1
1. MOTIVATION OF STUDY
According to Lowyck (1994), the views or approaches toward learning and
teaching have, during the last 50 years, changed notably. Behaviorism as the old
former main view of learning has been replaced by a view that emphasizes a
learner's cognitive processes and comprehends learning as a constructive
activity (constructivistic view of learning or constructivism). Simultaneously,
rather than teaching students in a controlling manner, education has focused on
guiding learning. Goals have developed from transferring and recalling
knowledge towards the teaching of processes. Knowledge is not seen as the
main goal of teaching. The view of knowledge has changed. Knowledge, rather
than being based on the domination of one discipline in regard to an event or
an idea, should be multistructural and interdisciplinary.
According to Davis and Naumann (1997, p. 14), knowledge is poorly
defined. Thus, it is essential to define knowledge in the context of this thesis.
We can define knowledge as the sets of data items and information organized
and processed to convey understanding, experience, accumulated learning, and
expertise as they apply to a given problem or activity, as do Davis and
Naumann (1997, p. 14) in their basic textbook "Personal Productivity with
Information Technology" of the information systems science.
Because technology has changed faster than the dominant views of
learning (Hawkins, 1993, pp. 30-35), computer-supported learning has faced
criticism, since it has been carried out using technology in classrooms based on
the old views of learning. Technology has often remained a separate, difficult,
and expensive matter. Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1993) emphasize that computers
in education must be integrated with instructional objectives. In the same way
the success of an information system in an organization depends on how well it
is linked to the organization's strategy (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1993).
General problems in regard to computer-supported learning have also
arisen in computer-supported collaborative learning say Wan & Johnson (1994),
who state that current collaborative learning systems focus on maximizing
shared information. However, they stress that meaningful learning is not
simply information sharing but, more importantly, knowledge construction.
Hypermedia and hypertext enable novel ways of finding supportive new
views of learning. Hypertext can be defined as a database in which information
(text) has been organized nonsequentially (Conklin, 1987). According to
Conklin (1987), hypermedia is the extension of hypertext, in which the elements
which are networked together can be text, graphics, digitized speech, audio
recordings, pictures, animation, filmclips, and presumably tasktes, odors, and
tactile sensations. The creation and use of hypertext can be organized in the
form of collaborative hypertext. Then hypertext is “grouptext” which has been
created collaboratively by a group of people and can be accessed by a group of
people (Rada, 1991, p. 112).
2
The Ministry of Education in Finland (1995) has also paid attention to the
role of student in the modern information society reflecting the general reform
of education towards constructivistic teaching and learning methods.
According to a strategy it created, the ministry emphasizes the responsibility of
a student in his/her learning. The role of a teacher is also different. A teacher is
a tutor who does not provide facts and theory. Instead, he or she is the
counselor of students, supporting them in different learning activities. The
ministry stresses the change in school institutions towards being action and
learning centers.
During the 90s the reform work of teaching has also reached university
education. For example, Isaacs (1994) and Rosenthal (1995) have reported
several problems in regard to traditional lecture-based teaching. These
problems include ineffectiveness, promoting passivity and isolation in students.
Especially in the context of technology and related sciences, some revisions
have been suggested to improve lecturing as a teaching method by activating
students; using for example, cooperative learning in small groups and essaywriting assignments about technical topics (Isaacs, 1994). From this perspective,
lecturing still has its possibilities, if it corrects these problems, but also other
methods of learning must be considered. For example, in our context, in the
basic of informatics, it is natural of learning informatics using computers, and
thus course work utilizing information technology may be a good alternative to
conventional lectures.
We claim that hypermedia, hypertext, and collaborative hypertext enable
the constructivist view of learning as well as collaborative learning in the
proper manner. One way to solve these systems or applications is learning by
knowledge construction, which means that a student or a group of students can
construct a hyper document based on their view in regard to knowledge to
learn. In this way, a computer is a tool supporting cognitive activity, in other
words a cognitive tool. Derry (1990) defines cognitive tools as both mental and
computational devices that support, guide, and extend the thinking processes of
their users.
One way to use a computer or hypertext as a cognitive tool is to form
knowledge structures of one domain. In this thesis this domain is the basics of
informatics. We test how useful the use of collaborative hypertext as a cognitive
tool is, in this domain. Our intention is to compare learning based on
collaborative hypertext to learning based on the traditional classes. In this sense
we compare open or constructivistic learning and closed behavioristic teaching.
Open learning can be realized in different ways, in our sense, with computers.
We have selected hypertext as medium to realize this. Additionally, we clarify
who benefits from collaborative hypertext and who does not. The thesis,
however, pays no attention to the content of the basics in informatics.
In addition, in this thesis we explore if the World Wide Web (WWW) is
useful in the learning of the basic concepts in informatics. The WWW is a
3
global hypermedia system on Internet (Berners-Lee et al., 1994). During the 90s
and after gathering data for this thesis it has changed the character of hypertext
/-media. The WWW means that the pages of hypertext document are available
everywhere in the world through the WWW. This creates the opportunities of
teamwork regardless of place and time. According to Vuorimaa (1997), the
WWW suits teaching and learning of the basics in informatics, if the use of the
WWW is organized in minimal instructionist manner. In Vuorimaa's study the
students experienced learning based on the WWW meaningful. According to
Makkonen (1998b, 1998c, 1999), the WWW suits learning as a complementary
part of conventional lectures. The possibilities of the WWW are notable based
on the constructivism. Brandt (1997) emphasizes that constructivism asserts that
learners construct knowledge by making sense of experiences in terms of what
is already known. In constructivist learning the concept of a mental model is
essential. According to him, learning is comprehended as the development of a
learner’s mental models (or declarative and structural knowledge). We claim
that constructivism can be one basis when applying the WWW for teaching and
learning (Makkonen, 1998b; Makkonen, 1998c, Makkonen, 1999). Vast
information resources are available to teachers and students via the WWW and
this information enables multiple ways for knowledge construction. This thesis
provides some ideas for the use of the WWW in learning based on the idea of
learning by knowledge constructing and collaborating.
Following the first section of this chapter we concentrate on learning as the
main activity in our study. This includes the discussions in regard to the
character of learning basic concepts, views of learning as a dominating factor of
education and computer supported learning. Additionally, section two deals
with the area and character of learning of basic concepts in informatics. The
next section deals with the technical applications and tools to realize teaching
and learning based on the constructivistic approach. We introduce hypermedia,
hypertext and collaborative hypertext as well as discuss their opportunities in
learning. Since collaborative hypertext is a form of CSCW (Computer
Supported Collaborative Work), we discuss its opportunities in learning. The
following section presents our research problems and summarizes our results
presented in research papers of this thesis, which are included in chapters 2 to
5. Section seven deals with the value of the results using the concepts of validity
and reliability. Finally, in section eight, we draw some major conclusions and
analyze the meaning of our study from the general perspective.
2. LEARNING
Learning is the main activity concerning this thesis. Thus, it is essential to
define what learning is in our context. In this section we discuss the character of
learning of basic concepts. We stress how we comprehend both knowledge and
the learning of basic concepts. Secondly in this section, we discuss the views of
4
learning, since it affects our research framework notably. In this thesis we
compare traditional learning to learning based on knowledge construction. The
third subsection deals with computer support as one essential background of
our research. Finally in subsection 2.4, we summarize the discussion expressed
in subsections 2.1 to 2.3 from the perspective of our context the basics of
informatics.
2.1. Learning of basic concepts
The earlier defined concept knowledge and its nature are associated with
knowledge acquiring and solving problems (Enkenberg, 1990, pp. 9-18). In this
subsection we define the concepts from the perspective of this thesis.
In this thesis the object of learning are concepts and concept structures.
Thus, in this sense learning is learning of facts and interrelationships between
facts. According to Hiebert and Lefevre (1986), conceptual knowledge is
knowledge about interdependencies, which forms networks in which the parts
are linked together. Thus, we can claim learning of concepts is becoming better
understood based on these interdependencies between the concepts.
Comprehending knowledge as structures is also notable in an another
sense. We can recognize three types of knowledge: declarative knowledge,
procedural knowledge and structural knowledge (Jonassen, 1993). Declarative
knowledge represents cognizance or awareness of some object, event, or idea.
Ryle (1949) describes this type of knowledge as knowing that. Procedural
knowledge, on the other hand, describes how learners use or apply their
declarative knowledge (Jonassen, 1993). The third type of knowledge, structural
knowledge, is the knowledge that mediates the translation of declarative into
procedural knowledge and facilitates the application of procedural knowledge
(Jonassen, 1993). Thus, knowledge structures or structural knowledge is an
important measure when we evaluate how well a student has learned concepts.
A number of research studies have shown indirectly that knowledge structures
are important in problem solving (Chi & Glaser, 1985).
As mentioned in this subsection the term "Knowledge" is important, since
cognitive psychology comprehends learning as the process of knowledge
instead of changing behavior. Based on this several approaches can be found to
teach or learn knowledge in the literature of education.
2.2. Approaches for teaching and learning
The previous subchapter described what the objects of learning, the basic
concepts, are. Concepts can be taught or learnt using different approaches and
one can be more effective than other one in one context because based on the
situated action theory learning is context dependent (Agre & Chapman, 1987;
Suchman, 1987). The approaches or views or paradigms of teaching and
5
learning have affected computer-supported learning notably. Thus, it is
essential to comprehend these views in our context.
Different definitions exist for classifying views of learning (see for
example Risku, 1992 pp. 3-27 and Rauste-von Wright & von Wright, 1994, pp.
103-133 and Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995). In this thesis we comprehend learning
as knowledge construction process and computers as cognitive tools. Thus, it
sensible to define views of learning from the perspective of these including
behavioristic way of learning, i. e. behaviorism, objectivistic way, i. e.
objectitivism, cognitive way, i. e. cognitivism, and constructivistic way, i. e.
constructivism Jonassen (1992a). Widely known and discussed views in regard
to computer supported learning are behaviorism and constructivism (Jonassen,
1992a). Figure 1 illustrates views of learning and the ways of learning in this
study based on the discussion by Jonassen (1992a). Programmed instruction is
both objectivistic and behavioristic emphasizing learning by manipulating a
learner’s behavioral patterns. Cognitive tools (like collaborative hypertext in
this thesis) are based upon a constructivist epistemelogy as well as cognitive
learning theory emphasizing learning as knowledge construction and the
development of a learner’s personal knowledge presentations.
Constructivism
Cognitive
tools
Behaviorism
Cognitivism
Programmed
instruction
Objectivism
6
Figure 1. Views of learning (Jonassen, 1992a).
The idea of behaviorism in computer supported learning is to divide area
to learn into little pieces (Risku, 1992, pp. 4-6). The task of a student is to train
matters piece by piece. Using educational software based on behaviorism,
students are required to train by answering the questions. The questions are
asked by the application and the application simply informs if it is a right or
wrong answer. According to Risku (1992, pp. 7-9), the benefit of behavioristic
oriented educational software can be proved statistically based on the numbers
of right answers. However, this kind of approach does not teach students to
learn "using their own brains" and a student remains to be the passive receiver
of information (Risku, 1992, pp. 7-9).
We supposed that programmed instruction is partly based on
behaviorism. Additionally, it is based on objectivism. This view treats
knowledge as externally mediated information, which is generated by a teacher
and transmitted to learners (Jonassen, 1992a). The purpose of education is for
the learner to acquire the knowledge of the teacher- to assimilate the knowledge
of the teacher or expert. Objectivism equates information and knowledge as far
as the learner is concerned. According to an objectivist epistemology, the
teacher and not the learner determines knowledge. There is an external reality
that each individual can come to know in the same way. Knowledge is
externally referenced rather than internally generated. An instructionist
approach is close to objectivism. It emphasizes that the focus of education has
been restricted to the transmission of information from teachers to students.
We can claim that last mentioned approaches are based on the passive role
of a student. Cognitive and constructivistic approaches emphasize the active
role of a learner. Thus, they can provide an alternative approach to plan
education.
According to Jonassen (1992a), cognitive learning theory assumes that
learners interact with that information, interpret it, and build personal
knowledge representations after relating that information to their prior
knowledge. The information with which learners construct their reality
represents the external reality. However, this information itself does not
represent knowledge. Information is a stimuli that are perceived and recorded
by the mind resulting personal knowledge representations (Jonassen, 1992a).
In a constructivistic learning environment a student is a creator of
concepts (Risku, 1992, pp. 18-22). The difference between cognitivism and
constructivism is that cognitive view is concentrated more on changes in
personal knowledge representations and constructivism is concentrated more
on in which ways these changes in knowledge representations occur.
Constructivism holds that instruction is less a process in which knowledge is
7
communicated to learners, and more a matter of nurturing the ongoing
processes whereby learners come to understand the world in which they live
(Cunningham et al., 1993). In this view, knowledge is an active process of
construction, not the receipt of information from external sources. The role of
textbooks and other instructional media shifts from one that seeks to maximize
the communication of fixed content and/or skills to one in which students
engage in the knowledge construction process. This includes constructing
interpretations, appreciating multiple perspectives, developing and defending
their own positions while recognizing other views, and becoming aware of and
able to manipulate the knowledge construction process itself. An important
aspect of this approach is the insistence that learning takes place embedded in
the contexts to which it is most relevant in everyday life and with which the
students are personally involved.
Within this the constructivistic theory falls into two schools of thought,
social constructivism and cognitive constructivism (Confrey, 1995). According
to him, although these theories differ, they fall within the same basic
assumption about learning: The child's individual development is at the center
of instruction. Piaget proposed a development theory has been widely
discussed in both psychology and education fields. He stressed the holistic
approach concerning learning. A child constructs understanding through many
channels: reading, listening, exploring and experiencing his or her environment
(Piaget, 1977). On the other hand, Vygotsky is most often associated with the
social constructivist theory. He emphasizes the influences of cultural and social
contexts in learning and supports a discovery model of learning (Vygotsky,
1978). This type of model places the teacher in an active role while the students'
mental abilities develop naturally through various paths of discovery.
The definitions concerning the views of teaching and learning have varied
in different publications. However, two main extremes can be found and these
extremes are open learning and closed teaching (Nulden, 1998). Nulden
comprehends that constructivism and cognitivism represent typical open
learning as well as behaviorism and objectivism represent closed teaching.
In spite of constructivism or open learning being the main stream of the
90s in discussion about learning and teaching, some criticism to constructivism
has been presented. According to Silverman (1995), by giving the right amount
and manner of instructionism (i. e. minimal instructionism), students seem to
favor its integration into constructivist environments. This corresponds with the
discussion in Vuorimaa's study (Vuorimaa, 1997). According to his study and
the study by Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1980) and study by Makkonen (1998b, 1998c),
the student as a novice in other words as a beginner has no experience in
situations where he or she is supposed to act. The rule-based behavior of a
novice is very restricted and inelastic. Thus, several instructions must be
provided for a novice's action. For this reason, an introduction course of
informatics can not be fully based on the constructivist view of learning and at
the beginning of a course the learning must be controlled and well instructed.
8
Additionally, Nulden (1998) has made same kind of conclusions emphasizing
the need of a good introduction leaded by a teacher, although we reject
conventional lecturing.
In this study we compare two extremes teacher centered traditional closed
teaching to open learning based on constructivism and cognitivism and the
student's more active role. We do not discuss how these extremes can
supplement each other in this thesis, but we accept that the students need some
basic exercises concerning basic tools at the beginning of a course as well as the
instructions for a course work must be clear.
2.3. Paradigms of computer-based learning
The last mentioned views of learning (see subsection 2.2) have affected the
development of computer-based learning. The aim of this subsection is to
provide basic knowledge concerning computer-based learning. The
development of computer-based learning partly reflects that learning is
knowledge construction as well as social interaction. This is consistent with the
development of the views of learning.
The first attempts to bring computers to schools were mainly based on the
behaviorism (Risku, 1992, p. 3). Behaviorism has influenced on the development
and design of several technologies. Black (1995) has introduced some typical
examples in her review:
1) Teaching machines uses the principles of the programmed learning to
provide a self-pacing delivery of the instruction. There are two programming
designs for this technology: linear and branch. Linear design lays out the
sequence of frames for all students to follow; whereas, in branch design, a
student's response determines what follows.
2) Computer assisted instruction (CAI): The rapid growth of the personal
computers in the society facilitated the explosion of educational (instructional)
software packages. Hundreds of software products hit the market every school
year. No doubt, the first generation of the software was generally designed
linearly. Key behavior modification principles are used to program these
applications. These principles include: (a) Stating the purpose of the software,
(b) applying the appropriate reinforcement - text or visual or audio, (c)
depending on the application, shaping, chaining, modeling, punishment, and
award principles are used, (d) very often, a scoring (monitoring) system is
present, and (e) providing the status of progress CAI comes in various forms:
Drill and practice Activities, simulations, and tutorials. Electronic learning
could be fun using multimedia approach, but the educators do not think the
CAIs can replace active classroom teachers.
3) Virtual reality (VR): VR can definitely address the human interface part
if it can provide a "real" teacher to give instruction. Furthermore, if the student
9
can create their own teacher image to teach them. Then, the reward system
would be more effective comparing with a mechanical "good job" sign. The VR
teacher can even give the child a pat on the head when called for. VR creates a
brand new learning environment for the world to explore. Behavioristic
principles, like other learning theories, will play a major role in the building of
this environment.
However, behavioristic (or objectivistic) approaches have been slowly
replaced by new approaches derived from constructivism and cognitivism.
Koschmann (1996) identifies three past (and on-going) paradigms, as well as an
emerging fourth paradigm. These are computer-aided instruction (CAI),
intelligent tutoring Systems (ITS), Logo-as-Latin, and computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL). Each paradigm can be loosely identified with the
community that brought about its emergence in the application of computer
technology to education.
Computer-aided instruction is a term that describes most early attempts at
computer-based learning (CBL) technologies (Koschmann, 1996). The general
education community drove this development and thus early applications
consisted of practical instructional tools designed around classroom needs.
According to Koschmann (1996), the educational community approaches
learning from a behavioristic standpoint, where learning is generally thought of
as a passive acquisition or absorption of knowledge. Thus, the goal of CAI
involved a process of transmission or delivery of knowledge to the student.
Work in intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) is driven by the artificial
intelligence community and takes a more cognitive approach to learning
(Koschmann, 1996). Learning is seen as problem solving, where gradually the
student acquires a richer and richer representation of the problem space. ITS is
based on the assumption that students' thinking processes can be modeled,
traced, and corrected in the context of problem solving through the use of
computers. Thus, the goal of ITS is to emulate the behavior of skilled tutors.
Derry and Lajoie (1993) call ITS as one attempt to realize student-modeling
paradigm.
Logo-as-Latin is a term coined by Koschmann (1996) to describe the use of
a computer programming (by the student) as a method to actively construct
knowledge. The view of learning is constructivist where learning is a process of
integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge via assimilation and
accommodation (Piaget, 1985). The emphasis is on instructional transfer as the
individual organizes new knowledge in the mind. In the same sense computers
can be comprehended as cognitive tools and Koschmann's Logo-as-Latin can be
comprehended one kind of cognitive tool. Logo-as-Latin is a non-modeling
approach as a contrast to student modeling approach like ITS (Derry and
Lajoie, 1993).
10
According to Koschmann (1996), the fourth paradigm of computer-based
learning is computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Dorneich and
Jones (1997) argue that CSCL has its roots in the social sciences. Learning is
generally seen as a collaborative activity that is situated in its social
environment. In contrast to the first three paradigms, which are focused on
knowledge as a product, CSCL focuses on learning as a process. CSCL is built
upon the research traditions of those disciplines-anthropology, sociology,
linguistics, communication science-that are devoted to understanding language,
culture, and other aspects of the social setting (Koschmann, 1996). According to
him, CSCL can be approached from three main perspectives, which are 1)
activity theory, 2) socially oriented constructivist viewpoints, and 3) the
theories of situated cognition.
Vygotsky (1978) in particular and activity theory in general, see
collaboration as an inherently asymmetrical process between the more capable
(expert) and less capable (novice) peer. Thus, collaboration is seen as the
scaffolding of knowledge by the expert and an appropriation of that knowledge
by the novice (Foreman & Cazden, 1985; Newman et al., 1989).
The constructivist view of learning holds that knowledge is acquired
through a constructive process of personal inquiry and discovery. This view has
its origins in the work of Piaget, who introduced a theory of learning that holds
that through a process of assimilation and accommodation, new knowledge is
assimilated and accommodated (Piaget, 1985). The implication for collaborative
learning is that conflicts between individuals generate conceptual changes
(Doise & Mugny, 1978; Piaget, 1932).
The term situated, as in "situated learning" or "situated cognition" has
assumed a variety of meanings in different disciplinary contexts (Koschmann,
1996). He emphasizes that in the context of CSCL the term is best understood
associated with "enculturation". Roschelle (1996) advocates the view that
collaboration promotes convergence of a shared relational meaning. Thus,
knowledge is constructed incrementally through a process of mutually
contributions via interaction.
These various views concerning the role of collaboration in learning can all
offer insights into the nature of collaboration and learning. Vygotskian
depictions of learning stress the reproduction of existing knowledge. Piagatian
view points tend to stress the benefits of conflict in the maturation process. The
"situated cognition" account of learning stresses collaborative inquiry in the
journey towards mutually derived shared knowledge. It is clear that whatever
the epistemological perspective, learning by collaboration is a cornerstone of
educational practice in CSCL.
Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1993, 1995) have analyzed the use of computers in
different kind of situations in university education. First, in the paper (Leidner
& Jarvenpaa, 1993) they have compared computer-based teaching/learning
11
methods requiring hands-on student use (exercises and lab sessions with
computers) to computer-based methods not requiring hands-on student use
(computer-supported lectures). The computer-based teaching methods
requiring interactive use during class appeared to help students assimilate the
information and acquire insights not stated by the instructor. The main benefit
of the computer-based methods not requiring hands-on student use was that
students' attention increased in the class sessions. In this case the instructor's
notes were displayed in a more colorful and graphical manner during the
lessons. Second, in the paper (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1993) they dealt with what
kind of material is suitable for computer-based learning based on the four
categories of information used by Williams (1977). Those categories were
factual, procedural, conceptual and exploratory. Computers are the most useful
in teaching procedural and exploratory materials, while factual and conceptual
material was taught using traditional methods such as lecturing. The authors
stressed that it takes a lot of time to develop the class material to be used during
the computer exercises. Thus, computers are used for learning procedural and
exploratory material. However, we claim that in the era on the Internet it is
easier to find the material supporting concept learning (see for example
Makkonen, 1999). Jarvenpaa and Leidner emphasize in the paper (Leidner &
Jarvenpaa, 1993) that in education it is important to emphasize the meaning of
interaction because via interaction a student can learn creative and critical
thinking as opposed to factual thinking. According to them, information
technology can enhance interaction, which is needed for the development of
creative and critical thinking. The paper (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995) combines
learning theories and information technology in order to show what kind of
technology supports different learning theories. Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995)
have derived four basic visions concerning information technology in learning:
(1) automating, (2) informating up, (3) informating down, and (4) transforming.
This has been done based on the organizational research on IT visions. First, the
vision to automate is the perception that information technology is a means of
replacing expensive, unreliable human labor with information technology. In
the vision automated classrooms (1) four ways to realize computer-supported
teaching and learning can be found. These include: (1.1) instructor consoles
equipped with presentation software and display controls, (1.2) instructor
consoles and stand-alone student computers, (1.3) computer-assisted instruction
(drill and practice programs), and (1.4) distance learning. The instructor console
technology (1.1) most closely maps to the objectivist model of learning and
instruction. This technology maps secondarily to cognitive model of learning
because it enables more structured and vivid transmission and thus, it is easier
for a learner to absorb information. The instructor console and stand-alone
student computers (1.2) provide two ways of learning. A student can emulate
an instructor's steps on a particular software package. This use of technology
supports the objectivist model of learning. Another constructivistic way is for
an instructor to give students a problem to analyze using appropriate software
and assist students when they encounter problems. Computer-assisted
instruction (1.3) is based on the objectivist model of learning emphasizing the
12
stimulus-feedback view. Distance learning (1.4), which is the transmission of a
course from one location to another, supports the objectivist model of
knowledge transmission. In an educational context the vision to informate up
(2) would entail giving the instructors feedback concerning the student
understanding of class material in a timely fashion so that the instructor could
clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995)
argue that the ways to realize the vision of informate up are key response pads
(2.1) and electronic mail between instructor and students (2.2). Key pad
response (2.1) enables a large class of students to participate by responding to
questions with a yes/no response or rating agreement to an issue on a scale
from 0 to 9. This technology assumes that an instructor is the nucleus of a
classroom and that he or she is delivering information. This pedagogical
assumption is closely linked to the objectivist model of learning. By enabling an
instructor to ask questions based on material being covered and to assess the
degree of understanding by the responses, key response pad technology
facilitates more effective knowledge transmission and comprehension. The
technology is secondarily related to cognitive information processing. If this
technology supported questions asked by students, it would be more closely
linked to the cognitive information processing model of learning. Another
technology that can informate up is electronic mail between instructors and
students (2.2). E-mail solicits feedback concerning the student's understanding
of course material and hence, promotes the cognitive information processing
model of learning. The vision to informate down (3) includes many ways to
realize technology-supported learning. First, information classroom
technologies (3.1) include learning networks (3.1.1), hypermedia (3.1.2),
simulation technologies (3.1.3), and virtual reality (3.1.4). Additionally, the
vision to informate down includes communication technology classrooms (3.2),
synchronous communication classrooms (3.3), and groupware-supported
synchronous communication (3.4). Learning networks (3.1.1) are comprised of
networked computers with links to shared databases developed by educators at
various locations or to external databases. They are linked to the constructivist
model of learning: students are constructing new knowledge from existing
information sources. Hypermedia (3.1.2) provides a non-linear means of
browsing and sorting through computerized information. Learning networks
can be organized in a hypermedia format to encourage students to search the
material in the manner that suits their own system logic. Hypermedia can
support learning based on the cognitive information processing model of
learning. However, Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) claim that students with very
little working knowledge in a domain, the seeming lack of structure may be
disconcerting and may hinder processing. Simulation technology (3.1.3) is
linked to the constructivist model of learning because learners need to be
actively involved in learning by working with real-life facts or objects. Virtual
reality (3.1.4) supports constructivist, cooperative, and sociocultural learning. In
this environment students are actively involved in constructing their
knowledge of the particular domain for which the virtual reality is being built.
Communication technology classrooms (3.2), synchronous communication
13
classrooms (3.3), groupware-supported synchronous communication (3.4) are
close to cooperative learning especially if, for practical reasons, a class is
divided into smaller discussion groups. In addition, those technologies may
enable sociocultural learning. By providing anonymity and non-verbal
communication, different cultures are allowed to express themselves without
having to adopt a language or opinions of a dominating culture. The vision to
transform (4) includes asynchronous communication across distances (4.1) and
groupware-supported asynchronous communication across distances (4.2).
Those asynchronous virtual learning spaces can support cognitive,
constructivist, collaborative, and social cultural learning models.
As the summary of this subsection we emphasize some points. The
computer-supported education has been changed from behaviorism towards
constructivism. However, CAI technologies represent the old behavioristic way
to realize computer supported lessons and ITS systems try model tutors'
behavior in the spirit of cognitivism. In our context we prefer non-modeling
approach and we reject student-model approach, since the domain may be too
complex for beginners in informatics. Based especially on Leidner ja Jarvenpaa
(1995) it is obvious concerning many technologies that they can be used in
various pedagogical ways and teachers must understand the connection
between educational theories and technology. We stress two points. First,
learning must be comprehended as a knowledge construction process. The
second essential point in learning is social interaction. We must count those
points while planning computer-based teaching and learning. Next subsection
presents our domain or context.
2.4. Learning of basics in informatics
What is included in courses of basics in informatics has alternated
depending on a university and faculty. One reason for that is that informatics is
divided into many disciplines traditionally including computer science,
information technology and information systems science. In the University of
Jyväskylä at the department of computer science and information systems
informatics has been information systems science discipline oriented. According
to the requirements of the faculty of social sciences at the university of
Jyväskylä, the introduction course deals with issues as follows:
- the basic concepts of information technology,
- the meaning of information technology and information systems in a
society and firms,
- the basic skills in the use of personal computers (including operating
system, word processing, graphics at least).
The issues emphasize that both the learning of declarative knowledge (i. e.
concepts) and procedural knowledge (i. e. skills) are important in the basic
14
course of informatics in our case. Additionally, the content of the course can be
taught in different ways. Teaching and learning can be "traditional" in other
words based on behaviorism or student centered based on the constructivism
approach. The behavioristic way in the form of lecturing has been a typical
approach for realizing basic courses in many cases. However, learning based
knowledge construction or constructivism can be a good alternative for
learning concepts or interelatedness between concepts. In our study we are
interested in both those ways. We want to compare the traditional "theory
before practice" learning to constructivistic learning based on the use of
computers and collaborative hypertext. Thus, it is important to define what
hypertext and collaborative hypertext is especially in the context of learning
next.
3. HYPERMEDIA AND HYPERTEXT
In the previous section we defined what the main activity of this thesis
learning is and more accurately computer-based learning is in our context. In
this section we describe what computer technologies are in realizing the
learning of the basic concepts in informatics based on the learning by
knowledge constructing. We claim that hypertext and hypermedia provide a
good environment for learning based on a student's knowledge construction or
cognitive constructivism. Additionally, supplementing hypertext and
hypermedia with collaboration features leads to collaborative hypermedia,
which may support learning in the spirit of social constructivism.
The idea of hypertext was originally presented in Vannevar Bush's article
"As we may think" (Bush, 1945). The name and content of the article are related
to a human's thinking or cognitive activity. Bush's idea was to develop a
mechanical device for the management of documents. The operation of it was
purposed to mimic the associative character of a human's mind.
In the computer era the concept of hypertext has been redefined.
Hypertext can be defined as a database in which information (text) has been
organized nonsequentially (Conklin, 1987). Other related terms to hypertext
are hypermedia and multimedia. Hypermedia is a database, which may
contain pictures, digitized videos, sound and animations in addition to text.
Multimedia is a related term to hypermedia. Text, pictures and voice combined
in a computer can be called multimedia (Heimbürger et al., 1990, pp. 21-22). The
term multimedia ignores the structure of computer presentation. It stresses that
multimedia is a combination of selected forms to present information.
Hypertext (hypermedia) has been viewed by many educators as a
computer-based information structures that supports a constructivist paradigm
(Jonassen, 1992b). Learners can explore a vast assemblage of information,
choosing their own meaningful paths, making conscious associations between
15
prior knowledge and hyperlink choices (Spiro et al, 1991) - in short, creating a
semantic web which will mirror their own developing cognitive structures
(Jones, 1989).
According to Nielsen (1990, pp. 1-11), hypertext is composed of the set of
non-linear connected text and other forms of information. Hypertext consists of
following properties:
- Database consists of nodes including text (and graphical information).
- The windows of a screen correspond to the nodes in the database.
- Windows can be repositioned, resized, closed, and put aside as small
window icons.
- Windows can contain any number of link icons.
- The user can easily create new nodes and new links to nodes.
Nielsen (1989, 1990, pp. 8-14) has gathered the opportunities of hypertext
together comparing it with both printed material and a traditional computer
presentation. The results of analysis are shown in table 1 (see next page).
16
Compared with printed material
Advantages
Compared with traditional
computer presentation
Can display text, images, animation, Information structures have
movies.
user-oriented semantics.
Easy to update.
Information can be transferred via
networks.
Information is easy to copy.
Less space is needed to store
information.
Simple framework for
processing of unstructured,
semi-structured, and structured
information.
No need to (traditional)
programming when
constructing information
structures.
A document can be shared with
several people.
In principle literature of the whole
world in reach.
Disadvantages
Reading speed, which is 30% lower Structure like spaghetti possible.
on present displays.
No agreed definition for the
Excessive load in learning.
structure of information. Thus, it
is not easy to find general
No user interface standard.
methods for data processing.
No standard for data transfer.
No "romantic" first edition.
Text is homogeneous.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of hypertext compared to more
traditional presentation forms of information (Nielsen 1989 & 1990, pp. 8-14).
However, during this decade these disadvantages have been remedied by
the standardization of user interfaces. This includes graphic Mac- or Windowsbased user interfaces based on windows on the screen. Simultaneously, larger
and sharper screens have become more common. Large monitors encourage
hypertext and other document systems that employ multiple windows, whereas
smaller viewing surfaces demand systems that rely on a more limited card or
chunk metaphor (Landow, 1996). Smaller screens also tend to work best with
comparatively disorienting systems that replace one window by another rather
than those that add new windows to ones already open. From the point of view
of someone designing an electronic edition, screen size has major effects
because it has direct impact upon the coherence and usability of scholarly
17
annotation. Additionally, the World Wide Web on the Internet has improved
the standardization of hypertext because hypertext is usually read using a
browser program in a graphic user interface.
Leventhal et al. (1993) have gathered the results of different researchers
about the studies in which material in the paper form has been compared with
material in the form of hypertext. Additionally, in their article their own results
have been presented.
According to Leventhal and her colleagues (Leventhal et al., 1993), existing
studies that compare paper media, such as books or journals, to hypertext have
not always found superiority for hypertext. For example, Marchionini and
Shneiderman (1988) compared the use of a paper versus a hypertext version of a
maintenance manual. The paper version resulted in significantly faster times for
12 different tasks. A second study (Shneiderman, 1987) compared a paper
versus a hypertext version of a database on the Holocaus, developed in
Hyperties. The paper version was faster for simple fact retrieval questions.
However, as query complexity increased, the Hyperties system became just as
fast. The groups did not differ in accuracy. However, users greatly preferred
the Hyperties system. McKnight et al. (1990) compared two versions of a
hypertext document on winemaking to a paper version and a word processor
file version for accuracy in answering questions. There was no significant
difference between the paper and word processor versions, but performance
was worse for both hypertext conditions. However, the context where hypertext
is applied affects its effectiveness.
Learning style may also affect the effectiveness of hypertext-based
learning. Esichaikul et al. (1994) has studied the issue based on Kolb's
experimental learning theory. They found that convergers are the best learners
in a hypermedia-based problem-solving environment. Generally, it is further
argued that a hypertext environment could be ideally suited for experimental
learning (Spiro et al., 1991).
Formally, Rada (1991, pp. 112-113) has defined the term collaborative
hypertext, which is one of the main concepts in this thesis. Collaborative
hypertext is created by a group of people and may be called "grouptext".
Grouptext systems help groups of people create and access text in three phases:
(1) The discussion phase occurs as people brainstorm and formulate plans
as to how writing should proceed.
(2) In the authoring phase, blocks of text are attached to a network of
ideas and the network is traversed to generate a document.
(3) The analog of reading in the collaborative sense is the making of notes
by a group of people on a document. This annotative phase may also
lead to a revised document as the annotators incorporate their
comments into the original document.
18
Based on Rada's thoughts we can consider collaborative hypertext as an
active type of hypertext. Collaborative hypertext and cognitive tools are very
similar. These both tools or techniques stress the meaning activity. Thus, using
collaborative hypertext as a cognitive tool may be useful in learning.
4. CSCW AND HYPERMEDIA
Collaborative hypertext is one form of CSCW (Computer Supported
Collaborative Work) tools because it expands the idea of hypertext with
collaboration. Thus, it is essential to discuss it and its opportunities in learning.
We claim that CSCW solutions can result in good learning outcomes in the
spirit of social constructivism and CSCL. However, there is a need for the better
understanding both learning models and approaches and technology related to
learning.
Hypermedia is potentially an ideal medium for supporting collaborative
work, as it can capture the work, discussions about the work, and discussions
about the shared use of the medium (Irish & Trigg, 1989). In many ways, the
notion of supporting users working together is an old idea in the hypermedia
community. Vannevar Bush's Memex (Bush, 1945) was meant to be shared
among people interested in similar subject areas. According to Irish and Trigg
(1989), Doug Engelbart's NLS system was perhaps the first working
implementation of hypermedia supporting collaboration. One important
component was the Journal, a means for supporting long-term group
collaboration in which interlinked designs, notes, etc. were stored and accessed
by multiple authors (Englebart, 1975). Similarly, Nelson's Xanadu project is
intended to provide online libraries to which people can add their own links
and annotations on others' work as well as their own new papers (Nelson,
1981).
The surge of interest in computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) in
the late 80s led Max Mühlhauser (Mühlhauser, 1990) to suggest in 1990 that to
be even more useful hypermedia systems should be enhanced with facilities
that allow collaboration between students. However, before this at Brown
University a well known hypermedia system Intermedia was developed
between 1985 and 1990 (Haan et al., 1992). Intermedia is a multiuser
hypermedia framework where hypermedia functionality is handled at system
level. Intermedia presents to the user with a graphical file system browser and a
set of applications that can handle text, graphics, timelines, animations and
videodisc data. Additionally, the framework includes a browser for link
information, a set of linguistic tools and the ability to create and traverse links.
Link information is isolated from the documents and is saved into a separate
database. The start and end positions of the link are called anchors. Intermedia
supports learning by organizing the information in many ways. For example,
timelines are a natural way to present historical events.
19
Whittington (1996) has summarized current CSCL systems. His own
experiences based on the Mole systems have been reported. According to him,
by adding collaborative learning facilities to a hypertext, students can study
independently and yet not feel isolated. The addition of annotations to the text
allows the students to generate threads of discussion and effectively author
their own material, perhaps generating a feeling of ownership.
The MUCH system (Rada et al., 1993) developed at the University of
Liverpool are a sequence of collaborative hypermedia systems developed to
support collaborative authoring and teaching in the Department of Computer
Science. The MUCH system allows collaborative authoring of documents, as
well as annotation and assessment of existing documents. Because it offers more
facilities than Mole, the user interface is complicated.
CLARE (Wan & Johnson, 1994) is a "computer-augmented collaborative
learning environment" designed for use with small groups (3-5) of people
studying research papers. Its applicability to groups of more than 10 students is
very limited. CLARE provides a system that allows the users to compare and
ultimately integrate their different points of view.
CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment)
(Scardamalia et al., 1989) is similar to CLARE in that it is intended as a tool to
aid "knowledge building" within a group, the stated objective being "engaging
students in conjecture, theory building and analysis, and providing them with
larger and more varied audiences for reflective engagement". CSILE has been
used in elementary, secondary and postgraduate sites in the USA and Canada.
CSILE is based on a communal database as a center of collaboration. CaMILE
(Guzdial, 1995) provides similar communication services like CSILE has.
Guzdial et al. have used CaMILE in the engineering education and they
evaluated that the effect of CaMILE does not support knowledge building like
CSILE. CaMILE is rather a distributor and a mediator of information.
Generally, several novel ways have been established on the WWW to
support collaboration. One of them is the BSCW (Basic Support for
Collaborative Work) which has been developed by German National Research
Center for Information Technology (Bentley et al., 1996). The BSCW System
provides basic functionality for group cooperation and uses the WWW as its
communication infrastructure. The BSCW system is based on the metaphor of a
`shared workspace'. It allows uploading of various types of objects to a
workspace and simple access for its group members. The information sharing
functionality is enhanced with basic facilities for awareness, authentication and
authorization, and version control.
Some computer supported learning environments have been developed
on the WWW based on old solutions on local area network. WebCSILE is the
WWW version of CSILE. It has multimedia communication capabilities in an
Internet environment, which provides access to users in both Mac and PC
20
environments. However, it is still in the development phase and its
functionality is limited (Hewitt at al., 1997), even though it is designed with
specific tools to enable learning activities such as collaborative learning and
knowledge building. WebCaMILE (Guzdial et al., 1997) was inspired by the
findings that, when students collaborated face-to-face, they often worked
around an artifact (such as a design report or a set of specifications) to ground
or anchor their discussion. The 1997 version of CaMILE, WebCaMILE, was
designed to structure collaborations around anchoring artifacts, that is,
anchored collaboration. WebCaMILE maintained the scaffolding for
collaboration from CaMILE. But several key characteristics changed (Guzdial et
al., 1997):
- WebCaMILE was implemented on the Web, which improved its speed
and enabled its use across platforms.
- Early versions of WebCaMILE did provide multimedia annotations, like
in CaMILE, but when these still were never used, they were dropped.
- The most significant advantage of WebCaMILE over CaMILE appears to
be that individual notes (and their consequent threads of discussions) are
directly addressable on the WWW.
WebCaMILE has been much more successful than CaMILE. Students are
much more willing to use WebCaMILE to discuss anchors of interest. In
comparison of anchored WebCaMILE discussions with unanchored newsgroup
discussions in the same classroom, WebCaMILE discussion threads are longer,
which suggests that WebCaMILE is supporting more sustained discussion than
in a newsgroup (Guzdial et al., 1997).
Some main points can be found concerning the future in the development
of CSCL. Guzdial et al. (1997) recognized three lines as the basis for CSCL.
These lines are case-based reasoning driven tools, collaborative-driven tools
and reflection and process-driven tools. Case-based reasoning driven tools are
inspired by problem based learning. The basis of collaborative-driven tools is
the success of the CSILE environment. In the case of reflection and processdriven tools the main interest is in integrating different phases of the students'
problem-solving and design process and providing scaffolding (guidance)
which includes reflection, choosing between alternatives, and connecting
learning goals with activities.
In the development of CSCW and CSCL Chen and Rada (1996) emphasize
the importance of user-centered and multi-disciplinary design methodologies.
They argue that research is too technique-driven. According to Newman et al.,
(1997) many current tools primarily support information exchange and
produces shared opinions. They emphasize the need of groupware, which
supports adopting deep learning strategies and educationally proven group
learning techniques. However, from the perspective of the views of learning
the combination of CSCW and hypermedia is a promising opportunity, since
we can claim this combination supports constructivistic learning (for more
21
details about constructivism, see subsection 2.2). Especially, based on social
constructivism using CSCW in teaching and learning can provide an ideal
environment for successful learning. Social constructivism emphasizes the
influences of cultural and social contexts in learning and supports the discovery
model of learning. CSCW and CSCL can support learning by creating the right
context.
5. RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND SETTING
We created our research problem dividing it into subproblems to evaluate
the effectiveness of collaborative hypertext. In this section we introduce them.
In our study the basic problem is
How does collaborative hypertext affect learning outcomes in the learning
of basic concepts of information technology comparing it with learning without
collaborative hypertext?
We divided it into more specific problems:
1. Are single basic concepts learned better using collaborative hypertext?
2. Can interrelatedness between the concepts be learned better
using collaborative hypertext?
3. Who benefits from by collaborative hypertext in the learning and who
does not?
4. Does collaborative hypertext support better engagement in learning?
We organized two courses based on collaborative hypertext and
collaborative knowledge building using hypertext program Toolbook.
Simultaneously, we organized two courses based on conventional programmed
instruction. Thus, we wanted to compare learning based on the collaborative
knowledge construction using hypertext to conventional learning
arrangements.
In addition, we also explored if the WWW-based hypermedia or hypertext
presentations caused better learning concerning the basic concepts of
informatics. To study this one course was organized with the presentations on
the WWW. Those presentations were utilized in the optional coursework of the
course.
22
6. SUMMARY OF WORK
The main part of the work consists of the papers presented in chapters IIVI. These chapters are briefly summarized in this section. Chapters II and III
deal with learning outcomes generally providing answers for the more specific
problems 1 and 2 mentioned in previous section. Chapters IV and V, which are
connected to the more specific problems 3 and 4, deal with a student's
perspective in regard to the collaborative hypertext. Chapter VI presents our
results concerning the effect of the WWW-based presentations on the learning
of the basic concepts of informatics.
The paper (Makkonen, 1997b), dealing with the more specific problem 1,
concentrates on the effect on learning single concepts using collaborative
hypertext. However, it does not deal with the learning of interelatedness
between concepts sufficiently. Thus, it is important to comprehend learning as
acquiring structural knowledge. The paper (Makkonen, 1997c), as an answer for
the more specific problem 2, deals with this point of view. The revised version
of this paper has been accepted for the World Conference on Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia (ED-Media 1998) (Makkonen, 1998a). Afterwards
we deal with our basic problem from the perspective of students as the answers
for the more specific problems 3 and 4. In the paper (Makkonen, 1997a) we are
interested in which areas of basics in informatics are interesting and useful to
learn using collaborative hypertext from a student’s perspective. This paper has
also been presented as a short paper later (Makkonen, 1997d). Additionally, we
were interested in what kind of student benefits from collaborative hypertext.
The paper (Makkonen, 1997e) deals with this issue. This paper has been
presented as the shorter version later (Makkonen, 1997f). The focus of the paper
(Makkonen, 1999) is the usability of the WWW-based presentations and
especially the effect on learning single concepts.
6.1. "Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using
Collaborative Hypertext: An Experiment And Its Preliminary
Results Based on SOLO Taxonomy"
The paper (Makkonen, 1997b) represents our experiment and the results of
the study based on the SOLO taxonomy. We compare two courses on the basics
in informatics using collaborative hypertext (experimental groups) to two
courses without collaborative hypertext (control groups). In this paper we
concentrate on how the single concepts of informatics have been learned. We
show that single concepts can be learned more easily using conventional
learning methods without collaborative hypertext in our context.
We used the SOLO taxonomy as follows. The learning of single concepts
was evaluated based on this taxonomy. All treatments contained 12 items. The
items for the tests were selected separately and chosen randomly from 138
concepts of the whole learning area. In each test respondents produced 12
definitions of randomly selected basic concepts. The basic characters of each
23
type of responses in this taxonomy were shown in table 1 in the paper
(Makkonen, 1997b) and its five levels were the first basis of our evaluation. The
second basis of the evaluation was the contemporary definitions in our course
material that was produced based on the course literature:
Holopainen, M., Poutsaari, H., Pyydönniemi, R. (1991 & 1994).
Tietojenkäsittely. Espoo: Weilin & Göös. (in Finnish)
Lokki, H., Haikala, I., Linnainmaa, S., Mattila, S. (1989 & 1992).
Tietotekniikka. Jyväskylä: Tietotekniikan liitto. (in Finnish)
Kuivalahti, M. (1991 & 1993). Tietojenkäsittely ja sen tekniikka. Porvoo:
WSOY. (in Finnish)
Additionally, we utilized current multimedia and Internet-related material
Lallukka, L., Paananen, V. M. (1994). Multimedia-kohti
Jyväskylä: Teknolit Oy. (in Finnish)
hypermediaa.
Ahonen P., Kolari J. (1994). Internet. Jyväskylä: Teknolit Oy. (in Finnish)
Based on the aforementioned the main themes of the course were
Introduction,
Presentation of data in the PC-environment,
Programs and programming,
Hardware technology,
Data communications, and
Information systems development.
Based on those themes and the material concept maps were created
covering the critical concepts of the area to learn. The concept maps were
utilized in rating the responses of the students. Figure 2 shows an example how
we defined the theme Information systems utilizing concept maps.
24
Information systems development
NEEDED BY
Functional organization
CONSISTS OF
Controlling fucntions
CONSISTS OF
IS ONE TASK OF
Information processing function
CAN BE
Strategic planning of information systems
CONSISTS OF
Performing fucntions
IS DONE USING
E. G.
Supporting functions
CREATES A BASIS FOR
CAN BE
Planning of (single) information system
UTILIZES
UTILIZES
Project work
Figure 2. Concept map dealing with information systems development based
on our course material.
The author conducted analyzing and rating. Examples in table 2 and table
3 clarify how the responses of the students were rated (see next pages).
25
Level of SOLO
Example
Subdirectory
1. Prestructural
Contents of every program.
2. Unistructural
Subdirectories
directory.
3. Multistructural
A main directory contains numbers of
subdirectories. A user can store his or
her outcomes systematically.
4. Relational
In this case students did not produce
responses that should have been rated as
extended abstracts.
5. Extended Abstract
In this case students did not produce
responses that should have been rated as
extended abstracts.
are
under
main
Table 2. Example about rating answers dealing with the concept subdirectory.
26
Level of SOLO
Example
Commercial-administrative software
1. Prestructural
Spreadsheet like Excel or Quattro Pro.
2. Unistructural
It is a part of application software.
3. Multistructural
Software that can be used in
companies. It can help in accounting
salaries and stock accounting.
4. Relational
It is a part of application software.
They idea is that the amount of data is
large. Examples of commercialadministrative software are budgeting,
accounting.
5. Extended Abstract
In this case students did not produce
responses that should have been rated as
extended abstracts.
Table 3. Example about rating answers dealing with commercial-administrative
software.
In our rating useless sentences did not affect evaluation on level 2-5. The
most important points in evaluation are the difference between level 2 and 3
and the difference between level 3 and level 4. At level 2 only one sentence
included in our material was needed. At level 3 two or more sentences are
needed. However, there was no need for the connections between sentences. At
level 4 two items were expected. First, all items or sentences included in our
material had to be included in the responses of level 4. Second, the sentences
expressed by a student had to be in harmony with our material.
6.2. "Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using
Collaborative Hypertext: Does Collaborative Hypertext
Support Learning as a Whole?"
The paper (Makkonen, 1997c) represents the results of the study based on
the tests of structural knowledge. In this paper we concentrate on how
knowledge structures i. e. interelatedness between concepts have been learned.
The analysis included two subscales: a) the Semantic relationships, and b) the
Analogies. The concepts that included in the subscales were exactly same as the
concepts of evaluation based on the SOLO taxonomy.
27
As in the paper (Makkonen, 1997b) we compare the experimental groups
to the control groups. We show that structural knowledge can be learned
equally in both types of the groups.
6.3. "Does collaborative hypertext support better engagement in
learning of the basics in informatics?"
The paper (Makkonen, 1997a) shows how engaged the students are to
learn the different themes of informatics. The study found that the use of
collaborative hypertext affects both external and internal motivation equally in
most cases. Internal motivation was significantly higher in the control groups
learning the basic concepts of data communications. On the other hand external
motivation was significantly higher in the experimental groups learning the
basic concepts of hardware technology. The results have also been published in
the paper (Makkonen, 1997d).
6.4. "Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using
Collaborative Hypertext: Who Benefits from Collaborative
Hypertext?"
The paper (Makkonen, 1997e) shows who benefits from collaborative
hypertext. The study found that the use of collaborative hypertext suits best for
females and the students of non-humanities sciences. The students who are
familiar with computers derive more benefit from the learning methods
without collaborative hypertext. However, the students who are not familiar
with computers can learn equally effectively using both methods. The results
have also been published in the paper (Makkonen, 1997f).
6.5. "The WWW-based Presentations as a Complementary Part of
Conventional Lectures in the Basics of Informatics: Is It
Worth It?"
The paper (Makkonen, 1999) deals with the use of the WWW in a
constructivistic manner as a complementary part of conventional lectures. The
data for this study was also gathered in the course introduction to automatic
data processing like data in the papers introduced previously.
We compared the students, who completed an optional WWW-based
coursework, to the students, who did not participate in the WWW-based
coursework. The coursework dealt with the basic concepts of informatics. To
compare two different groups of the students we utilized a SOLO taxonomy
based measure like in the paper introduced in the subsection 6.1.
We found that the WWW-based coursework works well as a
complementary part of conventional lectures. Learning outcomes were
significantly better in the group of the students, which completed the optional
28
coursework. The students of this group were in a worse situation at the
beginning of the course associated with the knowledge of the basic concepts.
Thus, the effect of the coursework on learning was significant.
In addition, the paper summarizes our WWW-related research
(Makkonen, 1998b, 1998c, 1999) in our introductory course of informatics. Based
on the results of three papers we claim that organizing material in the right
form is important while using hypertext or the WWW in education. While
creating hypertext and web-based material we must concentrate on issues
improving the management of material in the use of the students. When we can
avoid solutions leading to the phenomena cognitive overload or lost in
hyperspace, we succeed and a student can feel real learning.
6.6. Summary of Papers Dealing With Collaborative Hypertext
Using Crosstabs
The SPSS crosstabs command was used to test the relationship between
the main variables. These variables were a) the learning outcomes based on the
SOLO taxonomy, b) the semantic relationships subscale of learning structural
knowledge, c) the analogies subscale of learning structural knowledge, d) postmotivation, e) internal motivation, and f) external motivation. The chi-square
statistics showed no significant relationship between the variables in most
cases. However, we found the relationship between post-motivation and the
semantic relationship subscale in the control groups (p=.013) as well as the
relationship between internal motivation and the semantic relationship subscale
(p=.011).
Based on above in learning based on traditional methods if students are
motivated to learn they can comprehend the area to learn better. This
dependence between the variables can not be found concerning the
experimental groups.
7. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
This section deals with the goodness of the results using the concepts
validity and reliability.
7.1. Internal validity
Internal validity has been reached in two ways. First, the subjects have
been recruited as follows. We have organized two experimental groups and two
control groups. The students selected the group in which they participated
freely. All groups were informed in the same way and at the same time. The
students were advised to select the course, which suited them best. The student
did not know which course they selected (an experimental group or a control
29
group). That helped our research in two ways: (1) the student did not attend the
course based on her or his interest in hypertext or hypermedia and (2) in
recruiting in this way we made sure that the students had enough time to
attend the different activities of our courses. The second way to reach internal
validity was the basis of evaluation in the courses. The learning outcomes of the
students have been evaluated based on two measures - learning of single
concepts in the paper (Makkonen, 1997a) and learning of knowledge structures
in the paper (Makkonen, 1997b). Additionally, the background of the students
has been evaluated to confirm the equality of the groups. In addition, by giving
credits based on the completed exercises the students were motivated to
participate in the both types of the courses.
The internal validity might be lower in the course where we had a WWWbased coursework because the coursework was optional. In some cases one
motivation for the students to attend the coursework was that they were
interested in the WWW. In the same way one motivation not to attend the
coursework was that those students were not interested in the WWW.
However, in most cases the reason to attend or not attend was time based on
the questionnaire conducted at the end of the course.
7.2. External validity
External validity has been reached because the courses were based on the
requirements of the faculty of social sciences at the University of Jyväskylä. This
meant that the situation of the experiments was natural. The students have been
expected to acquire knowledge and skills, which were written according to the
curriculum by the faculty. In addition, the subjects in the experiments were
normal students because in those terms when we had the courses included in
this study, there were no other courses available in the basics of informatics.
Because external validity concerns the question of generalization, it is
important to note that our study deals with the learning concepts. Thus, the
findings can be useful in the areas, where information is in the form of concepts.
These kind of subjects can be for example biology, history, psychology, and
religion.
7.3. Reliability
The measures used in the research papers of this thesis were developed
and used by earlier research of the concepts learning. Cronbach's alfa were
calculated for the SOLO measure presented in (Makkonen, 1997b, 1999) because
it was essential for this test including 12 items (Makkonen, 1997b) or 15 items
(Makkonen, 1999), where each item measured varying quality of learning.
30
8. CONCLUSION
Jonassen (1994) has identified seven key learning strategies necessary for
successful learning with technology. Those strategies emphasize that learning
must be
active,
constructive,
collaborative,
intentional,
conversational,
contextualized, and
reflective.
(Jonassen, 1994).
Based on our study it appears that collaborative hypertext has its promises
but these are restricted. However, technology changes rapidly all the time and
new methods and approaches can be found for collaborative (hypertext-based)
learning.
Based on the results of our research papers collaborative hypertext is
suited for the learning of structural knowledge rather than the learning of single
concepts. This is promising because as we mentioned in section one knowledge
is multidimensional rather than single facts. Additionally, the study proves that
engagement to learn the topics of our basic course using collaborative hypertext
is equal compared to traditional learning in most cases. Internal motivation
concerning learning hardware technology was higher in the groups of students,
which used collaborative hypertext. Generally, from this point of view
computer-supported collaborative learning may be suited for teaching the basic
concepts of hardware technology. Because of external motivation concerning
the learning of the basic concepts of data communications was higher in the
groups, which did not use collaborative hypertext, learning without computers
may be suited for teaching this topic best. The results show that we must aim at
teaching and learning based on collaborative hypertext for certain groups.
Based on our research these groups are females, non-humanities students. Thus
generally, computer-supported collaborative learning may be the best way of
learning for those groups.
We must concentrate on both pedagogical and technological issues in the
future. The role of instructionist approach at the beginning of learning must be
defined. The questions are what is the right amount of traditional teaching and
what is the right amount of new methods based on constructivism. However, as
said in subsection 2.3 by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1993), conceptual and factual
knowledge can be learned better using traditional methods. In addition,
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1995) stress that hypermedia may not be a useful tool
for students with very little working knowledge in a domain.
31
However, based on the discussion by Jonassen (1994) at the beginning of
this section, we can claim that collaborative hypertext can support each goal
and hence, it can be a useful tool for the learning of informatics. The question is
the easiness of the tool and how mature students are to utilize technology. We
claim that if an environment is manageable, the results will be good. Our results
concerning the guided tours on the WWW are one example of this (Makkonen
1998b, 1998c, 1999). We found positive impact on the learning of the basic
concepts in informatics using the guided tours on the WWW. The WWW can
support learning especially from the perspective of the constructivism (Brandt,
1997 & Ahmad et al., 1998) and, constructivism may thus have a leading role in
computer-supported education in the future. The WWW enables many ways of
learning from many perspectives. Thus, it is also possible to realize successful
experiences based on hypermedia and also for the students, who at the
beginning of learning of one area. Our WWW studies (Makkonen 1998b, 1998c,
1999) showed one prosperous case, in which the threats mentioned by
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1993, 1995) were overcome.
Regarding research methods, as we comprehend information systems
research as the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research, this
study would have needed qualitative approach. The lack of this study is that it
measures only the effects of collaborative hypertext on learning. The qualitative
approach will clarify what the reasons for the success or the failure in
collaborative-hypertext-based learning are. Additionally, the qualitative
approach is well argued because the CSCL approach comprehends learning
from other perspectives than psychological. Thus, the evaluation based on the
qualitative approach appears to be the logical next step in the research
concerning both collaborative hypertext and the WWW.
The development of the use of computers emphasizes information
sharing, process reengineering, and supporting groups and teamwork. There is
a number of reasons to suggest that support for such collaborative working
based on information sharing is becoming more necessary (Bentley et al., 1997).
According to the trends in the current business world towards decentralisation,
joint ventures, outsourcing of business functions and so on are highlighting a
need for effective methods of sharing information and coordinating activities.
Good examples in this are previous mentioned CSILE, (Scardamalia et al., 1989)
and Lotus Notes (Saarimaa, 1996, pp. 1-8), which is very common as an Intranet
solution in enterprises. The developers of CSILE have same ideas as what can
be found in Lotus Notes environment, which is widely known in enterprises.
Both CSILE and Lotus Notes are based on collaboration and communal
database. Like CSILE the meaning of Lotus Notes is reengineering of processes
and supporting teamwork as well sharing information. In the case of CSILE, it
occurs in educational environment and, in the case of Lotus Notes, it occurs in a
business environment. Generally in the context of education, the current change
is well described by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1995). They understand the vision
to transform (see subsection 2.3 in more detail) is the key approach while
32
planning a complete transformation of education or as well as an organization.
In the field of education, the vision transform would involve using information
technology (1) to redraw the physical boundaries of the classroom, (2) to enable
more teamwork, (3) to allow learning to be a continuous time-independent
process, and (4) to enable multi-level, multi-speed knowledge creation. The
notion of virtual learning spaces begins to operationalize these assumptions.
The collaboration technologies of the 90s may change the role of
information technology. Technology can pay more attention to what real
business is and how it goes or what the processes of learning are. We can claim
that the new millenium will begin with the new ways of working and the
change of behavior will occur by the techniques, which enable the new ways to
act.
REFERENCES
Agre, P. E., Chapman, D. (1987). Pengi: An Implementation of a Theory of Activity. Proceedings
of AAAI-87, Los Altos, CA, pp. 196-201.
Ahmad, R, Piccoli, G., Ives, B. (1998). Effectiveness of Virtual Learning Environments in Basic
Skills Business Education: A Field Study in Progress. Proceedings of ICIS 1998. Helsinki,
Finland, pp. 352-357.
Bentley, R., Busbach, U., Sikkel, K. (1996). The Architecture of the BSCW Shared Workspace
System. Proceedings of the ERCIM workshop on CSCW and the Web. Sankt Augustin,
Germany, February 7-9, 1996,
http://orgwis.gmd.de/projects/W4G/proceedings/bscw.html, accessed 30 July 1998.
Bentley, R., Appelt, W., Busbach. U., Hinrichs, E., Kerr, D., Sikkel, S., Trevor, J., Woetzel, G.
(1997). Basic Support for Cooperative Work on the World Wide Web. Journal of
Human-Computer Studies: Special issue on Innovative Applications of the World Wide
Web, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 827-846.
Berners-Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Luotonen, A., Nielsen, H. F., Secret, A. (1994). The World-WideWeb. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 76-82.
Black, E. (1995). Behaviorism as a Learning Theory. University Houston Clear Lake,
http://129.7.160.115/inst5931/Behaviorism.html, accessed 9 September 1998.
Brandt, D. A. (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for Understanding of the Internet.
Communications of ACM, Vol. 40, No. 10, pp. 112-117.
Bush, V. (1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly, July, pp. 101-108.
Chen, C., Rada, R. (1996). Modelling situated actions in collaborative hypertext databases.
Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, Vol. 2, No. 3,
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue3/chen.html, accessed 30 July 1998.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R. (1985). Problem Solving Ability. In R. S. Sternberg (ed.) Human Abilities:
An Information Processing Approach. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Confrey, J. (1995). How Compatible Are Radical Constructivism, Sociocultural Approaches and
Social Constructivism? In Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (eds.) Constructivism in Education. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. Computer, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 17-41.
33
Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. M., Knuth, R. A. (1993). The textbook of the future. In McKnight,
C., Dillon, A., Richardson, J. (eds.) Hypertext. A psychological perspective. New York:
Ellis Horwood.
Davis, G. B., Naumann, J. D. (1997). Personal Productivity with Information Technology. New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Derry, S. J. (1990). Flexible cognitive tools for Problem Solving Instruction. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA,
April 16-20.
Derry, S. J., Lajoie, S. P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An
introduction. In Lajoie, S. P., Derry, S. J. (eds.) Computers as Cognitive Tools. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doise, W., Mugny, G. (1978) Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective
performances. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 8, pp. 181-192.
Dorneich, M. C., Jones, P. M. (1997). Supporting Apprenticeship Learning of NMR Spectroscopy
in a Collaborative, Web-Based Learning Environment. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Tehnical Report HCCPS-97-01.
Dreyfus, S., Dreyfus, H. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed
skill acquisition. Unpublished report support by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research. University of California at Berkeley.
Engelbart, D. C. (1975). NLS Teleconferencing features: The journal, and shared-screen
telephoning. Digest of papers, IEEE Computer Society Conferences (CompCon 75), pp.
173-176.
Enkenberg, J. (1990). Tiedon ja ajattelun taitojen oppimisesta tietokoneympäristössä. Joensuu:
University of Joensuu. Faculty of Education. (in Finnish)
Esichaikul, V., Smith, R. D., Madey, G. R. (1994). The impact of learning style on problemsolving performance in a hypertext environment. Hypermedia, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 101110.
Foreman, E. A., Cazden, C. B. (1985) Exploring Vygotskian Perspectives in Education: The
Cognitive Value of Peer Interaction. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) Culture, Communication,
and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. New York: Cambridge Press.
Guzdial., M., Turns, J., Rappin N., Carlson, D. (1995). Collaborative Support for Learning in
Complex Domains. A paper presented at CSCL '95 Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning '95. Indiana University Bloomington, October 17-20, 1995, http://wwwcscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/guzdial.html, accessed 30 July 1998.
Guzdial, M., Hmelo, C., Hübscher, R., Nagel, K., Newstetter, W., Puntambekar, S., Shabo, A.,
Turns, J., and Kolodner, J., L. (1997). Integrating and Guiding Collaboration: Lessons
Learned in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Research at Georgia Tech. A
paper presented at CSCL '97 Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '97. Toronto,
Canada, December 10-14, 1997, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/, accessed 30 July
1998.
Haan, B. J., Kahn, P., Riley, V. A., Coombs, J. H., Meyrowitz, N. K. (1992). Iris hypermedia
services. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Hawkins, J. (1993). Technology and the organization of schooling. Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 30-35.
Heimbürger, A., Alkula, R., Kuhanen, T. (1990). Hyperteksti and hypermedia. Espoo: Technical
Research Centre of Finland, Research Notes 1154.
Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M., Webb, J. (1997). Situative design issues for interactive learning
environments: The problem of group coherence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Association, Chicago.
34
Hiebert, J., Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An
Introductory Analysis. In Hiebert, J. (ed.) Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Irish, P. M., Trigg, R. H. (1989). Supporting collaboration in hypermedia: Issues and experiences.
In Barrett, E. (ed.) The society of text. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
Isaacs, G. (1994). Lecturing Practices and Note-Taking Purposes. Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 19, No. 2, 1994, pp. 203-216.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992a). What are cognitive tools? In Kommers, P. A. M., Jonassen, D. H., Mayes,
J. T. (eds.) Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag (NATO ASI Series).
Jonassen, D. H. (1992b). Hypertext as cognitive tools. In Kommers, P. A. M., Jonassen, D. H.,
Mayes, J. T. (eds.) Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag (NATO ASI
Series).
Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Effects of semantically structured hypertext knowledge bases on users'
knowledge structures. In McKnight, C., Dillon, A., Richardson, J. (eds.) Hypertext. A
psychological perspective. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology. Educational Technology, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 34-37.
Jones, T. (1989). Incidental learning during information retrieval: A hypertext experiment.
Computer Assisted Learning. 2nd. International Conference, ICCAL '89. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm Shifts and Instructional Technology. In Koschmann T. (ed.)
Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Landow, G. P. (1996). Hypertext, Scholarly Annotation, and the Electronic Edition.
http://gonzo.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96/Panels/Finneran/finneran.html,
accessed
15
October, 1998.
Leidner, D., Jarvenpaa, S. (1993) The Information Age Confronts Education: Case Studies on
Electronic Classrooms. Information Systems Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 24-54.
Leidner, D. & Jarvenpaa, S. (1995) The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management
School Education: A Theoretical View. Management Information Systems Quarterly,
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 265-291.
Leventhal, L. M., Teasley, B. M., Instone, K., Rohlman, D. S., Farhat, J. (1993). Sleuthing in
HyperHolmesJ: An Evaluation of Using Hypertext vs. a Book to Answer Questions.
Behavior and Information Technology, Vol 12, No. 3, pp. 149-164.
Lowyck, J. (1994). Increasing Access and Participation: The Use of New Educational Methods,
Media and Technology for Course Presentation and for Student Support. EADTU
News, No. 16, pp 36-37.
Marchionini, G., Scneiderman, B. (1988). Finding facts vs. browsing knowledge in hypertext
system. IEEE Computer, No. 21, pp. 70-80.
Makkonen, P. (1997a). Does collaborative hypertext support better engagement in learning of
the basics in informatics? Proceedings of the LeTTET '96 seminar (December 1996).
Joensuu: University of Joensuu-Research and Development Center for Information
Technology in Education. (long paper), pp. 41-48.
Makkonen, P. (1997b). Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using Collaborative
Hypertext: An Experiment And Its Preliminary Results Based on SOLO Taxonomy.
Proceedings of the 30th HICSS, Hawaii International Conference of Systems Science
(Jan. 1997), Vol. 2. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 630-638.
35
Makkonen, P. (1997c). Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using Collaborative Hypertext:
Does Collaborative Hypertext Support Learning as a Whole? A paper presented at the
Enable '97, Enabling Network-Based Learning- an International Conference organized
by Espoo-Vantaa Institute of Technology and the Learning Infobahn Project (May 28-30,
1997), http://www.evitech.fi/CONFERENCE/enable97, accessed 30 July 1998.
Makkonen, P. (1997d). Does collaborative hypertext support better engagement in learning of
the basics in informatics? Proceedings of the Integrating Technology into Computer
Science Education conference (June 1997). New York: ACM press, pp. 130-132 (short
paper)
Makkonen, P. (1997e). Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using Collaborative Hypertext:
Who Benefits from Collaborative Hypertext? Proceedings of the 20 th IRIS, Information
Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia. Oslo: University of Oslo, 1997, pp. 749-768.
Makkonen, P. (1997f). Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using Collaborative Hypertext:
Who Benefits from Collaborative Hypertext? Proceedings of the 8 th ACIS, Australasian
Conference on Information Systems. Darlinghurst: Australian Computer Society Inc.,
http://business.city.unisa.edu.au/acis97/papers/paper_index.htm (revised version of
Makkonen, P. (1997d)), accessed 18 December 1998.
Makkonen, P. (1998a). Learning of Basic Concepts in Informatics Using Collaborative Hypertext:
Does Collaborative Hypertext Support Learning as a Whole? Proceedings of the ED MEDIA 98-World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (June 20-25,
1998). Charlottesville, VA: The Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE) Press, 1998, pp. 927-932. (revised version of Makkonen, P. (1997c))
Makkonen, P. (1998b). The WWW-based Presentations as a Complementary Part of
Conventional Lectures in the Basics of Informatics. Proceedings of the Conference on
Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education (18th- 21st August 1998).
New York: ACM Press, pp. 162-165.
Makkonen, P. (1998c). Benefit of the WWW-based Presentations as a Complementary Part of
Conventional Lectures in the Basics of Informatics. Proceedings of the 21 st IRIS
Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (8th- 11th August 1998), Vol. 2.
Aalborg: University of Aalborg, pp. 583-591.
Makkonen, P. (1999). The WWW-based Presentations as a Complementary Part of Conventional
Lectures in the Basics of Informatics: Is It Worth it? Proceedings of the IRMA
(Information Resources Management Association) 1999 Conference. Hershey, PA, USA:
Information Resources Management Association, pp. 365-371.
McKnight, C., Dillon, A., Richardson, J.(1990). A comparison of linear and hypertext formats in
information retrieval. In McAleese, R., Green, C. (eds.) Hypertext: State of art.
Cambridge: Intellect.
Ministry of Education in Finland (1995). Koulutuksen ja tutkimuksen tietostrategia. Helsinki:
Ministry of Education. (in Finnish)
Mühlhauser , M. (1990). Hyperinformation requirements for an integrated authoring/learning
environment. In Jonassen, D. H., Mandl, H. (eds.) Designing Hypermedia for Learning
Berlin: Spinger-Verlag (NATO ASI Series).
Nelson, T. (1981). Literary machines. Manuscript.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., Cole, M. (1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change
in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the Quality of Learning
in Computer Supported Co-Operative Learning. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 484-495.
Nielsen, J. (1989). The Matters that Really Matter for Hypertext Usability. Proceedings of the
Hypertext '89. New York: The ACM press, pp. 239-248.
36
Nielsen, J. (1990). Hypertext and hypermedia. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nulden, U. (1998). Needed: An Alternative Approach to Prepare Information Technology
Professionals. Proceedings of the 21st IRIS Information Systems Research Seminar in
Scandinavia (8th- 11th August 1998), Vol. 2. Aalborg: University of Aalborg, pp. 685699.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child, Glencoe. IL: The Free Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. New York:
Viking.
Piaget, J. (1985). The Equilibrium of Cognitive Structures: The central problem of Intellectual
Development (T. Brown & K.J. Thampy, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rada, R. (1991). Hypertext: From text to expertext. London: McGraw - Hill Book Company.
Rada, R., Acquab, S., Baker, B., Ramsey, P. (1993). Collaborative Learning and the MUCH
System. Computers and Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 225-233.
Rauste-von Wright M., M., von Wright J. (1994). Oppinen ja koulutus. Juva: WSOY. (in Finnish)
Risku, P. (1992). Tietokonepohjainen matematiikan opiskeluympäristö teknisessä koulutuksessa.
Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Publication Series
A. Research Report 49.(in Finnish)
Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change, CSCL: Theory
and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.
209-247.
Rosenthal J. (1995). Active Learning Strategies in Advanced Mathematics Classes. Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1994, pp. 223-228.
Ryle, G. (1949). Collected papers, Vol II. Critical essays. London: Hutchinson.
Saarimaa, T. (1996). Lotus Notes 4-Käyttöönotto ja hallinta. Espoo: Suomen Atk-kustannus Oy.
(in Finnish)
Scardamalia, M., Beraiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., Woodruff, E. (1989). Computersupported intentional learning environments. Journal of educational computing
research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Shneiderman, B. (1987). User interface design for the Hyperties electronic encyplopedia.
Hypertext '87 Proceeding. New York: ACM Press, pp. 189-194.
Silverman, B. G. (1995) Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Computers in
education, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 81-91.
Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism,
and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in illstructured domains. Educational Technology, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 24-33.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine
Communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vuorimaa, V. (1997). Oppijana hypermediaympäristössä: Tietotekniikan perusteiden opiskelua
www-sivuilta ammattikorkeakoulussa. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Department
of Teacher Education, Licentiate Thesis. (in Finnish)
Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wan, D., Johnson, P. M. (1994). Computer supported collaborative learning using CLARE: The
approach and experimental findings. Proceedings of the ACM Conference of ComputerSupported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, pp. 187-198
37
Whittington, C. D. (1996). MOLE: Computer supported collaborative learning. Computers and
Education, Vol. 26, pp. 153-161.