wherever possible – it is important that your material conforms to the current standards of both your
domains (e.g. the appropriate ANSI [16], BSI [17], CAM-I [18],etc. protocols) and the format into which it is to be
converted. If your intermediate format is XML or a database, try and find the appropriate schema and STICK TO IT.
 Convert or generate as much meta-data as you can – the information about your material is a valuable commodity –
if it is already present in your system, preserve it, if not, take this opportunity to generate it. Also, use the appropriate
standard for your metadata – utilising IEEE Learning Object Metadata standard [19] and the IMS Learning Resource
Meta-data specification [20], or the appropraite geographical instantiation of these protocols, such as CanCore [21] in
Canada.
Creating New Content
Coming to create new content for an adaptive learning environment from scratch has both advantages and disadvantages. Of
course, the main advantage is the avoidance of the problems associated with the conversion of legacy material, as described
above. Also, the conversion from legacy material will inevitably not produce content that can be readily adapted (due to the
educational nature of the source material). However when creating from scratch this is an important consideration. The
disadvantage is, of course, that it will take much longer – a good estimate is about 20 hours of preparation time for each
instructional hour of electronic teaching material. This may be much longer if multimedia objects are being prepared. It
should also be remembered that when preparing adaptive material, an hour of learning material must be prepared FOR EACH
LEARNER MODEL – although it is probable that much material can be reused, this important additional time burden must
be considered.


Appropriateness to curriculum – many people see using adaptive learning environments as an excuse to include all
material they can find on the subject in question into a course. This is often a time-consuming, open-ending task. Stick to
the appropriate curriculum or lesson plan.
Appropriateness to audience – it is important to remember that there is still a specific group of people that the material
is aimed at – ensure their needs are considered during the development of the material.
AUTHORING FOR VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Teachers who have much experience in the design of classroom materials have valuable skills in the general design and
presentation of educational material, but sometimes struggle when confronted with a totally new presentational format. The
key thing to remember about authoring for electronic delivery is that the material must be able to stand on its own, that is, it
must make sense without any further explanation. Many people coming to author electronic material for the first time make
the mistake of assuming that there will always be an opportunity for elucidation for any material they produce.
International Conference on Engineering Education
July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.
3
Accessibility
Whilst studies have shown that using electronic material can cause a gap in attainment, as some students are better suited to
this method of learning [22], it is important to remember that some students have accessability issues with any electronic
medium [23]. In many countries, there is specific legislation to ensure equal access to all students to all materials (e.g.
SENDA [24] in the UK). As well as obtaining general help from groups such as the W3C’s, web accessability initiative [25],
There are also usually bodies set up to help educators address the requirements of their particular country’s legislation (e.g.
TechDis [26] in the UK)
AUTHORING FOR ADAPTIVE PRESENTATION
The exact authoring for your material will depend on the system you are preparing material for, and so will not be covered
here. Instead, what follows is advice on preparing material suitable to be adapted for presentation in adaptive environments in
general. We assume that (at least) a two stage process is used for authoring – firstly, subject experts prepare content, then
teachers prepare lessons.
Content Authoring
The key to authoring content for adaptive systems is to ensure that the resulting material is suitable for the method of
adaptation the target system employs. In most cases, this will entail writing short, discrete ‘chunks’ of information. This
process of ‘discretisation’ is often difficult for the new author, especially one immured to the construction of long, discursive
prose. Each chunk must be able to stand on its own, as the adaptive system may, or may not, include other chunks at any one
time, so it is important that the material is self-contained. This means that there must be no references such as ‘see further
on’, or ‘this will be discussed later’ and such like within the chunk. It is helpful to think of the process as one of creating
‘atomic units of information’, that is, the smallest, self-contained piece of knowledge that can reasonably be constructed.
Examples of such information include a paragraph or two of text, or perhaps a captioned image.
Of course, chunks do not have to be small in size; an image on its own is usually meaningless, unless it contains
explanatory text, and so a commentary or descriptive caption is almost always an essential addition to any chunk containing
multimedia. Also, discretisation must be performed in a sensible manner; a legal document, which contains much internal
cross-referencing and reflections may be a very large document, but only a single chunk. Similarly, the derivation of a
mathematical formula.
It is also important to realise that each chunk can be written in whatever style the author wishes – discursive, didactic,
elaborate, etc. But it must be realised that the mixing of styles within a lesson may cause comprehension difficulties with
your learners. Many authors find that a simple, straightforward relation of facts to be an effective writing style, with
occasional ‘personal’ reflective chunks available to allow the insertion of a discursive style of lesson, so that the learner is not
simply guided through a maze of facts.
Lesson Authoring
When constructing adaptive lessons from available material, it is important to utilise the adaptive models available in an
efficient and effective manner. Think about the different models of students that you are providing material for and ensure
that the paths through the material you construct are suitable, but also provide sufficiently similar material to allow any
evaluation or assessment that you perform to be carried out in an equitable manner.
Although little research has been performed in providing software support for adaptive authoring, the REDEEM system
supports this approach [27-29]. REDEEM depends on human teaching tactics and strategies. Its design is predicated on the
view that teachers should be provided with the means to express their theories about how learners should be taught and that
ITSs should then teach students according to these theories.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has described some simple ways in which authors can prepare material for inclusion in adaptive electronic
learning environments. We hope this document proves useful and welcome all feedback on its appropriateness. We also
welcome any additions that interested parties would like to make, either for specific systems, or for sections that this paper
has not covered in depth.
International Conference on Engineering Education
July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Nottingham Web Technology Group for their many helpful contributions to this
document and related works. Craig Stewart is funded by the ADAPT project, which is carried out with the support of the
European Community in the framework of the Socrates programme.
REFERENCES
[1]
Moore, A., Brailsford, T.J. Stewart, C.D. “Personally tailored teaching in WHURLE using conditional transclusion”, Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM
Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Hypertext ‘01). 2001, pp 163-164.
[2]
Brailsford, T.J.; Stewart, C.D.; Zakaria, M.R. Moore, A. “Autonavigation, Links and Narrative in an Adaptive Web-Based Integrated Learning
Environment”, Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2002), Honolulu, Hawaii, 7-11 May 2002. Available via:
http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/738/.
[3]
WHURLE Homepage – http://whurle.sf.net
[4]
Minerva project: ADAPT (project reference number 101144-CP-1-2002-NL-MINERVA-MPP*) "Adaptivity and adaptability in ODL based on ICT"
[5]
Zakaria, M.R.; Moore, A.; Ashman, H.; Stewart, C.D. & Brailsford, T.J. “The Hybrid Model for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia” Second
International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web Based Systems, May 29-31, 2002, Malaga.
[6]
Zakaria, M.R. & Brailsford, T.J. “User Modelling and Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Frameworks for Education”, New Review of Hypermedia and
Multimedia (in press).
[7]
Gibbs, G “Twenty Terrible Reasons for Lecturing” SCEDSIP Occasional Paper No. 8, 1982
[8]
Ramsden, P “Learning to Teach in Higher Education” Routledge, 1992
[9]
Kearsley, G “Explorations in Learning & Instruction: the Theory into Practice Database”, 1994-2003 available from:
http://tip.psychology.org/index.html
[10] Riding, R and Rayner, S “Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour” David Fulton,
London, 1998
[11] Nebel, IT et al “User ontologies for adaptive interactive software system”, 2003 available from: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Adaptivity.pdf
[12] Weber, G “Adaptive learning systems in the World Wide Web”, 1997 available from: http://www.cs.usask.ca/UM99/Proc/invited/Weber.pdf
[13] TLTP Homepage - http://www.ncteam.ac.uk/projects/tltp/
[14] Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition) W3C Recommendation 6 October 2000, Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,
Eve Maler
[15] MySQL Homepage - http://www.mysql.com/
[16] American National Standards Institute - http://www.ansi.org/
[17] British Standards Online - http://www.bsi-global.com/Ways+to+Purchase/BSOL/index.xalter
[18] Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing - International - http://cam-i.org/standards.html
[19] IEEE P1484.12.2/D1, 2002-09-13 Draft Standard for Learning Technology - Learning Object Metadata - ISO/IEC 11404
[20] IMS Global Learning Consortium: Specification: Meta-data - http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/index.cfm
[21] CanCore - http://www.cancore.ca/
[22] Quentin-Baxter, M, “Quantitative evidence for differences between learners making use of passive hypermedia learning environments” ACM
Computing Surveys, 31, 4., 1999. Available via http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/ACM_HypertextTestbed/papers/52.html
[23] Nielsen, J, “Beyond Accessibility – treating users with disabilities as equals”, Alertbox, Nov 11, 2001, available from http://www.useit.com
[24] Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, ISBN 0 10 541001 2 – available from http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010010.htm
[25] W3C Web Accessibility Initiative - http://www.w3.org/WAI
[26] TechDis - http://www.techdis.ac.uk
[27] Ainsworth, S.E., Grimshaw, S.K. & Underwood, D.J. “Teachers as designers: Using REDEEM to create ITSs for the classroom.” Computers and
Education, 1999, 33(2/3), pp171-188. Available via: http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/Shaaron.Ainsworth/teachers_as_designers.pdf
[28] Ainsworth, S.E. “REDEEM: ITS authoring environments and human teaching.”, Paper presented at the ITS2000 workshop on Modelling Human
Teaching Tactic., 2000 Available via: http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/bend/its2000/ainsworth.pdf
[29] Ainsworth, S.E., Williams, B.C & Wood, D.J. “Using the REDEEM ITS Authoring Environment in Naval Training” IEEE International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2001. Available via: http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/Shaaron.Ainsworth/icalt.pdf
International Conference on Engineering Education
July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.
5