. . . . . . . . . .

Jonathan Bishop

The Digital Classroom of TomorrowMasters Dissertation in E-Learning

The potential of persuasive technology ineducating heterogeneous user groups

Mike Reddy & Ray KingdonUniversity of Glamorgan

Llantwit Road, Pontypridd

Academic Years: 2002/03 & 2003/04

To My Mother

Author’s Forward

The purpose of undertaking this project was so that the author could develop further the ideasthat came out of doing his degree dissertation and joint project about developing virtualenvironments for enhancing real-world communities (see Bishop, 2002a; Bishop & Mannay,2002). The author’s degree dissertation and joint project led him to become interested in therole of technology in improving people lives through providing opportunities for them tochange and adapt their behaviour to meet individual and collective goals and it is this desireto discover new ways of using technology to allow people to reach their potential that hasdirected his current research.This Masters dissertation addresses two key issues; firstly, how technology can be used toencourage individuals to develop specific attitudes and behaviour, and secondly, howtechnology can be used to allow an increasingly heterogeneous population access educationwithout their individual differences being prejudiced. To address the first issue the authordecided to focus on the use of persuasive technologies, which rely on the cooperation of theuser to achieve a particular goal or outcome. This builds on his degree work onrecommendation systems and reputation systems (see Bishop 2002a, 2002b; Bishop &Mannay, 2002) and his published research into using suggestion technology (see Bishop,2003), which all require the user to make individual choices, with the goal of the systembeing to provide users with choices and not make decisions on their behalf.To address the second issue, the author decided to focus on two types of user groups, thosethat form part of the ‘Net Generation’ and those that come from bilingual communities. TheNet Generation is the group of individuals born between 1977 and 1997 who are enthusiastictowards the principle of persuasion, as they have come to value technology that providesthem with choices, meaning they are more likely to accept the technology. Whilst themajority of Internet users do not speak English as their first language, the majority ofWebsites are designed around the culture of the English language, limiting thepersuasiveness of them to bilingual groups, which means that there is scope for improvementin the development of persuasive hypermedia systems that are used by bilingual users.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support of Peter Honey Publications Limited forproviding the Learning Styles Questionnaire used in the user experience analysis, the staffand students at Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive School and Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelin for theirsupport in the development of the virtual learning environment as well as all the anonymousreviewers who provided comment and feedback during this project.

Table of Contents

AUTHOR’S FORWARD.................................................................................................................................. 1ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 1TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................. 2INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4

THE NET GENERATION............................................................................................................................. 4Demographic Data.......................................................................................................................... 4Knowledge....................................................................................................................................... 5Skills and capabilities ..................................................................................................................... 5Interests and Preferences ............................................................................................................... 5Goals and Plans .............................................................................................................................. 5

E-LEARNING POLICY AND PRACTICE....................................................................................................... 6Distance Learning........................................................................................................................... 6The Way Forward ........................................................................................................................... 6

BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE......................................................................................................... 7The British Experience.................................................................................................................... 7The French Experience................................................................................................................... 7The Spanish Experience.................................................................................................................. 8

PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................................. 9NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION....................................................................... 10

EDUCATOR-LEARNER INTERACTION................................................................................................. 12LEARNING THROUGH MEDIATING ARTEFACTS..................................................................................... 12LEARNING STYLES ................................................................................................................................. 14LEARNING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15

Alternative Forms of Assessment ................................................................................................. 15PERSUADING NET GENERATION LEARNERS ................................................................................... 17

FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSUASION OF THE NET GENERATION.......................................................... 17Control........................................................................................................................................... 17Attention Focus ............................................................................................................................. 17Curiosity ........................................................................................................................................ 17Surveillance................................................................................................................................... 18Entertainment................................................................................................................................ 18Affection......................................................................................................................................... 18Escape............................................................................................................................................ 19Social Identity................................................................................................................................ 19Social Bonding .............................................................................................................................. 19

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN......................................................................................................................... 20INTERACTION AND PERSUASION IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN............................................................... 20

Persuasion and Mediated Activity Systems.................................................................................. 20Situated Action Theory...................................................................................................................................21Persuasion through Artefacts ....................................................................................................... 22Mantovani’s model and learning styles .........................................................................................................24Increasing the Persuasiveness of Virtual Learning Environments ............................................. 25

EVALUATING QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN VLES ............................................................. 26User-friendly ................................................................................................................................. 26Presentation .................................................................................................................................. 27Engagement................................................................................................................................... 27Information.................................................................................................................................... 27Knowledge..................................................................................................................................... 27Understanding............................................................................................................................... 27Level .............................................................................................................................................. 28Type of Learning ........................................................................................................................... 28Language....................................................................................................................................... 28Graphics ........................................................................................................................................ 28Text ................................................................................................................................................ 28

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 29

USER EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 29Design Issues................................................................................................................................. 29The Design..................................................................................................................................... 30

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................... 30ACCESSIBILITY TESTING ........................................................................................................................ 31EXPERT EVALUATION............................................................................................................................. 31

USER EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 32CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................ 32ATTENTION............................................................................................................................................. 32SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 33

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................... 34PERSUASIVE ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................................. 34

Animated Pedagogical Agent ....................................................................................................... 34Increasing Flow Through Artefacts ............................................................................................. 35

ADAPTIVE ARCHITECTURE..................................................................................................................... 36Dynamic Text ................................................................................................................................ 36Adaptive Learning Levels ............................................................................................................. 37Special Educational Needs and Cultural Factors ....................................................................... 37Multilingual Support.......................................................................................................................................37Learning Style Paradigm.............................................................................................................. 38Determining Learner Model...........................................................................................................................39

SOCIABILITY ARCHITECTURE................................................................................................................. 40SUSTAINABILITY ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................................................... 41

Shared Artefacts............................................................................................................................ 41EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................ 42

ACCESSIBILITY TESTING ........................................................................................................................ 42EXPERT EVALUATION............................................................................................................................. 42

User-friendly ................................................................................................................................. 42Presentation .................................................................................................................................. 43Engagement................................................................................................................................... 43Information.................................................................................................................................... 43Knowledge..................................................................................................................................... 44Level .............................................................................................................................................. 44Type of Learning ........................................................................................................................... 44Language....................................................................................................................................... 45Graphics ........................................................................................................................................ 45Text ................................................................................................................................................ 45

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................... 46RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..................................................... 47

APPENDIX I – INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 48APPENDIX II – DATA FLOW DIAGRAMS.............................................................................................. 49APPENDIX III – ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS..................................................................... 50APPENDIX IV – SYSTEM COMPONENTS.............................................................................................. 51APPENDIX V – SYSTEM PARAMETERS, ACTION CONTROLS AND FUNCTIONS................... 52APPENDIX VI – CODE FOR KEY APPLICATION FUNCTIONS....................................................... 57

CODE FOR SETTING SYSTEM PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 57CODE FOR INSERTING VALUES OF SYSTEM PARAMETERS .................................................................... 58CODE FOR ACTIVATING AGENT FUNCTIONS .......................................................................................... 59

TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 60REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 61

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 61BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 67

..........The Digital Classroom of TomorrowThe potential of persuasive technology in educating heterogeneous user groups

Introduction

It is widely accepted that the introduction of computers in education is challenging the verynature of learning and behaviour (Stephens & Evans, 1973; Cuban, 2003). The proliferationof new media technologies that are allowing widespread access to masses of information isseeing the role of traditional learning environments, such as schools and colleges beingreassessed as learners, particularly younger generations, question the credibility of educators,who are no longer their primary source of information (Tapscott, 1998; Commey &Stephenson, 2002). However, this phenomenon is not new, as learners have frequentlyexpressed scepticism at ideas that have been presented to them by educators, because whilstthey may understand concepts such as molecular structures or a particular theory on how theEarth was formed, they may not necessarily accept the word of the educator if they havealready developed contradictory beliefs through other sources (Chinn & Samarapungavan,2001). Even so, whilst it is accepted that learners should actively question ideas and conceptspresented to them by educators (Golden et al., 2002), it is clearly not in the interest oflearners to accept only their own beliefs and experiences.Studies investigating methods for changing the attitudes and beliefs of learners (e.g. Fives &Alexander, 2001; Hynd, 2001) have demonstrated that educators need to adopt persuasiveapproaches, such as posing stimulating questions, encouraging open discussion and seekingconfirmation from learners to ensure that the presented concepts have been accepted. Thestudies also found that educators need to take into account the social and cultural backgroundof learners, as well as their pervious beliefs and personal goals in order to influence the waythey understand and consider ideas and concepts. Indeed, Kragler (1996) argues that it isessential for educators to learn as much as possible about the language, background andcultural experience of learners, suggesting this can be achieved through adopting an approachthat encourages learners to work cooperatively and share their experiences.

The Net Generation

Sometimes referred to Generation Y, Baby Boomlets, and the Millennials, the NetGeneration (N-Gen) is the term used to describe the group of people born between 1977 and1997. The culture of this generation is incredibly different from previous generations, whoseattitudes were shaped and formed by broadcasted information (e.g. television, autocraticteaching styles) as a result of new media technologies, such as the internet that have providedthem with a significant degree of autonomy, independence and freedom (Tapscott, 1998).The profiling of N-Geners using traditional heuristics is proving to be a challenge forinteraction designers as this group is not made up of homogenous individuals with similarinterests and attitudes as was the case with previous generations because every subgroupconsumes different products and services, with different lifestyles, interests, values and lifeexperiences (Leung, 2003). Current heuristics used by interaction designers to model users ofhypermedia systems have five common features; demographic data, knowledge, skills andcapabilities, interests and preferences, and goals and plans (Kobsa et al., 2001).Demographic DataDemographic data consists of factors such as age, gender, language and socio-economicstatus of an individual, which interaction designers use to predict attitudes and behaviour ofusers and adapt hypermedia systems to meet their needs (Shneiderman, 1998; Badre, 2002).Whilst demographic analysis has proven an effective tool for understanding users ofhypermedia systems, traditional techniques fail to take into account the effect of new

technology, particularly in the context of N-Geners (Epstein, 1998; Tapscott, 1998). Theexpansion of the Internet and other forms of communication has changed the ways in whichdemographics affect the attitudes and behaviour of individuals towards products and servicesand has led information architects to reconsider how they develop strategies to formrelationships with users. The most obvious demographic affecting how N-Geners interactwith hypermedia systems in comparison with other generations is age. Currently beingbetween the ages of 6 and 26, the access to and use of the Internet is varied, due torestrictions and differing needs. Some Internet-based hypermedia systems, such as virtualmarketplaces often require a credit card, which limits the age of participation.Gender is another demographic that has formed an important factor in the design ofhypermedia systems. Studies into the relationship between gender and use of these systemsby X Generation users have consistently demonstrated that they are regarded as being part ofthe male domain, with females considering them to be detached and the way they are taughtin education environments as gender-biased (Durndell et al., 1997; Heimrath & Goulding,2001). However, studies amongst N-Gen Internet users have found that use of hypermediasystems is higher amongst females, who find they can identify with culture of the Internetand the social opportunities it provides (Kinnes, 1999).Language forms an important part of the identity of N-Geners, and significantly influencesthe ways in which they relate to their peers and their environment (Gee et al., 2001). Inparticular, the bilingual N-Gen consumers in the Catalonia region of Spain have receivedsignificant attention from marketers in recent years, who have adapted their products to takeadvantage of the increased consumption rates of bilingual products (Redondo-Bellón, 1999).Through adapting their products to the language of consumers, marketers have been able toportray and image of sensitivity towards regional culture and increase consumer affinitytowards such products (Dunn, 1976; Hoslow et al., 1994).KnowledgeThe significant amount of choice available to N-Geners in many aspects of their lives isdriving their demand for personalised products that reflect them as individuals. This attitudeis changing the relationship between learning and working, with an increasing diffusionbetween this generation’s knowledge and personal information into everyday products(Tapscott, 1998).Skills and capabilitiesCurrently being between the ages of 6 and 26, the skills and capabilities of the NetGeneration are considerably diverse and this can significantly affect how they interact withhypermedia systems and the extent to which they are able to participate in virtual learningenvironments. However, despite this diversity in relation to skills and capabilities, N-Genersare increasingly becoming more and more sophisticated and demanding. Whereas pastgenerations may have been satisfied with software that was visually appealing and easy touse, these individuals are demanding systems that demonstrate an understanding of theirvalues and lifestyles and will develop negative attitudes to systems that do not have theseattributes (Jordan, 2000).Interests and PreferencesThe Internet forms an integral part of the lifestyles of many N-Geners, with Internet-basedhypermedia systems offering them a number of distinct uses, ranging from escapism toentertainment as well as a source of communication and community (Grant & Waite, 2003).Goals and PlansRecognition of individual goals and plans is seen as an important consideration in the designof hypermedia systems (Shneiderman, 1998; Badre, 2002). Much research into whatmotivates individuals to use these systems and how this affects how they navigate suchenvironments is based on the presupposition that they always know what they are looking forand have a self-defined goal in mind (Jordan, 2000). Such a belief fails to take account of theexploratory nature of hypermedia systems such as virtual communities, which oftenencourage users to develop goals as they use the system through meeting certain humanneeds (Turkle, 1995). In the context of virtual learning environments, the goals, such asoutcomes are usually determined by educators, which can restrict the freedom of users tomeet their own needs and goals.

E-Learning Policy and Practice

There is increasing emphasis at a European level towards using e-Learning to increase‘digital literacy’ and provide the required skills for employment in the knowledge-basedeconomy (Hodgson, 2002). However, the use of ICT as a teaching aid in European schools isnot commonplace, as computers have been used primarily for the purposes of teachingcomputer packages, allowing learners to complete assignments and accessing the Internet.Even so, this is not a phenomenon confined to Europe alone, even continents wherecomputers are widely accessible, the use of ICT to enhance teaching is not necessarilycommonplace. Many mainstream schools in the USA that have significant access tocomputers still see e-Learning as using commercial productivity applications (such as wordprocessors and spreadsheets) as opposed to software built to aid teaching and improvelearning (Cuban, 2001). In the European education establishments where ICT is usedeffectively, there has been a significant change in the educator-learner relationship. Thetraditional role of the educator has been to teach through instruction, presenting facts andother information. Educators in classrooms that use computers for learning have seen theirrole change to that of a facilitator as the technology has provided learners with moreautonomy.

Distance LearningDistance learning is the process by which learners undertake learning at a remote location,such as their home or library. In recent years, it has been used to refer to the delivery ofeducational services through e-Learning systems.In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government has committed itself to modernising secondaryschools in the region by planning to move away from fixed timetables, and some forms ofclassroom-based teaching, to more flexible modes that are adapted to the needs of theindividual learner and supported by increasing provision of distance learning and computerfacilities (DfTE, 2001). The Enterprise College Wales (ECW) distance-learning programme,based at the University of Glamorgan in Wales received £6 million in funding from theEuropean Union under the ‘Objective One’ initiative. The ECW programme delivers coursesfocused on developing entrepreneurial skills, leading to management qualifications andprovides support for learners via tutors, mentors and online student forums. However, not allhigher education providers have shown the same level of support to distance learning as theUniversity of Glamorgan. Indeed, the University of Wales College, Newport stipulated thatthe new models of teaching delivered by distance learning should only be considered asmeans of adding extra value to education as opposed to replacing face-to-face interaction(DfTE, 2002). This view is supported by Alessi et al (2001), who indicate that computers areonly one element in a learning environment, along with educators, other learners and othermedia.

The Way ForwardDespite there being overwhelming political support across Europe for advancing the use of e-Learning systems in providing educational services, it is important to assess the educationalbenefits of this technology before concluding whether it will address the issue of exclusionand improve learning. A case study by Moss et al. (2001) has demonstrated that policies thataim to drive forward a technological solution without effectively considering the needs oflearners can lead to situations where decisions are being made for managerial reasons asopposed to adding value to the educational experience.

Bilingual Education in Europe

Proficiency in more than one language has become essential for learners within the EuropeanUnion (EU) in order for them to benefit from the occupational and personal opportunitiesoffered by the border-free Single Market. The European Commission has encouragedgovernments within the EU to support language proficiency within schools in order to allowlearners to adapt to working and living environments characterised by different cultures(European Commission, 1995). The increase in use of ICT in schools in bilingual countries,has been considered a threat to the bilingual aspects of learners schooling because of thedominance of the English language in these systems. However, the potential of usingbilingual VLEs in schools could be particularly advantageous in the geographical areas withlimited language support and could benefit society by making it possible for some schoolactivities to be transferred to the home environment (Baker, 1985).

The British ExperienceGreat Britain consists of eleven regions, of which two have ‘nation status’ and their ownregional government responsible for forming education policy and promoting language use.Although Britain has a long history of diverse language use, it was not until 1967 with theintroduction of the Welsh Language Act that the recognition of a language other than Englishbecame enshrined in UK law.Welsh is the language of the nation-region of Wales, and has formed part of the curriculumin schools in Wales since the Education Act of 1988. Amendments to the Welsh LanguageAct in 1993 created The Welsh Language Board, which saw an emphasis on bilingualismwith more schools and governmental bodies being required to provide materials though themedium of Welsh in addition to English. The formation of the National Assembly for Walesas a result of the Government of Wales Act in 1998 has seen Welsh become a compulsorysubject in almost all schools for those aged between five and sixteen within Wales, with over463,000 learners being taught Welsh between 2001 and 2002. In addition to teaching theWelsh language, more secondary schools in Wales now offer qualifications and examinationsthrough the medium of Welsh, including core academic and vocational qualifications(DCSWL, 2003).Gaelic is the language of the nation-region of Scotland and has been officially recognised inScottish schools since the Education (Scotland) Act of 1980. The formation of the ScottishExecutive as a result of the Scotland Act of 1998 has led to the language being used far morein primary and secondary schools with bilingual education regarded as a priority by thegovernment (Scottish Executive, 2000).Bilingual education policy in the nine English regions is not as developed as in Wales orScotland, as there has historically been an attitude by education policy makers to focus onEnglish, regarding modern European languages as unnecessary in a predominantly English-speaking world (DfES, 2002). However, there has been a shift in education policy in theEnglish regions as a result of the formation of the National Languages Steering Group in2001 and the publication of the Language Learning policy document in 2003 by the UKGovernment. The government has set out to change the attitudes towards second languagelearning and plans to increase the number of primary and secondary schools offeringlanguage courses and to encourage the use of ICT for language development.

The French ExperienceNational language policy in France has traditionally been orientated towards providingmonolingual education, with the French Constitution requiring the preservation of thelanguage since 1992. Recent changes in second language learning policy by the FrenchGovernment has seen an increased emphasis towards introducing learners to other Europeanlanguages at an earlier age in all French regions. Modifications to the curriculum in 2000 hasmade second language learning compulsory in secondary schools, with the governmentplanning to extend the scheme to all primary schools by 2005.

The Spanish ExperienceThe 1978 Spanish Constitution saw the acknowledgement of several regions or ‘nationalities’in Spain and the Statute of Autonomy that was passed in 1979 brought government to theSpanish regions, with legislative powers and limited financial controls. Between 1982 and1986, the regional governments of Spain approved the Acts of Linguistic Normalisation,which set about promoting the use of vernacular languages in public administration,education and media communications.The region of Catalonia has seen significant changes in bilingual education policy in recentyears, leading to the Catalan language becoming an accepted teaching medium at bothprimary and secondary level. The Catalan Language Act of 1997 requires all broadcastmediums to have at least half of their programmes broadcast in Catalan and the LinguisticPolicy Law of 1998 has made it a requirement for all buildings that are accessible to thepublic, including educational establishments and retail outlets to display signs and otherinformation in Catalan in addition to Spanish (Redondo-Bellón, 1998).

Persuasive Communication

The concept of persuasive communication assumes that a learner will maintain a particularbelief, attitude or behaviour until they undergo new learning experiences (Hovland et al.,1954). In a situation, a given behaviour, such as participating in a VLE is determined by theintention of the individual to perform the behaviour in question. Understanding thesebehaviours and predicting when they occur, means that individuals can be influenced throughpersuasive communication to increase the likelihood of them carrying out a desiredbehaviour or adopting a particular attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980).Fogg (1998, 2003) suggests that applying persuasive communication techniques tohypermedia systems can significantly increase the satisfaction level of users. He argues thatdesigning hypermedia systems in this way contrasts significantly with methods that attemptto coerce users into adopting a desired behaviour or attitude by concentrating on fulfillingtheir needs as opposed focussing on the goals of interaction designers and their clients.

Figure 1 Fogg's model to understand computers as persuasive technologies

Fogg’s model for understanding the role of computers as persuasive technologies (Figure 1),which he refers to as “captology”, has formed the basis of recent understanding of the rolepersuasion in the design of technology. However, research into the effectiveness ofpersuasion in virtual learning environments has been somewhat more limited andinconclusive, with studies comparing the persuasiveness of printed text with traditionalhypertext finding that learners find computerised representations of persuasive material to bemore difficult to understand, less interesting, and the authors less credible (Long, et al., 2001;Murphy et al., 2003).Long et al. (2001) argue that whilst VLEs have the potential to improve the effectiveness ofeducation and the attention focus of learners, they will not necessarily change the knowledgeor behaviour of those using them. Their study found that learners were more likely toconsider the content of the hypertext node containing the persuasive text more relevant thanthe additional information in linked nodes, suggesting that learners prefer to avoid theinteractive elements, such as hyperlinks and video in order to access the information in alinear manner. Furthermore, Murphy et al (2003) suggest that the emphasis on increasing useof ICT in education will not enhance learning beyond that achievable using printed mediumsand indicate that hypermedia systems are more likely to present additional problems thatinhibit the level of understanding that a learner can potentially reach. These findings aresupported by early research into the use of hypertext systems for presenting information,including Marchionini & Shneiderman (1988), which compared utilising information inhypertext systems to printed media and found that individuals were able to retrieveinformation significantly faster from the printed material. However, the significance of thesefindings need to be considered in the context of current research into the design ofhypermedia systems as the studies by Long et al. and Murphy et al. only investigated the

behaviourchange

motivation

change inworldview

compliance

attitudechange

video games

palmtops

CD-ROM

PDAs

exerciseequipment

agents

ComputerEnvironments

Goals ofPersuasion

persuasiveness of a traditional hypertext document as opposed a hypermedia system that hasbeen optimised to improve the readability of text.A study by Thüring et al. (1995) suggests that taking into account the experience of flow inthe design of a hypermedia system, which they refer to as “global coherence”, is essential toincreasing the readability and comprehension of hypertext and can facilitate the user inconstructing a mental model of the system. They suggest that providing cues on the hypertextstructure within nodes and the nodes they are linked to, users are more likely to develop anunderstanding of the relationships between nodes, thus increasing the experience of flow.Chang et al. (1998) investigated this concept by presenting hypertext in “fluid documents”,which attempt to increase the experience of flow within a hypermedia system throughproviding additional information on the content of nodes through artefacts, such as text orgraphical animation. It is possible that even though fluid documents can increase theperception of control and increase the attention focus of users towards the content presentedin a hypermedia system, they can potentially reduce the flow experience of a user bydiverting their attention from the primary information using familiar artefacts that requirethem to make additional decisions based on the secondary information presented.Furthermore, the systems that disturb the position of primary information can cause someusers to develop a negative attitude towards the system with others finding the variedarrangement of primary information to be more engaging (Zellweger et al., 2000)Whilst past research has addressed the issue of readability and flow in hypermedia systems, ithas not fully addressed the findings of Long et al (2001) and Murphy et al. (2003) that ahypertext representation of persuasive text is less persuasive than a printed version. However,this is perhaps because the studies into the effectiveness of persuasive text in hypermediasystems have presented the text in a linear format, which has been demonstrated by paststudies to be an ineffective means of communicating information in this medium. Indeed,early research into hypertext systems (e.g. Nelson, 1987) emphasise that hypertext systemsare non-sequential in nature, and that users take on the role of co-author through selecting thetext they want to read, suggesting that in order for persuasion to occur in these environments,factors other than the literary argument need to be considered, meaning authors will have torethink the way in which persuasive text is presented (Carter, 2003).

Negative Aspects of Persuasive Communication

Whilst the use of persuasive communication in the design of hypermedia systems can benefitthe user through increasing engagement and flow, it is quite possible that this may lead toaddictive behaviours in some individuals that could have adverse effects on their lifestyles.Young (1996, 1998) indicates that addictive behaviour on the Internet resembles that ofpathological gambling, in which the experience of flow in operating the gambling machinespersuades these individuals to continue with the activity, despite the cost to them from doingso. Wallace (1999) emphasises that this pathological use of the Internet can have negativeeffects on the lifestyles of learners, pointing out that spending an excessive amount of timeengaging in virtual environments can lead to a reduction in time spent studying, attendingclasses and is likely to adversely affect their grades. She suggests that the case studies andpreliminary surveys in this area provide a basis for further research into its prevalence,symptoms, prognosis and treatment. However, Rheingold (2000) questions the research intopathological Internet use, suggesting that it has been superficial through only investigatingthe behaviour of a selected population as opposed to a sample that represents a widerspectrum of Internet users. He indicates that the research that has compared this behaviourwith gambling addictions has failed to take into account the use of the Internet as a socialmedium and research tool.In the context of the Net Generation, Lueng (2003) found that if members of this group aresuffering from a lack of self-esteem or have little social support, they are likely to developstrategies for using the Internet that will allow them to continue to receive the gratificationsof persuasive interfaces. The study suggests that N-Geners with compulsive tendencies aremore likely to take part in synchronous activities, such as online games and discussions, butsuch environments are also likely to encourage individuals that are more reserved to becomeactive in the social aspects of the Internet. Despite the ease at which individuals can become

captivated by the persuasive properties of the Internet, it is quite possible that N-Geners willbecome less susceptible to compulsive use of the Internet due to their familiarity with themedium. Young (1996) and Wallace (1999) indicate that it is mainly those who have littleexperience of the Internet that are most likely to become compulsive in their use, but thecompulsion of this group is likely to be diminished over time as their level of experienceincreases.

Educator-Learner Interaction

The relationship between educators and learners in traditional learning environments hasseen the educator assume the role as the instructor and the learner as the instructed,significantly shaping the social dynamics in these learning environments (Zimmerman,1998). Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing an appreciation of thehuman factors that will form part of designing future virtual learning environments.Current methods for facilitating learning in hypermedia systems have been widely based onsystematic processes, such as task analysis, in which understanding of learning is brokendown into steps or stages, emphasising that in order for learners to complete complex tasksthey have to first develop lower-order skills. Indeed, Preece et al. (1994) argue that taskanalysis is central to designing hypermedia systems as they focus on different aspects oftasks such as the task structure, ease of learning a task and understand the knowledge of theuser, which they argue is essential to users carrying out the relevant actions achieve theirgoals. However, whilst these methods can be beneficial in identifying techniques that enableusers to achieve pre-determined tasks (e.g. find out the definition of a word in an onlinedictionary, or decide which book to buy from an online store), they are often unable to takeinto account the unique perspectives and cultural values of users, which may not conform toa rigid hierarchal structure, thus limiting the potential of task analysis as a model fordesigning persuasive VLEs. Alternative design methods, such as scenario-based design(Carroll, 1994, 2000) have attempted to overcome the limitations of systematic models,through focussing on the actions of users and the context in which these are likely to occur.Scenario-based design is used to understand how individuals use mediating artefacts toachieve their goals through providing interaction designers with concrete yet flexibleexamples of situations a user may find themselves in.

Learning Through Mediating Artefacts

Mediating artefacts form a core part of a user’s experience with a hypermedia system.Consisting primarily of text and graphics, such as hypertext and icons, artefacts are used byusers to carry out actions in order to meet their goals. This being the case, interactiondesigners can design VLEs that use artefacts to persuade learners that adopting specificactions will help them achieve their goals. Such techniques have been used effectively inhealth education programmes, which have been able to persuade individuals to adoptparticular actions and attitudes toward themselves and others (e.g. Escoffery et al., 2003).The extent to which a user can be persuaded through artefacts is dependent on the knowledgethey have of their meaning and the ability they have to use them. As each user will have hada different history with any particular artefact, a hypermedia system needs to be designed insuch a way that the differing interpretations individual users have of artefacts can be takeninto account so that the persuasiveness of the system is maintained.Understanding how users solve problems and learn have formed an important aspect ofdesigning VLEs that take into account how factors such as attention, perception, memory andcategorisation affect how these subjects interact with hypermedia systems. However, thisdoes not fully explain the relevance of artefacts and other users in decision-making andpersuasion (Susi & Ziemke, 2001). Indeed, whilst stimuli-response perspectives of learninghave been influential in the development of hypermedia systems that attempt to change theknowledge and behaviour of users of hypermedia systems (e.g. Caldwell & Soat, 1990;Mbakwe & Cunliffe, 2003) many more processes than learning and memory affect theactions of users and the once accepted idea that behaviour can be explained and modified bythe reinforcement of actions through rewards is not supported by experimental evidence,which indicates that that learning is not the result of responding to stimuli, as users learn andremember in many ways, including through response-transfer (Cahill et al., 2001). Thenotion of response-transfer, which was first put forward by Vygotsky (1978) in his conceptof mediated activity, invalidates the stimuli-response approach to learning through

Mediated activity

ToolSign

demonstrating that users of a hypermedia system (referred to as subjects) actively rememberthrough the use of signs and will change their environment using tools in order to modifybehaviour. For example, when a user customises their homepage of a VLE to remind them ofa plan they want to carry out, they are constructing the process of memorising by forcing anexternal artefact to remind them of the plan and therefore transferring it into an externalactivity. Vygotsky developed the “mediation model” to represent this concept that both toolsand signs are mutually linked and at the same time separate from the cultural development ofa subject (Figure 2), indicating that thefunction of a tool is to serve as theconduction of a subject’s influence on theobject of an activity. In this context, the termobject refers to something that can take theform of a plan or idea and is used to motivatethe existence of mediated activities (Kuutti,1996). The model proposes that as mediatedactivities are externally-orientated, theoutcome of the activity must be a change inthe object and that the sign, which isinternally-orientated, must not change theobject of the activity.

Figure 2 Vygotsky's mediation model

Engeström (1987) adapted Vygotsky’s mediation model by introducing the concepts of rules,which describe the social norms and conventions of mediated activity, community, whichidentifies those who share the same object as the subject and division of labour, which refersto the organisation of the community in relation to the transformation from object tooutcome. In the case of a learning environment (either virtual or physical), the subject wouldbe either an educator or a learner and the object would be to change the knowledge, beliefsand attitudes of the learner. The artefacts, which are tools and signs, would be used byeducators to transfer knowledge, with the outcome being either persuasion an erroneousaction. The community would consist of all subjects who share the same object, includingeducators, learners and assistants, the division of labour would be the amount of decision-making responsibilities for each subject and the rules would determine how activities arestructured.Whilst Engeström’s model incorporates Vygotsky’s concept of subjects learning through theuse of artefacts, it focuses on the object of the mediated activity, whereas the process oftransformation occurs as a result of an externally-orientated action being reconstructed intoan internally-orientated one, meaning that the object of an activity system cannot be stableuntil a subject has reflected on the outcome (Vygotsky, 1978).This is consistent with studies investigating the likelihood of subjects retaining persuasivecommunications (e.g. Hovland et al., 1954), which have found that subjects are more likelypersuaded by artefacts if they are already familiar with the concepts being presented, whereasif detailed knowledge is required, then the persuasiveness of the artefacts is likely to bediminished. These studies have also found that when the social context of persuasiveartefacts conflicts with the plans, values and understanding of artefacts that subjects havealready established, they are less likely to be persuaded by the presented artefact. However,where the subject believes that their goal can be realised through the acceptance ofpersuasive artefacts, they are more likely to be persuaded to adopt a particular attitude orbehaviour.

Learning Styles

Learning styles can play an important role in defining the audience for a virtual learningenvironment and developing an effective user interface. Through understanding how a userlearns (e.g. whether they prefer drill and practice or tutorial systems) a hypermedia systemcan be developed to adapt to the learning style of the user (Carver et al, 1996; Badre, 2002).Indeed, understanding the learning styles of N-Geners and developing learning strategies thattake them into account can increase the likelihood that they will want to take part inclassroom activities, particularly in the case of male learners (Ofsted, 2003).Current understanding of the styles used by individuals to learn has been heavily influencedby the work of David Kolb (1984) who developed the experiential learning cycle forunderstanding learners based on them having concrete experiences, reflective observations,abstract conceptualisations and active experimentations. Honey & Mumford (1982) modifiedKolb’s experiential learning cycle to introduce the notion that an individual has four learningstyles of varying strengths that affect their performance at each of the four stages of alearning experience.The emphasis of the Honey & Mumford model is on the individual development of thelearner with the learner playing a central role in planning their own learning, making itparticularly suited as a model for developing collaborative VLEs. Even so, as the model isbased on the principle that learning is a process, where a learner has an experience, reviewsthe experience, concludes from it and then plans the next steps, it fails to take into accountthat learners may approach learning from different perspectives in which the order of theirlearning experience becomes irrelevant to their learning outcomes. However, the Honey &Mumford model does take into account that a learner will have varying strengths of learningstyles and will focus on the part of the learning cycle that they feel most competent in.Indeed, Honey & Mumford (1982) argue that it is possible for a learner to start at any stageof the cycle and continue on the next.

Figure 3 Honey & Mumford's adaptation of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle

Stage 1Having anexperience

Activist

Stage 2Reviewing the

experienceReflector

Stage 3Concluding fromthe experience

Theorist

Stage 4Planning thenext steps

Pragmatist

Learning Assessment

A core part of learning in education establishments is assessment, which often takes the formof matching the current knowledge state of a learner with a rigid curriculum or syllabus andassigning them a ‘grade’ based on this. Shneiderman (2002) argues that these traditionalmodels of assessing learning emphasise competition, especially where differentiationbetween learners means not all are in a position to achieve an ‘A Grade’. Indeed, a study byOram (2003) found learners are more likely to perform well in non-competitive learningactivities that involve collaboration, especially those that effectively combine creativity andliteracy. Shneiderman indicates that by designing experiential learning environments usingadaptive hypermedia techniques, learners benefit from increased collaboration anddifferentiation based on their individual learning styles and talents.Differentiation between learners is often achieved through standardised tests, which usuallyassess the knowledge retention or intellectual capabilities of learners. However thesemethods do not always reveal what a learner actually knows or is capable of doing, and canbe biased towards particular cultures or styles of learning. Indeed, a study by Lynch et al.(1998), which investigated the relationship between learning style and performance atstandardised tests found that strong Theorists performed better than weak Theorists atmultiple-choice tests, with strong Pragmatists have significantly low scores on examination-based tests. Lynch et al. also found that there was no relationship between learning styles andscenario-based assessments, where the learners are required to discuss how they wouldrespond to specific situations and reflect on past experiences.Alternative Forms of AssessmentHoney & Mumford (1992) indicate that through keeping portfolios, which they refer to as‘learning logs’, learners are able to reconstruct their experiences through reflection andimprove their learning style profile, suggesting this is a suitable form of assessment for alllearning styles. Much research into the use of learning logs has been in relation to work-based learning, but the concept of portfolio assessment has formed a core part of mediatedliteracy instruction. Wagner & Brook (1996) investigated using learning logs to encouragelearners to engage in reflective thinking and develop and understanding of their abilities,needs and styles of learning and achieving. They found that whilst learners initially found itdifficult to express their experiences in words, they improved as they engaged in discussionswith their peers and applying what they learned in their own situations. The study concludesthat through words and social interaction, keeping learning logs enables learners to movefrom having spontaneous ideas to developing structured scientific concepts.A potentially effective means of implementing portfolio assessment into virtual learningenvironments could be in the form of ‘weblogs’. Weblogs usually form part of an onlinehypermedia system, comprising of hyperlinks to articles, news releases, discussions andcomments that vary in length and are presented in chronological order (Lindahl & Blount,2003). Fleishman (2001) indicates that the benefits of weblogs are that they can make thepeople that read them better informed about a broader range of opinion and can improve thewriting skills of the individuals that author them. Conversely, Talbot (2000, 2001) arguesthat weblogs will do nothing to encourage greater literacy, because the medium is more aboutthe immediate expression of thought than the construction of meaningful concepts. Heindicates that the authors of weblogs present information based on their current experiences,often without any intention of following them up, suggesting this medium is suited toActivists who prefer to engage in activities that last for a relatively short period of time.Talbot also indicates that weblogs are more likely to encourage subjective thinking asopposed to facilitating theoretical conceptualisations, suggesting they are less appropriate forTheorists and Reflectors. However, studies by Barclay (1996a, 1996b) found that Theoristsand Reflectors are more positive towards using learning logs as a form of assessment, withActivists less likely to continue using them. She suggests that in order for learners to uselearning logs effectively, educators need to provided clear guidelines about how to plan andwrite them and offer opportunities for them to share their experiences, indicating that as

keeping learning logs is a solitary activity and can create uncertainty and anxiety in learners,particularly Activists and Pragmatists.Unlike learning logs or journals, weblogs are a shared activity in which authors write for anaudience, offering a number of advantages, including supporting a constructivist approach tolearning and assessment, which emphasises the sharing of experiences with others. Indeed,Wagner & Brock (1996) indicate that young learners are motivated by the prospect of seeingthe learning logs of their peers and discussing the content with them. However, some learnerscan often become attached to their learning logs and may not want to share their experienceswith others, suggesting that weblogs may not be appropriate for all learners and may requireeducators to investigate other means of encouraging these individuals to share theirexperiences. Wagner & Brock suggest that learners who are less keen on sharing theirexperiences can be encouraged to do so through using photographs of their experiences anddiscussing these with a more competent adult or peer. Even so, Callahan (1999) warns thatusing learning logs as a standardised form of assessment can lead to outcomes from otherforms of assessment, such as essay-based assignments being adversely affected and theprocess of reflective writing becoming integrated with instruction to the extent that itbecomes the focus of educational activities as opposed to the means to improve learning andunderstanding. However, she indicates that learning logs encourage learners to develop amulti-draft approach to writing, increasing their ability to reflect on writing processes andgenerate positive attitudes towards literacy development.

Persuading Net Generation Learners

Net Generation learners differ significantly from previous generations and are demandingmore from virtual learning environments than simply digitised textbooks. Tapscott (1998)argues that this is a result of their increased use of the Web, which made them accustomed tointeractive services and the concept of multitasking.

Factors influencing persuasion of the Net Generation

Whilst the effect of persuasive communication on the Net Generation has been relativelyunexplored, a ground-breaking study by Leung (2003) has identified key characteristics of N-Geners and how these factors influence the way they use the Internet. The study found thatthis generation use the Internet primarily as a social technology and are motivated by theability to show affections, establish social bonds and escape. Perceived factors, includingpleasure of control and fluidity of identity were identified as some of the gratificationsobtained from using the Internet, suggesting these to be key factors in persuading N-Genersonline. These findings are consistent with other research into how individuals use theInternet, including Nel et al. (1999), which found that learners considered control, attentionfocus, curiosity and intrinsic interest to be important factors in their positive experiences ofthe Internet.ControlCreating the perception of control is an important factor in developing persuasivehypermedia systems (Nel et al., 1999; Fogg, 2003) and is core reason why N-Genersregularly engage in online activities, such as gaming and information seeking (Tapscott,1998; Leung, 2003). However, whilst increased control over a hypermedia system couldincrease its persuasiveness and engage N-Geners, too much choice can lead to the learnerbecoming distracted from their learning. Gay (1986) and Hammond (1993) suggest thatproviding multiplicity of choice without guidance may prevent the learner from asking thecorrect type of questions during their use of the system and require them to makeunnecessary decisions and seek out directional cues.Attention FocusNel et al. (1999) argue that through creating a state of flow, the attention of an individual canbe narrowed to a limited stimulus field within a hypermedia system, meaning that irrelevantthoughts and distractions are likely to be filtered out.A study by Golden et al. (2002) found that whilst N-Geners can become disinterested ineducational activities very quickly, educators who adapted their lessons towards individualneeds and abilities led to their attention being maintained for longer. Golden et al. suggestthat providing activities that are relevant to the interests and needs of learners and ensuringthat these are short and varied is more likely to engage N-Geners with their learning. Thisview is supported by Tapscott (1998), who argues that past research that investigated why N-Gen learners have a limited attention span have been incorrectly based on assumptions thatdo not take into account the multitasking abilities of this new generation. He suggests thatthrough their use of digital media, N-Geners have become able to ignore sources ofinformation they deem inappropriate and concentrate on the information they feel essential tomeet their needs and goals.CuriosityThe curiosity of individuals can be increased through experiencing novel situations,increasing their desire to explore an idea or concept further. Internet users gain excitementand pleasure from seeking out new information and incorporating elements of novelty intohypermedia systems can increase the experience of flow and satisfaction in these individuals(Huang, 2003). However, curiosity can also be increased through interrupting the state offlow and diverting a learners attention focus using artefacts that they associate with theconcepts of completion and finality, so that they feel that they have achieve their goal and

that they can move on to another activity. The use of artefacts in this way can persuadelearners to modify their goals to explore ideas or concepts other than what they had originallyplanned, through creating the perception that other opportunities are available within theVLE (Fencott et al., 2003).It is sometimes the case that interaction designers that design VLEs to stimulate the curiosityof the learner to explore and experiment with new concepts can focus too narrowly on typicaluser tasks as opposed to facilitating the needs of learners to accomplish somethingmeaningful (Davis & Wiedenbeck, 1998). Indeed, whilst the exploratory nature of theseenvironments can provide learners with a high degree of curiosity and confidence, they maycause frustration in learners who are more passive and less confident (Conati, 2001).SurveillanceStudies have revealed that a significant proportion of N-Geners use the Internet to seek outinformation and contribute to virtual communities (Grant & Waite, 2003; Leung, 2003).Whilst these studies have established the reasons why N-Geners use the Internet for seekinginformation as well as the approaches they take, few have indicated the persuasiveness ofonline material to this group and what factors influence their perception of the quality ofonline information. However, a study by Lorenzen (2001), which investigated a small groupof N-Gen learners found that factors including the domain extension of the website (e.g..com, .org) and whether the material resembled the format and layout of offline resourcesinfluenced N-Geners’ perceptions of an online resource. The study found that learners wouldperceive a website to have greater credibility if it had a bibliography and was indexed inpopular search engines, with those websites that looked professionally designed beingconsidered more reliable sources of information.EntertainmentIndividuals do not limit their use of the Internet to completing tasks, but also for their ownenjoyment and pleasure (Webster et al., 1993; Nel et al., 1999), suggesting that interactiondesigners should consider taking this aspect of the user experience into account whendesigning VLEs. However, a limited study by Scanlon & Buckingham (2003), whichinvestigated examples of VLEs combining education and entertainment, found that theseenvironments are often lacking in content related to the National Curriculum used byeducation providers and are overly commercialised. Even so, Scanlon & Buckinghamoverlook the persuasive potential of VLEs rich in entertainment content, such as the CadburyLearning Zone, which attempts to combine artefacts, such as animations with text to teachprinciples of mathematics, history and the environment using chocolate-related metaphors.Environments such as the Cadbury Learning Zone demonstrate that the use of animations andentertainment techniques can increase the persuasiveness of a system, suggesting that thesetechniques could be beneficial in VLEs. However, Fogg (2003) raises concerns over usingpersuasive communication to target children, indicating that this group could be particularlyvulnerable to persuasive techniques that influence them to develop positive attitudes towardpurchasing particular products and particular values. This is supported by Tapscott (1998),who recognises that hypermedia systems that use cartoon characters or other entertainmenttechniques to persuade N-Geners to adopt a particular attitude pose significant ethicalquestions, particularly where persuasive advertising is integrated with educational content.However, he argues that N-Geners are likely to become less susceptible to such marketingtechniques and are more likely to be sceptical towards methods that they feel inappropriate orthat attempt to exploit them.AffectionThe Net Generation are emotionally open and will seek out Internet services that allow the toexpress themselves freely, suggesting that a VLE that encourages users to express theirfeelings may motivate them to learn more about a particular topic. However, Stout (2000)indicates that developing a curriculum based on increasing the self-esteem of learners isunlikely to have any effect on their educational achievement or how they interact with others.She argues that such a curriculum is unworkable because each learner has a different conceptof self-esteem and may even negatively affect them.

EscapeThe Net Generation view the Internet as a solution to occasional boredom and a window ofescapism in which they can lose themselves in a virtual world and communicate with friendsand family as a way to escape from feelings of loneliness and maintain social networks(Grant & Waite, 2003).Social IdentityThe influence of accepted social context in the construction of the identity of N-Geners isbecoming less relevant as the social rules that formed part of traditional communities, such asfamily and school are being challenged by this new generation, with this process beingaccelerated through the increased use of new media (Giuseppe, 2001; Leung, 2003).However, this should not mean that using cultural artefacts do not play a part in thedevelopment of the identity of this generation, as hypermedia systems that take into accountsocio-cultural factors in the design of hypermedia systems, through including artefacts thatprovide subtle cultural and contextual cues can be an effective means of motivatingcollaboration, the negotiation of power and the exploration of identity (Raybourn et al.,2003)Social BondingThe Net Generation perceives the Internet as asocial technology and will seek out services thatprovide them with the opportunity to share ideasand communicate freely (Tapscott, 1998; Leung,2003). Virtual communities such as Friendster,which use a ‘circle of friends’ metaphor (seeBishop, 2002a; Powell, 2002) have becomepopular with N-Geners, who use this technologyto build networks of friends with whom theyshare common interests (Damazo, 2003).

Figure 4 Friendster.com

A study by Morahan-Martin & Schumacher (2003) found that individuals that are lonely arepersuaded to use the Internet because of the increased potential for companionship, thechanged social interaction patterns online, and as a way to modulate negative moodsassociated with loneliness. The study suggests that as the social behaviour of lonelyindividuals in increased online, then it is likely to help them make online friends andovercome social anxiety.

tele-robotics

Medium Social Actors

Tools

pocketcalculator

virtual realitysystem

virtualpet

web-agents

Instructional Design

Goodman & Goodman (1990) indicate that current forms of instruction that attempt tosupport the concept of the zone of proximal development are limited as some may disrupt,confuse, or negate the potential development of learners and that the traditional role of theeducator as an expert imparting knowledge and discipline, causes the learner to becomedependent on them for sources of information and ways of thinking and doing.Hovland et al. (1954) argue that such environments also require the learner to perceive theeducator as a credible expert, which can sometimes be challenged if the learner has heard acontradicting message from a source they deem more credible. They emphasise that the keydifferences between traditional instruction and persuasive instruction are the expectations oranticipations that effect the likelihood the learner will accept or reject the communication.These expectations are even more apparent in hypermedia systems where learners are morelikely to question the credibility of the information provided (Murphy et al., 2003).

Interaction and Persuasion in Instructional Design

Despite advances in the presentation of information in hypermedia systems, traditionaldesign methods have been based on the assumption that individuals see these systems astools for completing planned tasks and therefore the aim of interaction designers should be toallow users to complete tasks with a reasonable degree of efficiency and within acceptablelevels of comfort (Preece et al., 1994). These models have failed to take into account factorsrelating to how the needs and attitudes of individuals affect how they interact withhypermedia systems through concentrating solely on their cognitive and physicalcharacteristics (Jordan, 2000). Even so, a computer that is designed as a tool or instrumentoften increases the capabilities of individuals, and thus reduces barriers, increases self-efficacy, enables better decision making and changes mental models. Through focusing onthe needs of individuals, by understanding whether they are using technology as a tool toincrease their capabilities, a medium to provide experiences, or as a social actor to createrelationships, interaction designers will be able to increase the persuasive effectiveness of ahypermedia system (Fogg, 1998, 2003)Persuasion and Mediated Activity SystemsFogg (2003) developed the “functional triad” as a conceptual model to illustrate the differentroles that technology can play in persuading individuals to assist interaction designers inthinking about computing from the perspective ofthe user (mediated activity systems.Figure 5). The model fails to take into account manyof the factors that explain how users interact withpersuasive technology, including the level at whichthey control the interaction and the role of non-mediated social actors during persuasion.However, combining the concepts of the functionaltriad with Fogg’s model of computers as persuasivetechnologies (Figure 1) suggests that persuasion isthe result of a transformation (e.g. of attitudes orbeliefs) by a subject using tools, which form thecomponents of mediated activity systems.

Figure 5 Fogg's Functional Triad

Mediating Artefacts

Community

Object

Division of Labour

Outcome

Rules

Subject

Engeström’s adaptat ion ofVygotsky’s mediation model(Figure 6) describes a mediatedactivity system as consisting ofvarious artefacts, such as signs thatare directed by a subject to achievean outcome. It stipulates that thebehaviour of these individualsshould be considered in the contextof units of activity as opposed to theactions of individuals throughexamining the collective mediatedbehaviour directed towards anoutcome.

Figure 6 Engeström's adaptation of Vygotsky's mediation model

Engeström’s model appears to support the concept of persuasion in which all subjects need towant to be persuaded in order for it to occur, as an important aspect of the stability of anactivity system is that the subject and community share the same object to achieve the sameoutcome (Engeström, 1993; Kuutti, 1996; Thorne, 2000). However, the model fails toexplain the concept of persuasion being used to change an object (e.g. convincing a learner tolearn something other that what they planned to) whilst they are within a situation. Whilstactivity theory acknowledges that objects can change during an activity, it stipulates that theycan not change on a moment-by-moment basis (Nardi, 1996), which fails to take into accountthe conflicting and spontaneously changing needs and goals of subjects in heterogeneousenvironments, particularly in the context of Net Generation learners who are capable ofmultitasking and interacting with more that one person at a time (Tapscott, 1998).To demonstrate this ambiguity in the context of an everyday situation, a subject can openmultiple instant message (IM) windows, with more than one object (e.g. to share andexperience with one person and illicit information from another), which can be influencedand changed through interaction with their environment, meaning the object of interactingwith one community member can be changed through interaction with another member (e.g.collaborating on the reconstruction of an experience could reveal the information that was theobject of interacting with another subject).In this example, the subject (referred to as Anoki) had planned to share an experience withone person (referred to as Aulani) and get information from another (referred to as Yoshi).Receiving the information from Aulani changed the object of Anoki in interacting with bothAulani and Yoshi. In the context of a one-to-one IM system (a mediating artefact), Anoki ispart of two activity systems (Anoki/Aulani are part of activity system A/A and Anoki/Yoshiare part of A/Y) at the same time in which the communities are made up of two subjects whoboth determine the rules and the division of labour.When Anoki received the information from Aulani, he was forced to change his plan, now hehad achieved the outcome of A/Y through his actions in A/A. Anoki would now have to decidewhether to terminate his participation in A/Y, whether to continue meeting the object of A/Aor change it to the object of A/Y now he has had the help of Aulani. The rules of ‘netiquette’,which are the accepted norms of the wider activity system of the Internet (Rheingold, 2000)might suggest Anoki invites Yoshi to form part of the community of A/A, meaning that Anokiand Aulani would have to redefine their rules and division of labour and change the object todecide whether Yoshi should form part of the activity system and what the new shared objectshould be.Situated Action TheoryThe above example clearly demonstrates the limitations of activity theory in the content ofHCI, as is also clear in the viewpoint taken by Nardi (1996) who in an attempt to understandhow situations relate to an environment assumes that they are shared by subjects as opposedto individually constructed by them, arguing that all subjects in an activity system are part ofthe same situation. However, the concept of a subject planning to use specific artefacts toachieve a clearly defined object fails to take into account that actions are made in situations,

indicating that these situations do not exist until the subject constructs them, according totheir goals and individual competencies (Mantovani, 1996a).The concept of plans changing as a result of participation in a situation is supported in arecent study by Bor Ng (2002), who found that when a subject is engaged in a state of flowwithin a hypermedia system, they do not carry out their planned actions and respond basedon situational factors. Indeed, Suchman (1987) and Lave (1988) take the view that far frombeing the means with which a subject achieves their goals, plans are resources for situatedactions, which the subject can call upon when they are in a suitable situation. He indicatesthat when reflecting on an experience, subjects can convince themselves that they havefollowed a rational plan, but this emphasises the approach individuals take to reflection asopposed to the reality of situated actions.In the context of the above example of the three subjects exchanging messages, Nardi (1996)suggests that as all subjects use the same mediating artefacts (i.e. the instant messagingsoftware and language) and carry out the same activity (sending messages) they are part ofthe same situation with different objects that have lead to the creation of a situation (e.g. thediscovery of a piece of information) through carrying out plans to achieve them as opposedto being reconstructed as a result of them. However, Anoki had no intention of receiving theinformation from Aulani even though this was a goal of his during his interaction with bothAulani and Yoshi. The discovery occurred as result of having been part of the situation andnot as a result of the two plans that led to the construction of the single situation.Suchman (1987) and Lave (1988) indicate that after an experience, a subject will attempt toconstruct a rational account of the situation that was transparent to them during situatedaction, and then use this to reassess their goals and needs, before seeking out opportunities tomeet these new requirements, resembling experiential learning models. Indeed, Mumford(1994) describes the reconstruction of a situated action as a “retrospective approach” tolearning, whereby subjects acquire knowledge, skills and beliefs through reviewing andconcluding on an experience. The planned approach to learning, which Mumford refers to asa “prospective approach” involves all the aspects of the retrospective approach, but requiresthe subject to plan to learn before an experience takes place. Whilst at first this appears tosupport the activity approach of planned action, Mumford points out that when a subjectseeks out learning opportunities, the situation that develops is likely to be different from whatthe subject had planned. However, he stresses that through thinking about the potentiallearning opportunities offered in an environment, the subject is more likely to meet some oftheir needs and goals by having a clearer understanding of what they wanted to achieve,reinforcing the view of Suchman that plans are resources used in situations.Despite the relevance of the experiential learning cycle to understanding situated action inthe context of learning, Schlesinger (1996) argues that the model over simplifies the learningprocess. He indicates that as the model is sequential, it does not take into account all aspectsof situated action, suggesting that this model treats experience as a concrete behaviour,overlooking the concept of experience being the result of situated action. However, theexperiential learning model emphasises a transactional relationship between the subject andtheir environment, in which a change in knowledge or attitude occurs as a result of thesubject interpreting the current situation in the context of their objective and subjectiveexperiences (Kolb, 1984).Persuasion through ArtefactsThe concept of subjects constructing situations based on their current state is echoed byMantovani (1996a), whose model of everyday situations (Figure 7) explains how subjects,which he refers to as social actors construct social context, which they use to interpret theopportunities in every day situations to develop goals in order to achieve these goals throughinteracting with their environment using artefacts. Mantovani argues that social actors moveon their own initiative in these environments, pursuing autonomously defined interests andgoals independent of other social actors. He proposes that actors construct situationsaccording to their competencies, reducing their field of attention to the aspects of a situationthat are within their capabilities and can be managed in order to meet their interests.

interpretation

opportunities

selection

actors

environment

situations

interaction

goals/needs

Figure 7 Mantovani’s model for understanding interaction in a virtual environment

Mantovani (1996) proposed a three-level model of social context to describe how subjectsform social context (level 1 as Figure 7), in order to provide the elements that allowsituations to be interpreted (level 2), leading to the formation of goals that are mediatedthrough the use of artefacts (level 3). Whilst this model has received very little attention fromproponents of activity theory models, it shares many of the concepts in the Vygotsky modelof mediated activity, perhaps more closely than the models that have attempted to improveon Vygotsky. Through focusing on the actions of subjects on artefacts and not the object oftheir actions, Mantovani argues that subjects, which he refers to as social actors, move ontheir own initiative within environments, pursuing self-defined interests and goalsindependent of other social actors. He proposes that these actors construct situationsaccording to their competencies, reducing their field of attention to the aspects of a situationthat are within their capabilities and can be managed in order to meet their interests.Trepess & Stockman (1999) extended Mantovani’s model to take account of how the plans ofan actor change during their interaction with an environment as a result of conflicts, whichthey suggest should be classified as; social conflicts, which occur at level 1; planningconflicts, which occur at level 2; and situation pressures, which occur at level 3 (Figure 2).Social conflicts occur as a result of actors not sharing the same goals (or object), planningconflicts occur when the plan of one actor is incompatible with the plans of another, andsituation pressures occur as a result of a change in the environment because of poor planning.They point out that whilst most erroneous actions occur when an actor is interacting with anenvironment (level 3), changing the state of artefacts subsequently affects the other twolevels, reinforcing the importance of social context in understanding the role of artefacts onthe actions and behaviour of actors. The model proposes that an erroneous action can haveeither single-user consequences (SUCs) or multiple user consequences (MUCs), dependingon whether or not the artefact and its meaning are shared. SUCs occur when the actor makesan erroneous action that has no affect on other actors, such the deletion of a file that onlythey have access to. Perhaps the most common erroneous action that leads to a MUC isconflicting interpretations of the social context of a textual artefact in conversations, eithercomputer-mediated or otherwise. For example, a customer returning a wrist watch that shebelieves to be counterfeit to an online jewellery store might write, “I don’t want this, I wantthe real thing” and would expect to be given the genuine artefact. However, if the onlinestore had not accounted for the context of the situation, they might return a can of a popularcola, because they associated her request with the artefact, “The Real Thing”, which is usedby the cola company to persuade people to buy their brand. Both MUCs and SUCs result inthe actor having to change or divert from their initial goals and plans in order to recover fromtheir mistake, although the consequences of their actions are unlikely to become apparentuntil they reconstruct the situation.

Figure 8 Trepess & Stockman's adaptation of Mantovani's model of social context

Erroneous actions, such as the example of the customer returning the wrist watch, arecommon in those actors with social impairments, who when constructing a situation, willoften only be able to take into account textual artefacts, such as words, in a literal manner,and will ignore subtle signs such as prosody and facial expressions of other actors, thus notappreciating the context of the situation (Attwood, 2000). It would be unlikely that theseactors could be persuaded to take a particular action through artefacts such as images ofhappy people on a poster selling loans, as whilst they are capable of accumulating vastamounts of textual artefacts (e.g. the interest rate or name of the loan provider), they areoften unable to adapt these to different social contexts. Despite not being able to appreciatesocial context of artefacts, socially impaired actors can be easily persuaded to carry outactions that will not help them achieve their goals through deceptive use of textual artefacts,which may lead to unintended consequences (Baron-Cohen, 2001). However, textualartefacts can also be used to help these actors achieve their goals, as demonstrated in a studyby Bishop (2003), which investigated using mobile phones to display translations of artefactsthat require an appreciation of social context, including idioms, on to the screen of the phonein the form of literal text. The study found that socially impaired actors were more ableunderstand the context of the situation and felt more willing to participate, clearlydemonstrating that artefacts can be used to persuade actors to carry out particular actions andinfluence their goals through changing the way they interpret situations.Difficulty in understanding the social context of artefacts is not something that is unique tosocially impaired actors, as those who are new to a virtual environment may have difficultiesin adapting to the social norms, or practices that have developed overtime (Orr, 1996).Indeed, a study by Raybourn et al. (2003), which investigated the role of artefacts inpersuading actors to take part in mediated activities, such as chat rooms and discussiongroups with other actors who shared common interests, found that through using artefactsthat represent the culture and values of the community, actors were more likely to adapt andparticipate in the environment and more willing to express themselves through artefacts, thusinfluencing the culture and practices of the community.Mantovani’s model and learning stylesMantovani indicates that actors who do not have the capabilities to conceptualise a situationmay overlook the available opportunities because they are unable to competently take part inthose activities. In the context of the Honey & Mumford learning styles, Mantovani’s modelsuggests that actors will select opportunities suited to their strongest learning styles and avoidthose that require their low preference learning styles, limiting what they can learn from thesituation. However, Mantovani points out that the degree to which an actor limits theirattention focus is heavily motivated by their goals and interests, indicating that the moreinterests an actor has, the more likely it is opportunities in the environment will becomeapparent to them. He emphasises that these interests are often disordered and asenvironments tend to be unstable, actors are required to respond to situational factors throughmaking unwanted and unplanned actions in order for them to achieve their goals. Thissuggests that an actor who has a low preference for the Theorist learning style and a strong

preference for the Activist learning style may be willing to take a methodical and structuredapproach to learning in order to reach their goals, even if there are no opportunities in theenvironment that make use of their Activist abilities.A VLE designed on Mantovani’s model may be able to persuade learners to develop theirweaker learning styles if they are more likely to achieve their goals through doing so.However, the nature of the goals of a learner can be dependent on where they conduct theirlearning and whether or not they are under the supervision of a more competent adult or peer,as when learners use a VLE in a school environment, the goals are likely to be determined bythe educator, increasing the likelihood that a learner will find it acceptable to persevere witha VLE not optimised for their strongest learning styles. When learners access a VLE from aremote location such as their home, the goals for using the system are more likely to be self-determined and involve greater exploration of ideas and concepts (Kennewell, 2003).However, whilst this suggests that VLEs using an experiential approach is beneficial, it ispossible that learners are unlikely to benefit significantly from it unless they are encouragedto reflect on what they have experienced. This suggests that learners with a very lowpreference for the Reflector learning style will be at a particular disadvantage if they are notgiven the right amount of learning support, particularly as home environments do not alwaysoffer the sociocultural opportunities of the classroom environments that enable learners todiscuss their experiences with others.Increasing the Persuasiveness of Virtual Learning EnvironmentsThe use of persuasive communication in the design of virtual learning environments has beensomewhat limited, particularly because of problems with making digital artefacts aspersuasive to actors as real-world equivalents (Long et al., 2001; Murphy et al., 2003).However, significant progress has been made in the field of health education, wherepersuasive artefacts have been used in VLEs to successfully change attitudes and encouragespecific actions, especially where the VLE affords a degree of control and choice to the actor.A study by Escoffrey et al. (2003) investigated using a Web-based VLE to assist individualswho wanted to cease smoking, which they were able to access at a time and place of theirchoosing. The VLE required smokers to provide information on their current attitudes andbehaviours, including how soon they expected to quit smoking, and used artefacts in the formof text and graphics to provide assistive information in order to persuade them to adoptpositive attitudes and actions toward quitting smoking. The study found that the smokers thatbelieved using VLE was helpful felt that they could identify with the artefacts presented,whereas those who had negative experiences felt that the same artefacts were presented toofrequently and the system did not change with them, emphasising the importance of ensuringthat presented artefacts are relevant to the current goals and attitudes of the actor in thesituation they have constructed.Existing research into adapting VLEs based on learning styles have been based on optimisingthese hypermedia systems for the strongest learning styles of a learner, as opposed toproviding support to persuade them to develop their weaker learning styles. A study byClibbon (1995) investigated the effect presenting instructional material through differentmediums had on the learning outcomes of learners and how they varied between learningstyle groups and found that a relationships exists between the instructional method and thelearning outcomes of these groups. It found that Theorists learned least from traditionalhypertext systems and most from adaptive hypermedia systems and lectures. This validatesthe initial research of Honey & Mumford (1982), which found that Theorists benefit fromenvironments where they are presented with alternatives and are able to ask questions.However, Theorists also benefit from environments where artefacts are accessible in astructured manner with a clear purpose, a feature common in traditional hypertextenvironments. This finding suggests that Theorists may approach hypermedia systemsdifferently to traditional environments or that the hypertext system used in the study did noteffectively present the information.

Pragmatists learned the most from the AHS, which presents information in the mostappropriate way to learners. This could be because Pragmatists achieve more inenvironments where they are shown material they feel is relevant to them as concisely aspossible (Honey & Mumford, 1992).Figure 9 shows that the learners who used an Adaptive Hypermedia System performed aswell as those who took part in lectures, suggesting that VLEs can be as effective astraditional methods at delivering learning if they are designed to meet the needs of theindividual learner. Whilst only investigating the effect of the strongest learning style of alearner, Clibbon’s study clearly demonstrates the potential of VLEs in providing personalisedinstruction based on the learning style profile of the learner.

Figure 9 Learning outcomes of learning styles for presentation models

Evaluating Quality of Instructional Design in VLEs

Sambrook (2001) identified eleven heuristics to evaluate the quality of a virtual learningenvironment; user-friendly, presentation, graphics, engagement, information, knowledge,understanding, level, type of learning, language and text.User-friendlySambrook (2001) argues that a VLE can be considered user-friendly from the point of viewof a learner if it is easy to use and has clear instructions. However, this is only a limiteddefinition of a term that is widely open to subjective judgments. Shneiderman (1998)suggests eight heuristics for designing and evaluating user-friendly interfaces; strive forconsistency, enable frequent users to use shortcuts, offer informative feedback, designdialogues to yield closure, offer error prevention and simple error handling, permit easyreversal of actions, support internal locus of control and reduce short-term memory load.Striving for consistency of action involves ensuring that the types of situated actionperformed by a user should be the same in similar situations. For example, menus, promptsand nodes should use the same terminology, and layout, colours and styles should beconsistent so that the user can become engaged in a state of flow and not be required to adjustto the differing design of individual nodes. Achieving consistency can particularly difficult inheterogeneous environments as users construct situations differently, and therefore some mayfind interfaces for or less consistent that others (Payne & Green, 1989; Green et al., 1996).Enabling frequent users to use shortcuts can also increase the state of flow through reducingthe number of interactions a user has to make by giving them opportunity to use special keysor commands to achieve a task quicker. Offering informative feedback for each situatedaction is essential to ensuring the user knows that their action has been successful. Forsituated actions that occur often, the feedback should be minimal so not to interfere with thesate of flow, whereas less frequent situated actions should have more visible feedback.

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist

LectureAdaptive HypermediaTraditional Hypertext

Designing dialogs to yield closure involves providing users with feedback when they haveachieve their goal and providing them with information on other opportunities available.Offering error prevention and simple error handling involves ensuring that when a usermakes an error it is recognised by the system and users are provided with simple andconstructive information for recovery. Permitting easy reversal of actions means that systemsshould be design so that users can counter erroneous actions so that they are encouraged toexplore the system without anxieties. Supporting locus of control, as explained in detail in aprevious section (see p17), is essential to making the user feel they are in control of thesystem, meaning that unnecessary distractions that interfere with the state of flow should beavoided. Reducing what Shneiderman terms short-term memory load, involves keepingdisplays simple and consolidating multiple nodes so that users are not require to remembersomething displayed in one part of a system in order to use another.Whilst considering the user friendliness of a system can be advantageous in making it moreeffective, Eisenberg (2001) argues that taking into account other factors that influence thepersuasiveness of the system is also essential. He indicates that users of hypermedia systemsneed to be guided, encouraged, influenced and motivated to carry out particular actions, notsimply put in a position where they can carry out actions in the most effective way.PresentationSambrook (2001) found that users believe that the presentation of information in a VLE iseffective when it is presented clearly and accurately, with no mistakes such as spelling errors.This is supported by Shneiderman (1998) who indicates that as a node is often a keycomponent of a hypermedia system, they should be both visually appealing and structured inan organised way.EngagementSambrook (2001) argues that the level of engagement in a VLE is affected by whether itgenerates enough interest by the learners and whether or not material is found to be boring.However, in order for an individual to become completely engaged with a virtualenvironment they will be required to learn the meanings of artefacts beyond their personalunderstanding of them, which may require a degree of effort (Wilbur, 2000). Indeed,focussing the user-friendliness of a hypermedia system should not be the only concern of aninteraction designer, who should consider designing systems with barriers to entry, in orderto increase the curiosity and sense of community of users (Powazak, 2002).InformationSambrook (2001) indicates that the amount and quality of information in a VLE and whetherthere is too little or too much can significantly affect how learners interact with theseenvironments.KnowledgeThe extent to which learners gain new knowledge using a VLE can affect how they perceivethese environments (Sambrook, 2001). Indeed, as explained in a previous section (p5), this isparticularly true of N-Gen learners who have diverse skills and abilities. It is thereforeimportant for interaction designers to familiarise themselves with the knowledge andexperience of users through developing conceptual models and metaphors of the userinterface consistent with the needs and goals of users and their use of artefacts in everydaysituations (Badre, 2002).UnderstandingThe extent to which learners are able to understand the material presented to them in a VLEsignificantly affects how they view such environments (Sambrook, 2001), as researchreviewed in previous sections indicates (p15, pp20-25). However, in addition to measuringthe level of understanding a learner has of instructional material, educators need gatherinformation on the degree to which a learner believes what they have learned. Traditionalmeasures that assess the change in knowledge of a learner fail to take into account thatlearners often construct two separate conceptions of presented material, one that they believe,and another that corresponds to their understanding (Chinn & Samarapungavan, 2001).Educational activities that are more likely to be persuasive give learners the opportunity tocontrast expert ideas with their own ideas, contrast opposing ideas held by their peers or

contrast two conflicting ideas that were important historically. These methods can assistlearners in appreciating the value of understanding theories on their own terms, withoutmaking pre-emptive judgements about what they should believe. Chinn & Samarapungavanalso indicate that whilst experiential learning can allow learners develop their ownconceptions strictly through exploration or guided discovery, it is important that explanationsof fact are also provided. This ensures that learners take into account evidence other thatwhat they themselves have witnessed, meaning they are more likely to be persuaded throughhaving an accurate understand of the target theory.LevelThe extent to which learners find the material in a VLE to be too basic or too steep for theircurrent knowledge and skills can significantly affect their ability to use these environments(Sambrook, 2001), meaning it is important for interaction designers to take into account thelevel of experience a user has with a hypermedia system and should adapt the amount ofinformation the user receives based on their capabilities (Badre, 1982, 2002).Type of LearningThe type of learning model used in a VLE can effect the extent to which learners are able toretain information presented (Sambrook, 2001), which as explained in a previous section(p25), learning styles can be a very important factor in how learners use hypermedia systems.LanguageSambrook (2001) indicates that the way in which language is used in a VLE, in particularwhether it is difficult to read, uses jargon or lacks definitions affects how satisfied learnersare with these systems. This is even more so the case with N-Gen learners, as their diversebackgrounds means they are likely to have differing understandings of the same words.However, this generation is likely to become more literate than previous generations as mostnew media involves the use of text, requiring them to develop a greater understanding of thesocial context of words, beyond that which is required in broadcast mediums, such as thetelevision (Tapscott, 1998).GraphicsSambrook (2001) argues that the number and quality of graphical artefacts in a VLEsignificantly effects how learners perceive these environments. The selection of graphicsshould involve considering their cultural meaning, as artefacts may mean something positivein one culture and something negative in another (Rieber, 1994). Furthermore, as identifiedin an earlier section (see page 22), the meaning of artefacts is not always determined by massculture, but is dependent on how it has been interpreted by the individual learner. Thissuggests that whilst graphics can be persuasive and enhance learning, they can also havenegative effects if cultural factors are not taken into account.TextSambrook (2001) indicates that the amount of text used and how this is balanced withgraphics affects how users interact with a VLE.

Methodology

The methodology is based on an adaptation of the ‘Star Lifecycle’ that was developed by Hix& Hartson (1994), which was developed to explain the concept that development projects donot necessarily follow a particular sequence or systematic process, but change as the result ofcontinuous evaluation. The elements of the lifecycle are not ordered or connected is asequence, meaning that interaction designers can theoretically start with almost anydevelopment activity and move onto any other one. Figure 10 is a modified version of Hix &Hartson’s lifecycle, based on previous usage as a model for rapid application development(Bishop, 2002a; Bishop & Mannay, 2002) and the specific requirements of this projectoutlined below.

Figure 10 Adaptation of Hix & Hartson’s Star Lifecycle for Interaction Development

User Experience Analysis

The process of analysing the user experience involves understanding every aspect of ahypermedia system and ensuring that every experience a user has with the system is theresult of conscious design on the part of the interaction designer. He indicates that throughlooking at a system in its component parts and from different perspectives it can be made toprovide a user experience that is coherent, intuitive and pleasurable to use (Garrett, 2003).Understanding the users of a virtual learning environment involves knowing how they learnand how this relates to other characteristics as explained in previous sections (see page 15).The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between the Honey & Mumfordlearning styles and the characteristics of Net Generation learners, as identified by Tapscott(1998) and Leung (2003).Design IssuesExisting studies that have attempted to draw correlations between learning styles and otherattributes (e.g. Clibbon, 1995; Papanikolaou, 2002) have compared the strongest learningstyle of a learner with a dependent variable. This approach has limitations, in that a learner isnot either an Activist or Theorist for example, but has varying strengths in each of the fourlearning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Taking into account that a learner has fourapproaches to learning, with varying preferences for each, it is difficult to attribute the valueof a dependent variable to any one learning style. In order to develop a more accurateunderstanding of the relationship between the learning preferences of a learner and adependent variable, such as attitude, the effect of all independent variables need to be takeninto account.

User experience analysis

Selecting technology andplanning learning

Designing, implementingand testing prototypes

Refining and testing learning

Delivery

Evaluate

This could be achieved by measuring the attitude of a learner to a VLE optimised for oneparticular learning style, comparing the strength of their learning style with the strength ofthe attitude towards the VLE and carrying out the same process for a VLE optimised for theirother learning style preferences. The advantage of such a design is that confoundingvariables, such as gender and level of Internet use are controllable, but this method alsointroduces further confounding variables in the form of order, demand and practice effects. Inthis case, the participant would have to use four different VLEs and complete fourquestionnaires to determine their attitude towards individual attributes of each VLE. Theorder effects could be eliminated through counterbalancing, in which the order in whichparticipants use each VLE is changed, so that one group assesses the Activist-optimised VLEfirst and the one optimised for Pragmatists last, with the other group completing it in theopposite order. Reducing the effect of practice in this study is somewhat more difficult, evenafter counterbalancing, as the participant would have to complete the thirty-itemquestionnaire four times to determine their attitudes for each VLE. The demand and practiceeffects could be overcome through having four separate groups assessing a VLE optimisedfor each learning style. However, this would recreate the problems with the past studies inwhich only VLEs adapted to the strongest learning styles were evaluated and wouldintroduce further confounding variables, such as the quality of the hypertext design andappropriateness of the adapted learning material.The DesignTo overcome these problems, the study identifies the strength of all four learning styles ofparticipants using the Learning Style Questionnaire of Honey & Mumford (1992) andcompares these with their attitudes towards the factors that can affect the persuasiveness ofthe Internet as identified in a previous section (see page 17 above) using a multiattributaldesign based on the Attitude-Toward-The-Object model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980).

Design & Development

The process used to select and plan learning; design, implement and testing prototypes; andrefine and test learning is based on the lifecycle for designing effective learning environmentdeveloped by Weller (2002). This model was chosen because it presents the factors thatshould be taken into account for all aspects of the VLE and integrates effectively with themodel of social context of Montovani (1996a), through showing the elements most likely topersuade actors (i.e. learners, peers, educators) to interact with their environments usingartefacts and constructing symbolic order using technology.

Figure 11 Weller’s lifecycle for designing effective virtual learning environments

Learner• Sense of accomplishment• Quality of outcome• Satisfaction with the process• Ability to work at own pace• Sense of self-expression

Peers• Collaboration• Teamwork• Sense of wellbeing and

support• Reflection• Reduced isolation

Technology• Communication and

task completion• Unrestricted

communication• Transparency and

ease of useEducator• Comfort with technology in use• Competence with online facilitation• Ability to communicate clearly• Creation of safe container for group• Nurturance of the development of

relationships• Promotion of self-organisation

Using Technology• Problem Solve• Manage Conflict• Develop Norms• Process Information

Together• Communicate with One

Another• Connect

Tasks• A common sense of purpose• Source of motivation to

participate• Source of collaboration

Accessibility Testing

The author, using tools provided by the W3C and Bobby, conducts this evaluation.

Expert Evaluation

This evaluation is conducted by experts in E-Learning development using the factorsidentified by Sambrook (2001) as discussed above (p26) to determine the effectiveness of theVLE. Whilst using experts are able to identify many common problems with the design anddevelopment of VLEs, Shneiderman (1998) warns that the problem conducting this type ofevaluation is that the experts may not have an adequate understanding of the domain or userexperience, indicating that interaction designers should ensure they choose experts that areknowledgeable and familiar with the situation. He stresses the importance of putting expertsin the situation most similar to the one that will be experienced by the intended users.However, as explained in previous sections (pp20-25), individuals construct situations basedon their goals and competencies, making this difficult to achieve with experts, as by theirvery nature, they are not representative of the target group and would therefore find itdifficult to construct a situation from their perspective.

User Experience Analysis

This section presents the results of the User Experience Analysis, outlined on page 29. The30-item questionnaire is made up of ten factors, each tested three times. The purpose of thecorrelation analysis is to establish whether the three variables are correlated.

Control

Correlation analysis of the ‘control’ variable (Table 1) shows that Control1 and Control3(r=0.295, p=0.003) are strongly related, with 8.7% of the variance being accounted for and aprobability of 0.3% that this result was due to sampling error, suggesting the relationship isvery significant. Comparing Control1 with Control2 (r=0.177, p=0.08) shows a weakrelationship, with 3.13% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of 8% that thiswas a result of sampling error. Comparing Control2 with Control3 (r=0.012, p=0.907)shows that there is no relationship between these two variables. The significance levels ofControl1 compared with Control2 and Control2 compared with Control3 shows thatit is very likely these results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chancethe result was due to other factors.

Control1 Control2 Control3Pearson Correlation 1.00 0.177 0.295Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.08 0.003

Control1

N 100 99 99Pearson Correlation 0.177 1.00 0.012Sig. (2-tailed) 0.080 . 0.907

Control2

N 99 99 99Pearson Correlation 0.295 0.012 1.00Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.9070 .

Control3

N 99 99 99Table 1 Correlation Matrix for 'control' attribute

Attention

Correlation analysis of the ‘control’ variable (Table 1) shows that Attention2 andAttention3 (r=0.367, p < 0.001) are strongly related, with 13.47% of the variance beingaccounted for and a probability of less than 1% that this result was due to sampling error,suggesting the relationship is very significant. Comparing Attention1 with Attention2(r=0.020, p=0.847) shows a weak relationship, with 0.04% of the variance being accountedfor and a probability of 0.85% that this was a result of sampling error. ComparingAttention1 with Attention3 (r=0.091, p=0.370) shows that there is no relationshipbetween these two variables. The significance levels of Attention1 compared withAttention2 and Attention1 compared with Attention3 shows that it is very likelythese results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chance the result wasdue to other factors.

Attention1 Attention2 Attention3Pearson Correlation 1.00 .020 .091Sig. (2-tailed) . .847 .370

Attention1

N 100 99 99Pearson Correlation .020 1.00 .367Sig. (2-tailed) .847 . .000

Attention2

N 99 99 99Pearson Correlation .091 .367 1.00Sig. (2-tailed) .370 .000 .

Attention3

N 99 99 99Table 2 Correlation matrix for 'attention' attribute

Summary

It is possible that the ambiguous results obtained could be partly down to the wording of thequestions used in the survey were not understood by the participants. The importance of thewording of questions is seen as essential to ensuring that participants in a study are able toclearly understand what is required of them. These individuals may not be able to understandcomplex terminology and that educational and cultural background need to be taken intoaccount so that the questions can be understood by the particular sample group (Oppenheim,1992). Indeed, some individuals with social impairments are unable understand the meaningsbehind common phrases or idioms (Bishop, 2003), suggesting it is important that thebackground of participants is properly considered. The Honey & Mumford (1992)questionnaire contained several idioms, including “dot the i’s and cross the t’s”, “analysis toparalysis” and “here and now activities”, which could have caused difficulties for individualswithout a cultural understanding of these phrases. The questions used to identify the attitudesof individuals towards aspects of the Internet, put forward by Webster et al. (1993), Nel et al.(1999) and Leung (2000) also used words that may be ambiguous to the participants in thisstudy, as statements such as “I am able to control the interaction” and “I contribute to a poolof information” may not be understood by Year 10 (aged 14-15) learners, particularly if theytake a literal understanding of the statements. All the questions used in the study had beenindependently validated by their respective authors, but as they had only been tested on adultlearners, it is possible that the questions had been targeted to this age group and are thereforenot necessarily appropriate for younger learners.

Design & Development

The preceding sections have identified that persuasive virtual learning environments have thepotential to meet the educational needs and goals of the Net Generation and bilingualcommunities. This section outlines the design of the virtual learning environment and how itfits within the existing educational environment. The conceptual model presented in Figure12 is based on the view that the classroom of tomorrow will not simply consist of educatorsand learners or indeed only hard-wired personal computers, but will be accessible at adistance through many forms of new media, including mobile phones, personal digitalassistants (PDAs) and interactive television (iTV).

Figure 12 The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow

In order to make such an environment suitable to the Net Generation learners in a bilingualenvironment, the author proposes that the technology to support it should be persuasive,adaptive, sociable and sustainable, referred to as the PASS approach.

Persuasive Architecture

Animated Pedagogical AgentThe purpose of the Animated Pedagogical Agent(APA) is to provide information to users througheither prompts or responding to queries andpersuade them to carry out particular actions orapproach educational activities in a particular way.The main difference between AnimatedPedagogical Agents and other agents is that APAsexhibit life-like characteristics and emotions inorder to improve the attitude of users towards theVLE they are using and enhance their learningexperience (Lester et al., 1997).

Figure 13 Animated Pedagogical Agent

Educator’s PC

Classroom Learners’ PCs

DistanceLearner’s PC

Distance Learner’sMobile Device

The persuasive functions of the APA include presenting information to learners to encourageparticular actions and receiving information to personalise the system and make it morepersuasive. Using the principles of argumentation theory, the APA encourages learners tothink about the content on the current screen they are viewing in a particular way and carryout specific actions in order to beet the learning outcomes of the lesson. When applied tohypermedia systems, argumentation theory suggests that as users pursue their own goals, asystem should be designed so that it uses negotiation techniques to achieve cooperation withthe user in order to change their attitudes or behaviour (Kraus, et al., 1998). This isimplemented into the system through requiring the user to interact with the APA at specificoccasions (e.g. when a screen loads or closes) in order to persuade them to carry outparticular actions, such as encouraging those who are sharing the same machine to share thekeyboard and mouse, or persuade them to provide information, such as their interests andhobbies in order for the content to be adapted (see page 36 below).In addition to the persuasive functions, the APA uses the suggestive technology that formedpart of the PARLE System (Bishop, 2003) to provide learners with additional information onthe mean of words and phrases that are stored in the database. This function is activatedthrough either the user clicking on a highlighted word or through them conducting a query,such as ‘What is an agent?’. In order to provide the learner with the correct definition,the system is context aware to the degree that it recognises the subject and topic of theactivity the user is currently carrying out and matches it to the appropriate word stored in thedatabase. For example, if the user was studying ICT the definition of the word, ‘agent’ wouldbe ‘a program that works automatically on routine tasks specified by a user…’, whereas ifthey were studying business it would be ‘somebody representing somebody else inbusiness…’.Increasing Flow Through ArtefactsThe system using artefacts, such as text and graphics to attempt to increase the flow of usersthat are using the system through providing cues to content they may want or need. This ismost obviously manifested in the fluid links mechanism (see Figure 14), which displaystextual artefacts to the user in the status bar of the browser and beneath the text links in somecases.

Figure 14 Fluid links mechanism

Selecting a fluid linkdisplays a description ofdestination in browserstatus bar, andlongdesc attribute foruse with Screen Readers.

Adaptive Architecture

The Adaptive Architecture of the VLE is based on adjusting the values of specific variablesthat control the text, graphics and functions of the system (see Appendix III for more details).The variables are set either locally via session variables by the user or though the overridedatabase table that is used by educators. This has the negative effect of making the systemslower while the entries are retrieved from the database, but has the advantage of providingthe user with a more personalised and engaging interface.

Figure 15 Context Diagram of Adaptive Architecture

Dynamic TextEducators have the option to embed parameters (see Table 7, Appendix III) into learningmaterial to personalise it with textual artefacts that have been defined by the individuallearner. This is achieved through placing the parameter into a specific part of the text andsurrounding it with parentheses. For example, if the learner’s favourite actor was TomCruise, the text, “Write about a movie starring {User_Char_FavActor} thatyou enjoyed” would be converted into “Write about a movie starring TomCruise that you enjoyed”, which should create a positive attitude towards the activityas it is about something the learner is interested in. Furthermore, as the interests of secondaryschool learners are likely to change frequently, educational material will always appearcurrent and relevant if the learner is encouraged to update their profile.

Receives LearningMaterial

Outputs LearningMaterial

Recommends & PersonalisesLearning Material

Virtual Learning Environment

Sends Feedback

EducatorLearner

Updates Profile

Adaptive Learning LevelsThe Adaptive Learning Levels (ALLs) are based on the Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) that was developed by Vygotsky (1978), which indicates that a learner will be able toperform at a higher level when under the supervision of an educator or more competent peerthat when they are learner by themselves. This is achieved through the educator assigning anindividual learner two National Curriculum levels for each subject, one based on the levelthey think they are currently able to achieve under examination conditions, and the otherwhat they are able to achieve with the support of the educator or a more competent peer. Thewording of questions and statements is then adjusted based on the differing complexity ofwords in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwhol et al., 1965). This enables learners to be required toapproach a task from different perspectives depending on whether they have the support ofan educator or not. For example a learner at NC Level 5 would be required to focus of theapplication of artefacts, such as text or graphics, and one at Level 6 would be required toanalyse the problem more (see Table 3).

NC Level Bloom Level Personalisation1 1 Knowledge: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage

observation and recall of artefacts and subject matter2 1 As NC Level 13 2 Comprehension: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage

learners to develop a social context of artefacts and understand theirmeaning.

4 2 As NC level 35 3 Application: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage

learners to apply knowledge to other social contexts and situations6 4 Analysis: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage

learners to make relationships between artefacts and recognise patterns andhidden meanings.

7 5 Synthesis: Restructures content and rewords questions to encouragelearners to use artefacts in different contexts and situations and developnew concepts and ideas.

8 6 Evaluation: Restructures content and rewords questions to encouragelearners to compare uses of artefacts and develop theories and selectartefacts based on reasoned argument.

Table 3 Personalisation based on National Curriculum Levels and Bloom’s taxonomy

Special Educational Needs and Cultural FactorsThrough the use of parameters, it is easily possible to adapt the system so that it takes intoaccount special educational needs and the cultural background of learners. Whilst the use ofthe technology for this purpose is not fully explored in this study, the issue has beenconsidered in the design of the VLE. For example, it is possible that an individual with asocial impairment may be at a high level (e.g. NC Level 8) in terms of their ability torecognise artefacts, but at a lower level (e.g. NC Level 3) when they have to put them intosome form of social context (Bishop, 2003). In terms of the cultural and religiousbackground learners, modifications to material may have to be made to ensure that theappropriate artefacts are used to take account of their differing social contexts.Multilingual SupportThe implementation of multilingual support in theVLE involves having multiple database fields,suffixed by the identifying characters of the language.For example, the English version of a lesson title isstored in the Lesson_Node_Title_EN field and theWelsh language version is stored in theLesson_Node_Title_CY field. This enables otherlanguages to be added through varying the suffixes.

Figure 16 Multilingual fields in database

Learning Style ParadigmHoney & Mumford (1982) emphasise the importance of learners not concentrating solely onactivities that emphasise their stronger learning styles. However, research into theeffectiveness of learning style models have found limitations in applying them to traditionallearning environments. Indeed, research has been unclear as to whether learning should beadapted to match the strongest learning style of a learner or require the learner to undertakeactivities that force them to increase their learning versatility through undertaking unfamiliarlearning approaches (Allinson & Hayes, 1988; Robotham, 1995).Recent studies that investigated the role of adapting VLEs to an individuals learning stylehave failed to address this issue. Both Clibbon (1995) and Papanikolaou et al (2002) onlyprovide limited implementations of the Honey & Mumford adaptation of Kolb’s experientiallearning cycle, by classifying learners according their strongest learning style as opposed toevaluating a system that takes into account the effect of their weaker learning styles as well.

Figure 17 Learning Style Paradigm for a Persuasive Virtual Learning Environment

Through extending the Online Paradigm Grid (OPG) that was developed by Coomey &Stephenson (2002), the Learning Style Paradigm (LSP) as presented in Figure 17, attempts toovercome the limitations identified in previous learning style models. It provides aframework for modifying VLEs to utilise a learners’ strongest learning styles when they aredirecting their own learning and develop their weakest learning styles when they are underthe direction of an educator. This represents a departure from the view of experientiallearning as a systematic process, through accepting constructivist principles that focus on theindividual development of the learner through collaboration.

Coomey & Stephenson (2002) developed the OPG after reviewing over one hundred studiesthat occurred between the years 1998 and 2000. Their research found that structureddialogue, secure active involvement of learners, personal support and feedback, as well asallowing learners to exercise a degree of control over their learning were essentialconsiderations in the development of effective online VLEs. The OPG categorises VLEs intofour sectors; those that are educator-directed with specified learning activities (North WestQuadrant), those that are educator-directed and enable open-ended or strategic learning(South West Quadrant), those that are learner-directed with specified learning activities(North East Quadrant), and those that are learner-directed and enable open-ended or strategiclearning (South East Quadrant).

Educator-Directed Learner-Directed

Specified Tasks

Open-ended, strategic Tasks

REF-VL•

• REF-VS

• ACT-VS

• PRA-VS

PRA-VL •

• THE-VSTHE-VL •North West Quadrant

South East Quadrant

North East Quadrant

South West Quadrant

ACT-VL•

THE-L •

ACT-L• • ACT-S

• THE-S

• REF-S

• PRA-SREF-L•

PRA-L •

Educator-directedlearning model

Learner-directedlearning model

• ACT-S

PRA-VL •

• THE-VL

• REF-S

North West QuadrantThe VLEs in this sector attempt to engage the learner in solving a problem where there isusually a correct answer. In this quadrant, it is the responsibility of the educator to specify theactivities and outcomes, including deadlines, timings, exchanges and online content, leavingthe learner with little scope for initiative, except in carefully controlled situations (Commey& Stephenson, 2002), making them particularly suitable to Pragmatists and Theorists.North East QuadrantIn this sector, the VLEs encourage learners to consider the subject from differentperspectives (e.g. their own experience, expert opinion or literature) and in different ways(e.g. listening, observing, writing, discussing), with the emphasis being on how the learnerachieves the solution and not the solution in itself. Educators specify learning tasks andlearning goals, but learners have control over how they work towards and achieve the setgoals and the tasks (Commey & Stephenson, 2002). This suggests that this quadrant wouldprovide an optimal experience to strong Theorists and Strong Pragmatists, as Theorists learnmost easily from activities where they are offered interesting ideas and concepts, andReflectors are benefit from environments where they can investigate and gather informationand consider many possibilities before coming to a decision (Honey & Mumford, 1992).South West QuadrantThe overall direction, generalised outcomes, purpose, field, scope or level of VLEs in thissector are set by the educator, with the learners being able to explore, access and use anyspecific material relevant to the direction of the programme. They simulate daily situations toallow learners to develop skills and reflect on their experiences under the supervision of aneducator or with peers (Commey & Stephenson, 2002). The VLEs in this sector potentiallygive educators a platform to assist learners in strengthening their Activist and Reflectorslearning styles. Learners with a low preference for the Activist learning style can develop inenvironments where they have to act spontaneously, develop new experiences and be able togenerate ideas (Honey & Mumford, 1992).South East QuadrantThe VLEs in this sector enable learners to apply their knowledge and skills to practicalproblems, which do not need to have a best or right answer. These environments put thelearner in control of the overall direction of learning, including learning outcomes andlonger-term goals, with the educators role being that of a facilitator (Commey & Stephenson,2002). The synchronous nature of VLEs in this sector can maintain the enthusiasm oflearners through providing a ‘real time’ sense of participation (Mason, 1998), which areparticularly suited to strong Activists, who learn most from activities where there are newexperiences and problems to becomeengrossed in short experiential activities aswell as Pragmatists, who learn most easilyfrom activities where there is an obviouslink between the subject matter and acurrent problem or opportunity (Honey &Mumford, 1992).Determining Learner ModelThe example in Figure 18 is of a learnerwith a strong preference as an Activist(ACT-S), a strong preference as aReflector (REF-S), a very low preferenceas a Theorist (THE-VL) and a very lowpreference as a Pragmatist (PRA-VL).

Figure 18 Learning Style Paradigm Profile Example 1

Sociability Architecture

The Sociability Architecture as set out in Figure 19 is based on the principle that learning is asocial process and that collaboration amongst educators and learners is desirable for meetinglearning outcomes.

Figure 19 Sociability Architecture of the Virtual Learning Environment

Educators are likely to need to communicate with both classroom and distance learners whenthey are conducting a lesson, providing support for distance learning, providing feedback onassignments and other activities, as well as responding to queries of learners when receivedby email or feedback forms. Learners are likely to need to communicate with each otherwhen they are taking part in classroom activities, collaborating on group assignments, as wellas when they want to discuss a topic outside planned activities.There are many communication tools available to promote sociability in virtual learningenvironments, but the VLE will feature only four of these. The Circle of Friends feature willenable learners to keep track of their friends, learn more about their interests and leavefeedback about them for other potential friends to read. A chat facility will be provided toenable learners to communicate with each other from computer to computer and allowdistance learners to take part in classroom activities. A message board facility will enablelearners to discuss topics set by the education as well as their own unrelated topics that wouldpromote use of the VLE. The Weblog facility would enable learners to keep track of theirclassroom note and publish their reflections on classroom activities for others to see.

Tool DescriptionChat facility Enables synchronous discussion between learners

and educators.Circle of Friends Enables learners to keep a ‘buddy list’ and leave

feedback on their friends for others to read.Message board Enables asynchronous discussion between learners

and educators.Weblog Enables learners to publish their reflective work

online.Table 4 Summaries of Communication Tools

Virtual Learning Environment

Educator Learners

DistanceLearner

LearnerSocial Support

Classroom

Remote Location

Sustainability Architecture

To achieve the level of pervasiveness required to make the system sustainable, it has beendesigned to separate content from structural mark-up of nodes by storing it in a database.However, this only deals with the presentational aspect of content, which means thatadditional coding of commands for each system would be necessary. To overcome this, thesystem is controlled through ‘Event Actions’, which are triggered by a user carrying out asituation action through triggering an event (e.g. onClick, onDrag). These Event Actionsare used to call particular scripts that change the state of the system in some way, such asmoving to the next node, or changing the system profile of the user. A summary of thepervasive aspects of the Sustainable Architecture is set out in Table 5 and the details are inthe Appendices.

Component DescriptionNode Structure Node structure programming is separated from content and procedural scriptsContent Scripts Artefacts are added to nodes through the use of server-side-includes, which

generate variables, arrays and data lists that can be access throughout thenode, meaning content is independent of the mark-up.

Node Modules Nodes are made up of ‘regions’ in which ‘modules’ are added. Similar toContent Scripts these are independent of the node so that they can beincluded in any node and modified without having to update each node.

Event Actions Commands, such as ‘next page’. ‘submit form’ or ‘activate agent’ are linkedto scripts separate from the node mark-up so that they can be madeindependent of the environment.

Table 5 Pervasive Aspects of Sustainable Architecture

Shared ArtefactsThrough being separated from the mark-up, the artefacts that make up the VLE, includingtext, graphics and downloadable files (e.g. Powerpoint, Word) are accessible by any node inthe hypermedia system, allowing them to be shared between educators and learners. EachShared Artefact is stored in a database record, along with data that allows it to be shared atboth a system level (using an ID) and by users at the application level (through using wordsand descriptions).

Figure 20 Example of data assigned to a Shared Artefact

The Shared Artefacts are also assigned a metadata descriptor, which is based on the e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF). The e-GIF metadata is unable to describethe context of an artefact, meaning its use is limited to basic forms of filtering andrecommendation. However, through using a standardised classification system, it makes itsimpler for educators and learners to locate resources on any platform (Littlejohn, 2003).

Name: Bitmap Graphic

Type: Picture

Subject: ICT

Meta Data ID: ICT-0022

Description: This is an image of anenlarged bitmap graphic

Unique ID: 106

Evaluation

The evaluation consisted of accessibility testing and an expert evaluation and was conductedon the prototype of the virtual learning environment, which at the time of going to press wasavailable at: http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/students/jebishop/comprend/web/www/index.aspx

Accessibility Testing

The accessibility testing was carried out, with errors found in relation to the naming ofimages and other tags. Most of these were corrected, but the system still failed to meet someof the criteria of higher priority levels.

Expert Evaluation

The evaluators were asked to log-in using their details and evaluate a lesson on designingpresentation, which is accessible by accessing the prototype (link above), clicking on the‘Learn’ tab, selecting “Information & Communications Technology” from the subject list-box, selecting “Presentations and Multimedia Authoring” from the topic selection table andselecting “Selecting and organising content for a presentation” from the lesson list-box.The system was configured with the same parameters for all evaluators. The level of thesystem was set to 5 (see p37 for details), which although not entirely appropriate for expertsin computing and education, who should be at Level 8, should give them a clearer idea ofwhat the average learner will experience. The learning style paradigm settings wereconfigured for the North East Quadrant (see p39), based on the assumption that the expertswill be more likely to be strong Theorists or strong Pragmatists and taking into account thatthey would be assessing the system remotely and therefore would not need the same level ofsupport as a non-expert. In addition, the system was standardised to use the Englishlanguage, set to the ‘Blue’ interface design, the Animated Pedagogical Agent interface wasdisabled and only the ‘Learn’ section was available. Whilst this could affect factors includingthe user friendliness and engagement of the system, it attempts to ensure that the evaluatorsfocus on the adaptive and instructional aspects of the system.User-friendlyThe evaluators were asked to comment on the user friendliness of the system based on setcriteria.

“It was reasonable. Knowledge of windows is necessary” – Evaluator 2

This evaluator points out that users will need to have experience of computers using a WIMPenvironment, suggesting it may not be appropriate for all NC levels.

“There is no explanation of what this system is designed to do and for whom so I don’t knowwhere I might want to go.” – Evaluator 1

This evaluator found that the system might confuse learners through not providing them withinformation on its scope; a factor that Fleming (1998) argues interaction designers shouldensure is implemented. However, Fleming indicates that the reason for this is that most usersof hypermedia systems are looking for a specific piece of information, whereas this evaluatorwas concerned about what the learner would want if they did not have a clear goal in mind.

“I was presented with links for ‘Your notepad’ but I had no idea what I could use this for or itspurpose.” – Evaluator 1

The issue raised by this evaluator was taken into account with the implementation of fluidlinks (see p35), which attempted to give the user information on the purpose of links through

presenting additional details in the status bar. However, it is likely that this evaluator doesnot use the status bar, meaning the additional information was outside their attention focus.PresentationEvaluators were asked to comment on how information was presented.

“Isn’t clear enough that when I click on a subject I have actually gone in to that section andthat I now have lessons which I can choose.” – Evaluator 1

The points raised by this evaluator (as well as anonymous reviewers) was that when theyselected a subject, the next screen looked similar to the one they just came from. This issomething that can be modified in a later implementation.

“It felt flat and textual. Needs something like icons or images to ‘lift’ it somewhat, the use ofbullets and italic words would be helpful” – Evaluator 2

This evaluator felt that the system did not present information as effectively as it could do,indicating that using icons could help. However, whilst icons can make the system morevisually appealing, using artefacts in this way is incompatible with the Multilingual Supportas each artefact would have to not contain text and mean the same in both cultures.Furthermore, Chak (2003) points out that whilst text-based buttons (used to enablemultilingual support) are not as visually appealing and do not look the same in all browsers,users are more likely to be familiar with them and they are easy to implement and change.EngagementEvaluators were asked to describe how engaging they found the system to be.

“Did not like engaging with this system, I did not feel in control and several weird thingshappened e.g. when I pressed the back button, the text I had just entered had disappeared.” –Evaluator 1

This evaluator found the prototype very difficult to use, which affected their engagementwith the system. However, their comment that they did not feel in control emphasises theimportance of this factor to users.

“[The engagement] was OK, but quite time consuming thinking what to write in the boxes” –Evaluator 2

This evaluator felt the system was engaging enough, suggesting the LSP settings were setcorrectly for this user, but they felt that the writing tasks were time consuming, which mightmake them inappropriate for some learners.InformationBoth evaluators felt that the system could offer more information relating to the activitiesthey are being asked to carry out.

“I didn’t get presented with any information, I was asked to enter text. I felt that I neededinformation such as why I was doing this but didn’t get it.” – Evaluator 1“It did not tell me a great deal, mainly asked my opinions of things” – Evaluator 2

In a classroom environment, this is easily achievable through the support of an educator ormore competent peer, but in the case of learners using the system on their own at a remotelocation, the system will have to be adapted to provide more accessible information. Thiscould be achieved through greater use of the animated pedagogical agent to provideassistance during the learning activity, or through techniques that will not interrupt the stateof flow, such as presenting cultural signposts, or artefacts.

KnowledgeThe evaluators were asked to indicate whether they felt the level of knowledge required touse the system was appropriate to the target user group.

“This system will require patience and some level of experience to use. Lacks instructions andan indication of the size of any one lesson” – Evaluator 1

This evaluators indicates that the system may not be appropriate for all NC levels, butsuggests that using more instructions may help.LevelThe evaluators were asked to indicate whether they found the level of material presented tobe at an appropriate level for the target user group.

“Some of the language seemed to be suitable for users who were fairly mature. ‘Interpretwhether the order of your slides represent the order of importance of the information.’ willrequire a mature learner to understand what is required.” – Evaluator 1“The wording seemed a bit formal and verbose. Not very ‘friendly’” – Evaluator 2

Both evaluators raised concern over the use of the terminology from Bloom’s taxonomy andtheir suitability for learners in secondary school, suggesting that some learners might not beable to understand what is required from them as a result. This concern is valid, andemphasises the difficulty in ensuring learners are encouraged to undertake activities that arechallenging, whilst ensuring that they are not beyond their means.The terminology, which is linked to the learner’s learning level (in this case, level 5 for ICT),could be made more appropriate through linking it to the level of their literacy, or byadjusting it depending on whether the learner is doing a self-directed activity, or under theguidance of an educator.Type of LearningThe evaluators were asked to provide feedback on the types of learning used, including theimplementation of the Learning Style Paradigm (LSP).

“Don‘t like this type of learning, it felt as if I wasn’t in control of the system and I didn’t havea feeling of how the lesson was structured. Maybe a lesson map might be a good idea” –Evaluator 1

This evaluator identified the relevance of learning style to the control attribute, indicatingthat it is important that the system presents information in a way appropriate to the learner. Itmay have been the case that this learner was neither a Theorist nor a Pragmatists and wouldhave benefited from undertaking the evaluation in a different LSP Quadrant.

“Odd to have the aim at the end rather than the beginning to set the context.” – Evaluator 1

The concern of this evaluator about the location of the lesson aim emphasises the difficulty indeveloping VLEs that adapt depending on the competencies of a learner. For self-directedlearners, who are likely to know more about the subject, it might be more appropriate not toput the conclusion at the start (i.e. the learning outcomes), as they might be less likely tolearn or be persuaded (Hovland, 1954).

“For me, this was much too text based and boring. Lacked graphics and interaction such asdragging and dropping” – Evaluator 1

This evaluator raises a valid concern about maintaining a balance between the amount of textand graphics. However, with one of the aims of the system being to encourage greaterliteracy and reflective thinking, it is necessary for learners to use text to convey theirthoughts and ideas. In addition, whilst it is possible to implement the drag and dropcapabilities suggested by this evaluator, the functionality would be limited to those userswith Internet Explorer and would therefore not be accessible to all users.

“The assumption is that there would be feedback from the system/teacher on ‘what I wrote’ –there is a high expectation of lots of interaction” – Evaluator 2

As recognised by this evaluator, the educator would have to ensure that learners receiveadequate feedback relating to their reflective writing to ensure that they have developed a fullappreciation for what they have experienced and to encourage them to continue to do so.LanguageThe evaluators were asked to indicate how appropriate they found the language used in thesystem. They were not asked to evaluate the multilingual support.

“Felt the language was quite mature and the lack of instructions meant I was constantly tryingto guess what was going to happen next.” – Evaluator 1

This evaluator felt that the language used was too mature for the target audience, suggestingthe use of Bloom’s taxonomy may not be entirely appropriate for this age group.GraphicsEvaluators were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the graphics used.

“Very scarce, would have liked to see much more together with many other multimediaelements.” – Evaluator 1

This evaluator was concerned about the limited use of graphics and other forms ofmultimedia, suggesting that the system would have benefited from having more. Indeed,Rieber (1994) indicates that instructional graphics can aid learning, as visual information isan effective method of communication, arguing that as graphics form a core part ofsuccessful teaching strategies then incorporating them into computerised instructionalmaterial is advantageous to learning.TextThe evaluators were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the text used.

“Too much body text and too little explanation or instructions text.” – Evaluator 1

This evaluator indicated that there were not enough instructions to accompany the onscreentext and that there was too much body text. Whilst this could be address by adding moregraphics, Rieber (1994) points out that as graphics move the attention focus of the learneraway from the instructional text, they can inhibit learning.

Discussion

The introduction of computers in educational establishments, such as school and colleges hasseen the role of educators change from an instructor delivering a fixed curriculum towardsthat of a facilitator, who is required to persuade learners that adopting particular attitudes andactions towards educational problems will benefit them (Commey & Stephenson, 2002).Persuasive technology has an obvious role to play in assisting educators in the provision ofeducation to heterogeneous learners who have their own beliefs and approaches towards theireducation. This is particularly true in the case of the Net Generation, who have strongattitudes towards their right to an education and a strong belief in their right to makeindividual choices (Epstein, 1998; Tapscott, 1998; Leung 2003).This study identified the many factors in the research that affect how the Net Generation canbe persuaded, including control, attention focus, curiosity, surveillance, entertainment,affection, escapism, social identity and social bonding. An attempt was made to drawcorrelations between these factors and the learning style preferences of learners, but nocorrelations were found as a result of sampling error. Even so, these factors were taken intoaccount in the development of the VLE with particular attention towards the control andattention focus attributes. The expert evaluation found that whilst these factors wereimportant and were taken into account, more needed to be done in relation to usingmultimedia, such as graphics to improve the user experience for learners. The multilingualsupport that formed a core part of the design of the VLE enables government policy on theteaching of languages in schools to be extended to computer-based learning activities. Thiswas achieved through having separate database fields for each language.The method of instructional design used in the VLE was based on that used in mediatedliteracy instruction, involving a significant degree of writing to a learning log, which wasmade available in the form of a Weblog. Whilst this formed the basis of the system design,the expert evaluation found that the system lacked text that explained to the learner what theyhad to do and they may not know what to do if they do not have a clear goal in mind,emphasising the difficulties in designing systems that adapt based on the situation that hasbeen constructed by the user. This issue could be resolved through a more effectiveimplementation of the animated pedagogical agent, which could be aware of when the learneris having difficulties and direct them based on the learning objectives of the lesson.Adapting the presentation of the learning material based on learning styles formed a core partof the design with the implementation of the Learning Style Paradigm (LSP). Based on theOnline Paradigm Grid (OPG) that was developed by Coomey & Stephenson (2002), the LSPtakes into account the four learning styles identified by Honey & Mumford (1992) in thecontext of virtual learning environment. Whilst adapting a VLE based on four learning stylesor Quadrants can personalise the learning material to a certain degree, it does not fully takeinto account the unique differences of individual learners, who are heterogeneous in nature.This was taken into account with the implementation of customisable variables, whichdisplayed text and graphics in different ways depending on the preferences of the individuallearner. The role of interaction design and in particular, the significant role mediatingartefacts play in developing persuasive VLEs. Through taking into account factors such asculture and language, VLEs can be developed to encourage learners to use artefacts, such astext or graphics to achieve their goals and the goals of educators and other learners. In thecontext of the developed VLE, artefacts were used in the form of text, to adapt the systemwith words that are familiar to the user and through interactive graphics that encouragelearners to make comparisons between artefacts and express these in written form.This study has demonstrated that heterogeneous user groups can benefit a great deal frompersuasive VLEs that adapt based on the individual preferences, particularly when theircultural background has been taken into account.

Recommendations for Future Research and Development

The virtual learning environment developed as part of this project has demonstrated the rolepersuasive technology can play in educating heterogeneous user groups, particularly in thecase of agent-based systems and those that adapt based on learning styles. However, moreresearch need to be carried out in order to determine the effectiveness of persuasive VLEs onlearning and understanding as well as the role the technology can play in specific educationprogrammes. This study has demonstrated the relevance of learning styles in thedevelopment of VLEs targeted at heterogeneous user groups, but more research needs to becarried out to determine whether adapting hypermedia systems based on learning styles canresult in improved learning outcomes.

Appendix I – Information Architecture

Figure 21 Information Architecture of the Virtual Learning Environment

CommunicateHome Learn Create

GettingStarted

InstitutionInformation

Your Circle ofFriends

Your personalinformation

VirtualClassroom

ReviewProgress

Revise Encyclo-paedia

YourAssignments

UndertakeAssignments

Review work Upload work

Your Weblog DiscussionGroups

Virtual Chat Gallery ofwork

Appendix II – Data Flow Diagrams

Below is the Data Flow Diagram (DFD) for the core functions of the VLE. A tick () withina process box indicates that the process has been implemented; a dash (-) indicates that it ispartially implemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in thisversion.

Figure 22 Level 1 Data Flow Diagram for Virtual Classroom section

EDUCATORLEARNER

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Process Lesson

1.1

Create Lesson

1.2

D1 Lessons

LessonLesson

Process Weblog

1.3

Process Discussion

1.4

WeblogEntry

Message

D2 Weblog Data D3 Discussion Data

Message

Weblog Entry Message

Appendix III – Entity Relationship Diagrams

Figure 23 ERD for 'lesson' component of Virtual Classroom

Lesson

LessonScreen

Lesson Row

To allow for platform independence, a lesson ismade up of many ‘screens’ of which containmany ‘rows’ which have many ‘fields’.

The contents of ‘Lesson Row’ are put in the<asp:table> tag, which is displayed as the<table> tag in the HTML document.

The contents of ‘Lesson Row’ are put in the<asp:tablerow> tag, which is displayed as the<tr> tag in the HTML document.

The contents of ‘Lesson Row Field’ are put inthe <asp:tablecell> tag, which is displayed asthe <td> tag in the HTML document.

Lesson RowField

Appendix IV – System Components

The ‘Complexity’ column indicates the complexity of implementing the component, whichcan be simple (1), medium (2) or complex (3). The ‘Dev’ column is used to signify whetherthat component has been implemented in the version of the VLE available at the time ofprinting. A tick ( ) indicates it is implemented, a dash (-) indicates that it is partiallyimplemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in this version.

Component Name Description Complexity DevAnimated Pedagogical Agent 3 -Circle of Friends 1 -Learning Style Paradigm 2

Multilingual Support 2 -

Table 6 System Components

Appendix V – System Parameters, Action Controls and Functions

This appendix outlines the parameters, actions and functions that control the system, asexplained on page 41. The ‘Dev’ column is used to signify whether the specificparameter/action/function has been implemented in the version of the VLE available at thetime of printing. A tick () indicates it is implemented, a dash (-) indicates that it is partiallyimplemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in this version.

Parameter ID Description ExampleValues

Dev

Learning_Lesson_Navigation_GoToQuiz Controls display of navigation True, False Learning_Lesson_Navigation_MoveNext Controls display of navigation True, False Learning_Lesson_Navigation_MovePrevious Controls display of navigation True, False Node_Word_Describe Stores Bloom’s taxonomy word Describe Node_Word_Identify Stores Bloom’s taxonomy word Identify Node_Word_Interpret Stores Bloom’s taxonomy word Interpret Node_Word_Solve Stores Bloom’s taxonomy word Solve Node_Word_Summarise Stores Bloom’s taxonomy word Summarise System_Agent_Visual_Icon_ID Current Animation ID 101, 106 -System_Computer_Environment_ID Current computer used by user MACX -System_Course_ID Current Course ID ECDL -System_Course_Outcome_ID Current NC outcome 1, 2, 3 -System_Learning_Level_ID 1, 2, 4. 8 System_Learning_Level_ID_1 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_2 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_3 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_4 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_5 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_6 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_7 True, False System_Learning_Level_ID_8 True, False System_Learning_Paradigm_Direction Learner System_Learning_Paradigm_ID Overrides user setting NE, SE System_Lesson_ID 1, 2, 3 System_Lesson_Node_ID 1, 2, 3 System_Lesson_Node_Row_ID 1, 2, 3 System_Lesson_Quiz_Hint True, False System_Lesson_Quiz_ID 1, 2, 3 System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_1_Selected

Status of Quiz Answer 1 True, False

System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_2_Selected

Status of Quiz Answer 2 True, False

System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_3_Selected

Status of Quiz Answer 3 True, False

System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_4_Selected

Status of Quiz Answer 4 True, False

System_Locale_Language_ID_1 CY, EN System_Locale_Language_ID_2 EN, CY System_Locale_Region_ID CYM, ENG System_Locale_Region_Name Cymru -System_Media_ID 1, 2, 3 System_Menu_Bar_ID LOGO System_Menu_Sub_ID CLASSystem_Menu_Sub_Sub_ID SESU System_Procedure_Action_ID System_Subject_Category_ID ICTSOF System_Subject_Category_Sub_ID ICTPRE System_Subject_ID ICT, PSE

System_Subject_Objective_ID 1, 2, 3 -System_Subject_Word_ID 1, 2, 3 System_User_Profile_ID ID of active user, used in single/shared

mode1, 2, 3

System_User_Profile_ID_1 ID of First user when in shared mode 1, 2, 3 System_User_Profile_ID_2 ID of Second user when in shared mode 1, 2, 3 System_User_Weblog_ID ID of Active Weblog 1, 2, 3 System_User_Weblog_Item_ID ID of Text of Active Weblog 1, 2, 3 System_User_Weblog_Item_Reply_ID ID of reply to text of Active Weblog 1, 2, 3 System_Visual_Skin_ID ID of colour scheme for application BLUE User_Agent_ID ID of active agent CREA -User_Char_Ambition Personalised text User_Char_FavActor Personalised text User_Char_FavBook Personalised text User_Char_FavGame Personalised text User_Char_FavHoliday Personalised text User_Char_FavMovie Personalised text User_Char_FavMusician Personalised text User_Char_FavShow Personalised text User_Char_FavSubject Personalised text User_Char_FavToy Personalised text User_DIS Name of learner’s disability User_DIS_Hearing True if learner has a hearing impairment True, False -User_DIS_Visual True if learner has a visual impairment True, False -User_Gender Learner’s gender Male, Female -User_Gender_Female True if learner is a female True, False -User_Gender_Male True if learner is a male True, False -User_Group_Cultural Name of learner’s cultural group Welsh -User_Group_Ethnic Name of learner’s ethnic group Welsh -User_Group_Refugee True if learner is a refugee True, False -User_Group_Religious Name of learner’s religion Christian -User_Group_Social True if learner is part of a specific social

groupTrue, False -

User_Group_Traveller True if learner is a traveller True, False -User_Institution_ID ID of the institution user is part of BRYN -User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_Educator LSP ID under educator supervision NW. SW User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_Learner LSP ID under self-direction NE, SE User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NE True is LSP ID is NE True, False User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NO True is LSP ID is not defined True, False -User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NW True is LSP ID is NW True, False User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_SE True is LSP ID is SE True, False User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_SW True is LSP ID is SW True, False User_Learning_Style_ID_1 Learner’s first preference learning style ACT, REF User_Learning_Style_ID_2 Learner’s second preference learning style REF, THE User_Learning_Style_ID_3 Learner’s third preference learning style THE, PRA User_Learning_Style_ID_4 Learner’s fourth preference learning style PRA, ACT User_Learning_Style_ID_ACT True if primary learning style is Activist True, False User_Learning_Style_ID_NON True if no primary learning style defined True, False -User_Learning_Style_ID_PRA True if primary learning style is Pragmatist True, False User_Learning_Style_ID_REF True if primary learning style is Reflector True, False User_Learning_Style_ID_THE True if primary learning style is Theorist True, False User_Learning_Style_Value_ACT User’s H&M Activist score 0, 10, 20 User_Learning_Style_Value_PRA User’s H&M Pragmatist score 0, 10, 20 User_Learning_Style_Value_REF User’s H&M Reflector score 0, 10, 20 User_Learning_Style_Value_THE User’s H&M Theorist score 0, 10, 20 User_Learning_Weighting_ID ID of the weighting system used EXAM -User_Locale_Language_ID_1 ID of user’s first language CY, EN

User_Locale_Language_ID_2 ID of user’s second language EN, CY User_Locale_Language_ID_CY True if the user can use Welsh True, False User_Locale_Language_ID_EN True if the user can use English True, False User_Locale_Language_ID_FR True if the user can use French True, False User_SEN Description of user’s educational needs User_SEN_Comms True if learner has communication

problemsTrue, False -

User_SEN_EFL True if user has English as a 2nd language True, False -User_SEN_Emotional True if user has emotional difficulties True, False -User_SEN_Gifted True if user has exceptional talents True, False -User_SEN_Learning True if user has special educational needs True, False -User_Status_Absent True if the user is absent True, False -User_Status_TimeOut If true then user can only access ‘Time Out’ True, False -User_Teaching_Attention Time in minutes before learner needs help 10, 20, 30 -User_Visual_Skin_ID User’s preferred colour scheme BLUE

Table 7 System Parameters

Action ID Description Agent Emotion DevAgent.Download.Result Agent.Get.User.Variable Agent.Info.Lesson.Media Agent.Info.Lesson.Node Agent.Info.Lesson.Quiz Agent.Info.Subject.Word Agent.Info.System.Copyright Agent.Info.User.Status Agent.Search.New Agent.Search.Result Global.Agent.Activate Global.Agent.Alert -Global.Agent.Deactivate Global.Agent.Download Global.Agent.Download.Media Global.Agent.Help -Global.Agent.Help.Timed -Global.Agent.Search -Global.Agent.Sleep Global.Go.Home -Global.Node.ID.MoveNext -Global.Node.ID.MovePrevious -Lesson.Go.Quiz Lesson.Node.ID.MoveFirst Lesson.Node.ID.MoveLast Lesson.Node.ID.MoveNext

Table 8 System Action Controls

Function ID Description Example Values DevFunction_agentActivateFunction_agentActivateTimedFunction_agentAlertFunction_agentDeactivateFunction_agentHideFunction_agentSleepFunction_goHomepageFunction_goNextFunction_goPreviousFunction_goToKeyURLFunction_swapSoundFunction_swapSoundLoopFunction_swapSoundRestoreMM_callJSMM_checkBrowserMM_checkPluginMM_controlSoundMM_findObjMM_goToURLMM_popupMsgMM_preloadImagesMM_swapImageMM_swapImgRestoreTable 9 System Functions

Appendix VI – Code for Key Application Functions

Below is the code for key functions used in the virtual learning environment.

Code for Setting System Parameters

<%'*** Process Connection - Application/Procedure_Variable

i=0Do While objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable.Read()

c=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_" &Session("System_Locale_Language_ID") & "_Source").ToString()

If (Not c Is Nothing) Then

c=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Source").ToString()

If NotisDBNull(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_"& Session("System_Locale_Language_ID") & "_Source")) Then

If(Session(c)=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_" & Session("System_Locale_Language_ID") & "_Source")) Then

c=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Target").ToString()

Session(c)=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_" & Session("System_Locale_Language_ID") & "_Target")

End If

End IfElseIf (Not

objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Source").ToString() Is Nothing) Then

If(Session(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Source"))>=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_LBound") AndSession(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Source"))<=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_UBound")) Then

Session(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Target").ToString())=(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_" & Session("System_Locale_Language_ID")).ToString())

End IfEnd If

Loop%>

Code for Inserting Values of System Parameters

<%

If (Not Request.Form("Hidden_Form_Data_Variable") Is Nothing) Then

'Set Variables

Dim strConnection_String_Data_Variable_Insert

Dim strConnection_Query_Data_Variable_Insert As String

Dim objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert As New OleDbCommand

Dim objConnection_OleDbConnection_Data_Variable_Insert As NewOleDbConnection

i=0

While (i<intScript_Array_Data_Variable_Count And i<5000)

If (Not Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i))="" AndNot Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)) IsRequest.Form("NoSuchVariableExists") And NotRequest.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)) Is Nothing And NotIsDBNull(Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)))) Then

'Update System

Session(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i))=(Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)))

'SET connection variables

strConnection_String_Data_Variable_Insert=(strConnection_String_User)

strConnection_Query_Data_Variable_Insert=("INSERT INTOUser_Data_Variable_Log (User_ID, User_Data_Variable_Log_Date,Data_Variable_ID, User_Data_Variable_Log_Value_" &(Session("System_Locale_Language_ID")) & ") VALUES (" &(Session("System_User_Profile_ID")) & ", '" & (Now()) & "', '" &(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)) & "', '" &(Session(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i))) & "')")

objConnection_OleDbConnection_Data_Variable_Insert=NewOleDbConnection(strConnection_String_Data_Variable_Insert)

objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert=NewOleDbCommand(strConnection_Query_Data_Variable_Insert)

objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert.Connection=(objConnection_OleDbConnection_Data_Variable_Insert)

objConnection_OleDbConnection_Data_Variable_Insert.Open()

objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert.ExecuteNonQuery()

objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert.Connection.Close()

End If

i=(i+1)

End While

End If

%>

Code for activating Agent functions

function Function_agentActivate(query,action) {<%Response.Write("window.open('" & (strNode_Container_Hyperlink_Path &"Web/WWW/Agent/Default.aspx?System_Procedure_Action_ID=") &"'+action+'&Query='+query,'Agent','status=yes,scrollbars=yes,width=345,height=245');" & vbNewLine)Response.Write("window.bringToFront('Agent');" & vbNewLine)%>}

function Function_agentDeactivate() { window.close('Agent');}

function Function_agentHide() { window.hide('Agent');}

function Function_agentSleep() { window.sendToBack('Agent');}

function Function_agentAlert(query) {<%If (Session("User_Agent_ID")="NONE") Then%> alert(query);<%Else

Response.Write("window.open('" & (strNode_Container_Hyperlink_Path &"Web/WWW/Agent/Default.aspx?System_Prodedure_Action_ID=Global.Agent.Alert&Query=") &"'+query,'Agent','status=yes,scrollbars=yes,width=345,height=245');" &vbNewLine)

Response.Write("window.bringToFront('Agent');" & vbNewLine)End If%>}

function Function_agentDownloadMedia(mediaid) {<%Response.Write("window.open('" & (strNode_Container_Hyperlink_Path &"Web/WWW/Agent/Default.aspx?System_Procedure_Action_ID=Global.Agent.Download.Media&System_Media_ID=") &"'+mediaid,'Agent','status=yes,scrollbars=yes,width=345,height=245');" &vbNewLine)Response.Write("window.bringToFront('Agent');" & vbNewLine)%>}

function Function_agentActivateTimed(delay) {// based on script by Ronnie T. Moore of Javascript.com timer = setTimeout("Function_agentActivate('','Global.Agent.Help.Timed')",delay*1000);}

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1 FOGG'S MODEL TO UNDERSTAND COMPUTERS AS PERSUASIVETECHNOLOGIES.......................................................................................................................... 9

FIGURE 2 VYGOTSKY'S MEDIATION MODEL........................................................................... 13FIGURE 3 HONEY & MUMFORD'S ADAPTATION OF KOLB’S EXPERIENTIAL

LEARNING CYCLE.................................................................................................................... 14FIGURE 4 FRIENDSTER.COM ......................................................................................................... 19FIGURE 5 FOGG'S FUNCTIONAL TRIAD ..................................................................................... 20FIGURE 6 ENGESTRÖM'S ADAPTATION OF VYGOTSKY'S MEDIATION MODEL ............ 21FIGURE 7 MANTOVANI’S MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING INTERACTION IN A

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................... 23FIGURE 8 TREPESS & STOCKMAN'S ADAPTATION OF MANTOVANI'S MODEL OF

SOCIAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................... 24FIGURE 9 LEARNING OUTCOMES OF LEARNING STYLES FOR PRESENTATION

MODELS ...................................................................................................................................... 26FIGURE 10 ADAPTATION OF HIX & HARTSON’S STAR LIFECYCLE FOR

INTERACTION DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 29FIGURE 11 WELLER’S LIFECYCLE FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE VIRTUAL

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS................................................................................................. 30FIGURE 12 THE DIGITAL CLASSROOM OF TOMORROW....................................................... 34FIGURE 13 ANIMATED PEDAGOGICAL AGENT ....................................................................... 34FIGURE 14 FLUID LINKS MECHANISM ....................................................................................... 35FIGURE 15 CONTEXT DIAGRAM OF ADAPTIVE ARCHITECTURE....................................... 36FIGURE 16 MULTILINGUAL FIELDS IN DATABASE................................................................ 37FIGURE 17 LEARNING STYLE PARADIGM FOR A PERSUASIVE VIRTUAL

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................... 38FIGURE 18 LEARNING STYLE PARADIGM PROFILE EXAMPLE 1........................................ 39FIGURE 19 SOCIABILITY ARCHITECTURE OF THE VIRTUAL LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................................... 40FIGURE 20 EXAMPLE OF DATA ASSIGNED TO A SHARED ARTEFACT............................. 41FIGURE 21 INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE OF THE VIRTUAL LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................................... 48FIGURE 22 LEVEL 1 DATA FLOW DIAGRAM FOR VIRTUAL CLASSROOM SECTION .... 49FIGURE 23 ERD FOR 'LESSON' COMPONENT OF VIRTUAL CLASSROOM ......................... 50

TABLE 1 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR 'CONTROL' ATTRIBUTE ......................................... 32TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR 'ATTENTION' ATTRIBUTE ..................................... 32TABLE 3 PERSONALISATION BASED ON NATIONAL CURRICULUM LEVELS AND

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY............................................................................................................ 37TABLE 4 SUMMARIES OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS ............................................................ 40TABLE 5 PERVASIVE ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE ................................. 41TABLE 6 SYSTEM COMPONENTS................................................................................................. 51TABLE 7 SYSTEM PARAMETERS.................................................................................................. 54TABLE 8 SYSTEM ACTION CONTROLS....................................................................................... 55TABLE 9 SYSTEM FUNCTIONS...................................................................................................... 56

References and Bibliography

References

Alavi, M (1994) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation MISQuarterly 18; pp159-174

Allinson, C.W. & Hayes, J. (1988) The Learning Styles Questionnaire: An alternative toKolb’s inventory? Journal of Management Studies 25 (3); pp69-281

Arbaugh, J.B. (2000) Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction in Internet-based MBA courses Journal of Management Education 24 (1); pp32-54

Attwood, T. (2000) Asperger’s Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals JessicaKingsley Publishing, London

Badre, Albert (1982) Selecting and representing information structures for visualpresentation IEEE Transactions on Man, System and Cybernetics 12 (4); pp495-504

Badre, Albert (2002) Shaping Web Usability: Interaction Design in Context Addison-Wesley; pp65-90; pp239-241

Baker, Colin (1985) Aspects of Bilingualism in Wales Multilingual Matters Ltd, Clevedon;pp164-166

Barclay, Jean (1996a) Learning from experience with learning logs Journal of ManagementDevelopment 15 (6); pp28-43

Barclay, Jean (1996b) Assessing the benefits of learning logs Education & Training 38 (2);pp 30-38

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2001) Theory of mind in normal development and autism Prisme 2001(34); pp174-183

Bishop, Jonathan (2002a) Development and Evaluation of a Virtual Community UnpublishedBSc Dissertation; p22, p48 (available online at http://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.asp?Item=1)

Bishop, Jonathan (2002b) Evaluation of E-Commerce Facilities: Effect of usability andrecommender systems on buying activity in communities of commerce UnpublishedBSc Report (available online at: http://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.asp?Item=5)

Bishop, Jonathan & Mannay, Lisa (2002) Development and Evaluation of an AdaptiveMultimedia System Unpublished BSc Project Report (available online at:http://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.asp?Item=4)

Bishop, Jonathan (2003) The Internet for educating individuals with social impairmentsJournal of Computer Assisted Learning 19 (4); pp546-556

Blom, Jan & Monk, Andrew (2001) One-to-one e-commerce: who’s the one? CHI 2001;pp341-342

Bor Ng, Kwong (2002) Toward a theoretical framework for understanding the relationshipbetween situated action and planned action models of behavior in informationretrieval contexts: contributions from phenomenology Information Processing andManagement 38 (2002); pp613-626

Buttle, Francis (1996) Relationship Marketing IN Buttle, Francis (Ed.) RelationshipMarketing: Theory and Practice Paul Chapman Publishing; pp1-16

Cadiz, J; Balachandran, Anand; Sanocki, Elizabeth; Gupta, Anoop; Grudin, Jonathan;Jancke, Gavin (2000) Distance Learning Through Distributed Collaborative VideoViewing Unknown Publisher; pp135-144

Cahill, Larry; McGaugh, James L.; Weinberger, Norman M. (2001) The neurobiology oflearning and memory: some reminders to remember Trends in Neurosciences 24 (10);pp578-581

Caldwell, B. & Soat, J. (1990) The Hidden Persuader InformationWEEK 42 (3); p47Callahan, Susan (1999) All Done With the Best of Intentions: One Kentucky High School fter

Six Years of State Portfolio Tests Assessing Writing 6 (1); pp5-40

Carter, Locke (2003) Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in anonsequential world Computers and Composition 20 (2003); pp3-22

Carroll, J.M. (1994) Making use a design representation Communications of the ACM 37(12); pp29-35

Carroll, J.M. (2000) Five reasons for scenario-based design Interacting with Computers 13(2000); pp43-60

Carver, A; Howard, Richard & Lane, William (1996) A Methodology for Active, Student-Controlled Learning: Motivating our Weakest Students SIGCSE ’96; pp195-199

Chak, Andrew (2003) Submit Now: designing Persuasive Web Sites New Riders Publishing,New York; pp217-218

Chang, Bay-Wei; Mackinlay, Jock D.; Zellweger, Polle T. & Igarashi, Takeo (1998) ANegotiation Architecture for Fluid Documents UIST’98 Proceedings; pp123-132

Chinn, Clark A. & Samarapungavan (2001) Distinguishing Between Understanding andBelief Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp235-241

Clibbon, Kelvin (1995) Conceptually Adapted Hypertext For Learning CHI ’95; pp224-225Colley, Ann (2003) Gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the best and worst

aspects of computing at school Computers in Human Behavior (in press)Conati, Cristine (2001) Modeling Students’ Emotions to Improve Learning with Educational

Games IN Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on “Intelligent and Emotional II”,2001

Coomey, Marion & Stephenson, John (2002) Online Learning: it is all about dialogue,involvement, support and control – according to the research IN Stephenson, John(Ed.) Teaching & Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies Kogan PageLimited, London; pp37-52

Cuban, Larry (2003) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge

Damazo, Jet (2003) Wired Generation Newsbreak, 8 December 2003;http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2003/dec/08/nbk_7-1.htm

Davies, F. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance ofinformation technology MIS Quarterly 13 (3); p319-340

Davis, Sid & Wiedenbeck, Susan (1998) The effect of interaction style and training methodon end user learning of software packages Interacting with Computers 11 (1998);pp147-172

Diaper, Dan (2002) Task scenarios and thought Interacting with Computers 12 (2002);pp629-638

DCSWL (2003) Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales NationalAssembly for Wales; pp38-39

DfES (2002) Language Learning The Stationary Office Ltd; pp1-9DfTE (2001) The Learning Country: A Paving Document National Assembly for Wales; p25DfTE (2002) Policy Review of Higher Education National Assembly for Wales; p21Douglas, Yellowlees & Hargadon, Andrew (2000) The Pleasure Principle: Immersion,

Engagement, Flow Hypertext 2000; pp153-160Dunn, S.W. (1976) Effect of national identity on multinational promotional strategy in

Europe Journal of Marketing 40 (4); pp50-7Durndell, A.; Cameron, C.; Knox, A.; Stocks, R. & Haag, Z. (1997) Gender and Computing:

West and East Europe Computers in Human Behavior 13 (2); pp269-280Eisenberg, Bryan (2001) A Land Beyond Usability www.c l ickz .com;

http://www.clickz.com/article.php/840431Engeström, Y. (1993) Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The

case of primary care medical practice In Lave, J. & Chaiklin, S. (Eds.) UnderstandingPractice: Perspectives on Activity and Context Cambridge University Press,Cambridge; p67

Engeström, Y. (1999) Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge University Press,Cambridge

Epstein, Jeffrey H. (1998) Demography: The Net Generation is Changing the MarketplaceThe Futurist 1998 (April); p14

Escoffery, Cam; McCormick, Laura & Bateman, Kathe (2003) Development and processevaluation of a web-based smoking cessation program for college smokers: innovativetool for education Patient Education and Counseling, In Press

Estyn (2002) Excellent Schools: A vision for schools in Wales in 21st Century Estyn; p13European Commission (1995) Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society

European Commission; p47Farris, J. Shawn; Jones, Keith S. & Elgin, Peter D. (2002) Users’ schemata of hypermedia:

that is so ‘spatial’ about a website? Interacting with Computers 14 (2002); pp487-502Fencott, Clive; Van Schaik, Paul; Ling, Jonathan & Shafiullah, Mohammed (2003) the

effects of movement of attractors and pictorial content of rewards on user’s behaviourin virtual environments: an empirical study in the framework of perceptualopportunities Interacting with Computers 15 (2003); pp121-140

Fishbein, Martin; Ajzen, Icek & McArdle, Judy (1980) Changing Behaviour of Alcoholics:Effects of persuasive communication Prentice-Hall, New Jersey; pp217-242

Fives, Helenrose & Alexander, Patricia A. (2001) Persuasion as a Metaphor for Teaching: Acase in Point Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp242-248

Fleishman, Glenn (2001) Been ‘Blogging’?: Web Discourse Hits Higher Level IN Blood,Rebecca (Introduction) We’ve Got Blog: How Weblogs are changing our culturePerseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp107-111

Fleming, Jennifer (1998) Web Navigation: Designing the User Experience O’Reilly,Sebastopol; pp205-209

Fogg, B.J. (1998) Persuasive Computers: Perspectives and Research Directions CHI ’98(18-23); pp225-232

Fogg, B.J. (2003) Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think andDo Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, London; pp15-17, pp113-115, pp230-234, p246

Garrett, Jesse James (2003) The Elements of User Experience New Riders Publishing, NewYork; pp29-33

Gay, G (1986) Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assistedvideo instruction Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (2003); pp225-227

Gee, James Paul; Allen, Anna-Ruth; Clinton, Katherine (2001) Language, Class, andIdentity: Teenagers Fashioning Themselves Through Language Linguistics andEducation 12 (2); pp175-194

Golden, Sarah; Spielhofer, Thomas; Sims, David; Aiston, Sarah & O’Donnell, Lisa (2002)Re-engaging the Hardest-to-Help Young People: the role of the NeighbourhoodSupport Fund The Stationery Office Ltd; pp52-53, p63, p75

Goodman, Y.M. & Goodman, K.S. (1990) Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective INMoll, L.C. (1991) Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applicationsof sociohistorical perspective Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; pp223-250

Grant, Ian C. & Waite, Kathryn (2003) “Following the yellow brick road” – young adults’experiences of the information super-highway Qualitative Market Research: AnInternational Journal; pp48-57

Green, T.R.G.; Davies, S.P.; Gilmore, D.J. (1996) Delivering cognitive psychology to HCI:the problems of common language and knowledge transfer Interacting with Computers8 (1); pp89-111

Giuseppe, Riva (2001) From Real to Virtual Communities: Cognition, knowledge andinteraction in the world wide web IN Wolfe, Christopher R. (Ed.) Learning andTeaching on the World Wide Web Academic Press

Hammond, Nick (2003) Learning with Hypertext: Problems, Principles and Prospects INMcKnight, C.; Dillon, A & Richardson, J. (Eds.) Hypertext: A PsychologicalPerspective Ellis Horwood; pp52-69

Hagel, John & Armstrong, Arthur (1999) Net Gain: Expanding Markets through VirtualCommunities Harvard Business School Press, Boston; pp186-188

Heimrath, Rosie & Goulding, Anne (2001) Internet perception and use: a gender perspectiveAslib Program 35 (2); pp119-134

Hix, Deborah & Hartson, H. Rex (1993) Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring UsabilityThrough Product and Process John Wiley & Sons, New York; pp101-107

Honey, Peter & Mumford, Alan (1982) The Manual of Learning Styles Peter HoneyPublishing Limited, Maidenhead; p7

Hovland, Carl I; Janis, Irving, L. & Kelley, Harold H. (1954) Communication andPersuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change Yale University Press, London;pp1-18; pp245-253

Huang, Ming-Hui (2003) Designing website attributes to induce experiential encountersComputers in Human Behaviour 19 (2003); pp425-442

Hynd, Cyndia (2001) Persuasion and Its Role in Meeting Educational Goals Theory intoPractice 40 (4); pp270-277

Jarvis, Peter; Holford, John & Griffin, Colin (2003) The Theory & Practice of LearningKogan Page, London; pp24-31

Jordan, Patrick W. (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products: An introduction to the newhuman factors Taylor & Francis; pp1-10, pp205-206

Krathwhol, David R.; Masia, Bertram B. & Bloom, Benjamin S. (1965) Affective Domain:The classification of educational goals Longman, New York

Kennewell, Steve (2003) Developing an ICT capability for learning IN Marshall & Katz(Eds.) Learning in School, Home and Community: ICT for Early and ElementaryEducation Kluwer Academic Publishers, London; pp75-81

Kinnes, S. (1999) Domain of Women Sunday Times Magazine, 19th September 1999; pp55-57

Kobsa, Alfred; Koenemann, Jürgen & Pohl, Wolfgang (2001) Personalized HypermediaPresentation Techniques for Improving Online Customer Relationships TheKnowledge Engineering Review 16 (2); pp111-155

Kolb, David A. (1971) Organisational Psychology: An Experiential Approach Prentice-Hall,New Jersey

Kolb, David A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning andDevelopment Prentice-Hall, New Jersey; pp27-33, pp36-38

Koslow, S.; Shamdasani, P.N. & Touchstone, E.E. (1994) Exploring language effects inethnic advertising: a sociolinguistic perspective Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4);pp575-585

Kragler, Sherry (1996) Vygotsky and At-Risk Readers: Assessment and InstructionalImplications IN Dixon-Krauss (Ed.) Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated LiteracyInstruction and Assessment Longman Publishers, New York; pp149-160

Kraus, Sarit; Sycara, Katia & Evenchik, Amir (1998) Reaching agreements throughargumentation: a logical model and implementation Artificial Intelligence 104 (1998);pp1-69

Kuutti, Kari (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-ComputerInteraction Research IN Nardi, B.A. (Ed.) Context and Consciousnesses: Activitytheory and Human-Computer Interaction The MIT Press, Cambridge; pp17-44

Lasagabaster, David (2001) Bilingualism, Immersion Programmes and Language Learningin the Basque Country Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22 (5);pp421-425

Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLaw, Monica; Lau, Theresa & Wong, Y.H. (2003) From customer relationship management

to customer-managed relationship: unravelling the paradox with a co-creativeperspective Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21 (1); pp51-60

Lester, James; Converse, Sharolyn; Kahler, Susan; Barlow, S.T.; Stone, Brian & Bhogal,Ravinder (1997) The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated PedagogicalAgents CHI 97; pp359-366

Leung, Louis (2003) Impacts of Net-generation attributes, seductive properties of theInternet, and gratifications-obtained on Internet use Telematics and Informatics 20;pp107-129

Lindahl, Charlie & Blount, Elise (2003) Weblogs: Simplifying Web Publishing IEEEComputer 36 (11); pp114-116

Littlejohn, Allison (2003) Issues in reusing online resources In Littlejohn, Allsion (Ed.)Reusing Online Resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning Kogan Page Ltd;pp1-11

Long, Joyce F.; Holleran, Theresa A. & Esterly, Elizabeth (2001) The Effectiveness ofPersuasive Messages: Comparing Traditional and Computerized Texts Theory intoPractice 40 (4); pp265-269

Lorenzen, Michael (2001) The land of confusion? High School students and their use of theWorld Wide Web for research Research Strategies 18 (2001); pp151-163

Mantovani, Guiseppe (1996a) New Communication Environments: From Everyday to VirtualTaylor & Frances, London; pp7-15

Mantovani, Guiseppe (1996b) Social Context in HCI: A New Framework for Mental Models,Cooperation, and Communication Cognitive Science 20 (1996); pp237-269

Marchionini, G & Shneiderman, B (1988) Finding facts vs. browsing knowledge in hypertextsystems IEEE Computer 21 (1); pp70-80

Mason, R (1998) Models of online courses ALN Magazine 2 (2)Mbakwe, Chanel & Cunliffe, Daniel (2003) Conceptualising the Process of Hypermedia

Seduction In Proceedings of the 1st International Meeting of Science and TechnologyDesign: Senses and Sensibility – Linking Tradition to Innovation Through Design 25-26 September 2003, Lisbon, Portugal

McCalla, Gordon I. (1992) The Search for Adaptability, Flexibility, and Individualization:Approaches to Curriculum in Intelligent Tutoring Systems IN Jones, Marlene &Winne, Philip H. (Eds.) Adaptive Learning Environments: Foundations and FrontiersSpringer-Verlag, London; pp91-121

McGorry, S.Y. (1989) Measuring quality in online programs Internet and Higher Education2003 (6); pp159-177

McDrury, Janice & Alterio, Maxine (2002) Learning through Storytelling Dunmore PressLimited, Palmerston North; p12, p32

Micarelli, A. & Sciarrone, F. (1996) A Case-Based Toolbox for Guided HypermediaNavigation Unknown Publisher

Morahan-Martin, Janet & Schumacher, Phyllis (2003) loneliness and social uses of theInternet Computers in Human Behaviour 19 (2003); pp659-671

Moss, Juliane et al. (2001) Techno Hero Fiasco IN Murphy, David (2001) Online Learningand Teaching with Technology Kogan Page Limited, London; pp155-161

Mumford, Alan (1994) Four Approaches to Learning from Experience The LearningOrganisation 1 (1); pp4-10

Murphy, P.K., Long, J.F., Holleran, T.A., Esterly, E (2003) Persuasion online or on paper: anew take on an old issue Learning and Instruction 13 (2003); pp511-532

Nardi, B.A. (1996) Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated ActionModels and Distributed Cognition IN Nardi, B.A. (Ed.) Context and Consciousnesses:Activity theory and Human-Computer Interaction The MIT Press, Cambridge; pp69-102

NCTM (1989) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics

Nel, Deon; van Niekerik, Raymond; Berthon, Jean-Paul & Davies, Tony (1999) Going withthe flow: Web sites and customer involvement Internet Research: ElectronicNetworking Applications and Policy 9 (2); pp109-116

Oard, D.W. & Diekema, A.R. (1998) Cross-language information retrieval IN Williams,M.E. (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Ofsted (2003) Boys’ achievement in secondary schools The Stationary Office; p4, pp21-24Oram, Ray. F. (2003) Expecting the Unexpected: Developing creativity in primary and

secondary schools The Stationary Office;Orr, J.E. (1996) Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job Cornell

University Press, IthacaPapanikolaou, Kyparisa A.; Grigoriadou, Maria; Magoulas, George D. & Mornilakis, Harry

(2002) Towards new forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of aweb-based learning environment Computers & Education 39 (2002); pp222-360

Payne, S.J. & Green, T.R.F. (1989) The structure of command languages: an experimentwith task-action grammar International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 30; pp213-234

Powazek, Derek M. (2002) Design for Community: The art of connecting real people invirtual places New Riders, Indianapolis; p167-190

Powell, Dean (2002) Website taps into town history Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer, 6June 2002 (available online at: http://www.jonathanbishop.com/news/display.asp?Item=4)

Preece, Jenny; Rogers, Yvonne; Sharp, Helen; Benyon, David; Holland, Simon; Carey, Tom(1994) Human-Computer Interaction Addison-Wesley; pp409-429

Preece, Jenny (2001) Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability JohnWiley & Sons, Chichester; p55

Rabadel, Pierre (2003) From artefact to instrument Interacting with Computers 15 (5);pp641-645

Raybourn, Elaine M.; Kings, Nicholas & Davies, John (2003) Adding cultural signposts inadaptive community-based virtual environments Interacting with Computers 15 (1);pp91-107

Redondo-Bellón, Ignacio (1998) The effects of bilingualism on the consumer: The case ofSpain European Journal of Marketing 33 (11/12); pp1136-1160

Rheingold, Howard (2000) The Virtual Community: Homesteading in the Electronic FrontierThe MIT Press, Cambridge; p364

Rieber, Lloyd P. (1994) Computers, Graphics, & Learning Brown & Benchmark Publishers,Nadison; pp6-9

Rogers, E.M. (1971) Incentives in the Diffusion of Family Planning Innovations Studies inFamily Planning 2 (12); pp241-248

Russell, Terry (2001) Teaching and Using ICT in Secondary Schools David FultonPublishers, London; pp98-114

Sambrook, Sally (2001) Factors influencing learners’ perceptions of the quality of computerbased learning materials Journal of European Industrial Training 25 (2); pp157-167

Scanlon, Margaret & Buckingham, David (2003) Learning Online: E-Learning and thedomestic market in the UK IN Marshall & Katz (Eds.) Learning in School, Home andCommunity: ICT for Early and Elementary Education Kluwer Academic Publishers,London; pp137-147

Schafer, J.B.; Konstan, Joseph; Riedl, John (1999) Recommender Systems in E-CommerceACM E-Commerce 1999; pp158-166

Schlesinger, Eric (1996) Why learning is not a cycle: 1 – discovering pattern Industrial andCommercial Training 28 (2); pp30-35

Scottish Executive (2000) Gaelic: Revitalising Gaelic a National Asset Taskforce on PublicFunding of Gaelic

Shneiderman, Ben (1982) The future of interactive system and the emergence of directmanipulation Behaviour and Information 1 (1982); pp237-256

Shneiderman, Ben (1998) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction Addison-Wesley; pp67-74, pp125-127

Shneiderman, Ben (2002) Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New ComputingTechnologies The MIT Press; pp115-117

Soloway, Elliot; Norris, Cathleen; Blumenfeld; Fishman, Barry; Krajcik, Joseph; Marx, Ron(2001) Handheld Devices are Ready-at-Hand Communications of the ACM 44 (6);pp15-20

Stahl, Gerry; Sumner, Tamara & Owen, Robert (1995) Share Globally, Adapt Locally:Software Assistance to Locate and Tailor Curriculum posted to the Internet Computers& Education 24 (3); pp237-246

Stanley, Nile V. (1996) Vygotsky and Multicultural Assessment and Instruction IN Dixon-Krauss (Ed.) Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction andAssessment Longman Publishers, New York; pp133-148

Stephens, J.M. & Evans, E.D. (1973) Development and Classroom Learning Holt, Rinehartand Winston, USA; pp116-128

Suchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-MachineCommunication Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Stout, Maureen (2000) The Feel Good Curriculum: The Bumbing Down of America’s Kids inthe Name of Self-Esteem Perseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp119-140

Susi, Tarja & Ziemke, Tom (2001) Social cognition, artefacts and stigmergy: A comparativeanalysis of theoretical frameworks fot the understanding of artefact-mediatedcollaborative activity Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001); pp273-290

Talbot, Neale (2000) Put the Keyboard Down and Back Away from the Weblog IN Blood,Rebecca (Introduction) We’ve Got Blog: How Weblogs are changing our culturePerseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp157-159

Talbot, Neale (2001) Weblogs: What Are They Good For IN Blood, Rebecca (Introduction)We’ve Got Blog: How Weblogs are changing our culture Perseus Publishing,Cambridge; pp130-132

Tapscott, Don (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation McGraw-Hill,London; p16-17, pp108-110, p142, pp188-189, pp196-202

Thorne, Steven L. (2000) Beyond Bounded Activity Systems: Heterogeneous Cultures inInstructional Uses of Persistent Conversation IN Proceedings of the 33rd HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences

Thüring, Manfred; Hannemann, Jörg & Haake, Jörg M. (1995) Hypermedia and Cognition:Designing for Comprehension Communications of the ACM 58 (8); pp57-66

Thurlow, Crispin & McKay, Susan (2003) Profiling “New” Communication Technologies inAdolescence Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (1); pp94-103

Trepess, David & Stockman, Tony (1999) A classification and analysis of erroneous actionsin computer supported co-operative work environment Interacting with Computers 11(1999); pp611-622

van der Voort, Tom H.A.; Beentjes, W.J.; Bovill, Moira; Gaskell, George; Koolstra, CeesM.; Livingstone, Sonia & Marseille, Nies (1998) Young People’s Ownership andUsers of New and Old Forms of Media in Britain and the Netherlands EuropeanJournal of Communication 13 (4); pp457-477

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of Higher Psychological ProcessesHarvard University Press, Cambridge; pp49-57

Wadsworth, Barry J. (1984) Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective DevelopmentLongman, London; pp9-19

Wagner, Lyn Rothwell & Brock, Dana (1996) Using Portfolios to Mediate LiteracyInstruction and Assessment IN Dixon-Krauss, Lisbeth (Ed.) Vygotsky in theClassroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment Longman Publishers, NewYork; pp161-174

Wallace, Patrica (1999) The Psychology of the Internet Cambridge University Press,Cambridge; pp178-189

Webster, J; Trevine, L.K. & Ryan, L. (1993) The dimensionality and correlates of flow inhuman-computer interactions Computers in Human Behaviour 9 (1993); pp411-26

Weller, Martin et al. (2002) Delivering Learning on the Net Kogan Page Ltd, LondonWilbur, Shawn P. (2000) An Archaeology of Cyberspaces In Bell, David & Kennedy,

Barbara M. (Eds.) The Cybercultures Reader Routledge, London; pp45-55Young, Kimberly S. (1996) Internet Addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder IN

Paper presented to the 104th annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Toronto, Canada, August 15

Young, Kimberly S. (1998) Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of InternetAddiction – and a Winning Strategy for Recovery John Wiley & Sons, New York

Zellweger, Polle T.; Regli, Susan Harkness; Mackinlay, Jock D. & Chang, Bay-Wei (2000)The Impact of Fluid Documents on Reading and Browsing: An Observational StudyCHI 2000; pp249-256

Zimmerman, D.H. (1998) Identity, context and interaction IN Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S.(Eds.) Identities in talk Sage Publications, London; pp87-106

Bibliography

Abbott, Chris (2002) Special Educational Needs and the Internet: Issues for the InclusiveClassroom RoutledgeFalmer

Alessi, Stephen et al. (2001) Multimedia for Learning: methods and Development ABLongman

Bigge, Morris L. & Hunt, Maurice P. (1969) Psychological Foundations of Education: AnIntroduction to Human Development and Learning Harper & Row, London

Chamillard, A.T. & Karolick, Dolores (1999) Using Learning Style Data in an IntroductoryComputer Science Course SIGCSE ’99; pp291-295

Clancey, William (1990) Artificial Intelligence and Learning Environments MIT PressCohen, Andrew (1975) A Sociolinguistic Approach to Bilingual Education Newbury House

PublishersDirectorate General for Research-Directorate A (2001) Multilinguality and the Internet

European ParliamentEngeström, Y (1997) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to

Developmental Research Orienta-Konsultit Oy, HelsinkiHillier, Mathew (2003) The role of cultural context in multilingual website usability

Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2003 (2); pp2-14Hodgson, V.E. (2002) The European Union and e-learning: an examination of rhetoric,

theory and practice Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2002 (28); pp240-252Hutchings, Tim & Saunders, Danny (2001) Curriculum methodology Active Learning in

Higher Education 2 (2); pp143-13Jaques, David (2000) Learning in Groups Kogan Page Limited, LondonJones, Ann (2000) Constructivist Learning Theories and IT IN Heap, Nick; Thomas, Ray;

Einon, Geoff; Mason, Robin & Mackay, Hughie Information Technology and SocietySage Publications Ltd, London; pp249-265

Moll, L.C. (1991) Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications ofsociohistorical perspective Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Palloff, Rena et al. (2001) Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom Jossey-Bass PublishingPalmer, Richard (1987) What is CBT Interactive Video? NCC PublicationsPaulston, Christina (1992) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Bilingual Education Longdunn

PressSanger, Jack (1997) Young Children, Videos and Computer Games: Issues for Teachers and

Parents The Falmer PressShneiderman, Ben (1983) Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages IEEE

Computer 16 (8); pp57-69Shneiderman, Ben & Kearsley, Greg (1989) Hypertext Hands-on: An Introduction to a New

Way of Organizing and Accessing Information Addison WesleyStubbs, Michael (1990) Language, Schools and Classrooms: Contemporary Sociology of the

School RoutledgeSuchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problems of Human-Machine

Communication (Learning in Doing) Cambridge University PressTapscott, Don (1999) Educating the Net Generation Educational Leadership 56 (5); pp6-11Turkle, Sherry (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in Age of the Internet Touchstone, New

YorkWoodhead, Nigel (1990) Hypertext and Hypermedia: Theory and Applications Addison

Wesley