Individualised learning and presentation formats
Agneta Gulz, Lund University Cognitive Science
Agneta.Gulz@lucs.lu.se
There are many expectations on benefits of computer-assisted learning in
terms of pedagogical renewal and more efficient learning. Among the key
(and buzz) words used we find ”individualised learning”. This is supposed to
be more easily obtained with educational multimedia and web-based
teaching than with ”traditional” forms of teaching.
As a cognitive scientist with special interest in the variation in how humans
approach a given information material, in what they remember from a given
information structure, etc., I am concerned with the following issues:
1. Which cognitive variation parameters would be relevant and fruitful to
consider in the design of educational multimedia?
2. What is the situation in educational multimedia today with respect to
those parameters?
3. Could those parameters be more adequately taken into account and how?
During the past year I conducted a pilot study based on two instances of
cognitive variation that are possibly relevant for the design of pedagogical
multimedia:
– Variation in person oriented thinking, i.e. variation in abilities and
motivation to handle in formation structures that relate to personal and
social information.
– Variation in spatially oriented thinking, i.e. variation in abilities and
motivation to handle spatial information structures and representations.
There were two main reasons for chosing these two candidates for study.
Firstly, both aspects are, in a sense, central for human thinking. A human
being is a spatial as well as a social creature, equiped with certain abilities to
handle social and spatial information and with some motivation to explore
and deal with spatial and social environments. This, in turn, makes
frameworks in the form of social environments and spatial environments,
respectively, suitable as formats for presenting various knowledge materials.
(An example of a social or person-related framework could be ”the members
of a social group (friends; work team; class, etc.) and their relations and
interactions” or ”the members of a family with their different personalities
and their lifes in some aspects”. An example of a spatial framework could be
”an outer space environment” or ”a particular village with its spatial
structure”.)
Secondly, the variation in those kinds of thinking that, however, exists in a
human population is relatively well documented. This is important as my
aim is to explore the possible relevance of aspects of cognitive variation for
the design of educational multimedia – not to explore aspects of cognitive
variation as such.
The predictions I intended to test were the following:
1. For both social and spatial frameworks in instructional multimedia, there
is a significant variation in the extent to which different individuals
spontaneously use the frameworks as a support for association and
memory.
2. For both social and spatial frameworks in instructional multimedia, there
is a significant variation in how interested different individuals are in
those frameworks or worlds and in their inclination to explore them.1
On another level I predict that the variation in how individuals approach the
two kinds of presentational formats is primarily due to cognitive factors
(rather than social class, degree of education, etc.)
In the pilot study two different user interfaces to the same program were
presented to 24 participants, 12 women and 12 men2. The two interfaces
employ, respectively, a spatial and a person-related format for organizing the
information and presenting the functions of the program3.
The outcome of the pilot study was that about a third of the participants
seemed positive towards the person related format (and clearly prefered this
to the spatial framework). Examples of statements:
”The information is most accessible in the one using people.”
”It’s more personal and alive [...] A more pleasant way to present
information.”
”... I have been in too many games where you walk from room to
room, often without a real reason to explore really. A social context is
more stimulating to explore, I think.”
Another large third of the participants were most positive towards the spatial
framework, saying for example:
”I used to draw maps like these when I was little and have always
enjoyed to explore such worlds.”
”When the task is to learn where different things are it is much easier
for me to think spatially.”
”The map and the park suits my way of thinking.”
The main objective of the pilot study was to get a preliminary assessment of
the general hypothesis about variation in approaches to spatial and person
related frameworks. Given the positive outcome, I am currently working on
the design of more targeted studies to adress the two predictions mentioned
above. In these, tests of short term and long term retention complemented
with qualitative interviews will be used to assess the ease of association and
memory, and short and long term observational studies combined with
interviews will be used to estimate individuals motivation to explore
programs.
If the individualizing potentials of computer assisted learning is to be
realized, the overall research task of identifying relevant aspects of cognitive
variation for the design of computer assisted learning will be central 4,5.
1It should be pointed out, however, that the two kinds of framework are not opposites. There is no
competitive relation between them for an individual. One and the same individual can be highly
interested – or very little interested – in exploring both kinds of environments. One and the same
individual might be equally good – or not so good – at handling both kinds of knowledge structures.
2A corresponding pilot study with school children is being conducted.
3The interfaces were designed to be as equivalent as possible in terms of complexity, style, realism and
gender neutrality.
4This remains even if it would turn out that the hypotheses about varying approaches to spatial and
social frameworks are misguided.
Specifically, work on the presentation, or in other words the user interfaces,
of programs is important, since it is the user interface of a multimedia or
web product that defines the experience of it and limits its use6.
Presentational formats in the sense intended in this paper can constitute
contexts designed to support exploration, association and understanding of
new knowledge materials. If an adequate variety of such presentational
formats is well represented, the usability of instructional multimedia can be
enhanced.
5There are also other important aspects regarding individualization: The possibility for individuals to
work at their own pace is generally supported in computer assisted learning, and in some cases there is
a possibility to chose between levels of difficulty.
6Cf. Mårdsjö, 1990.