Abstract
AHIS equation describes a new model for instructional system design and develops a system based on Merrill’s Component Display Theory incorporating appropriate selection of Media, Ergonomics and Navigation Structures to produce learner engaging and effective learning outcome. A significant component of the proposed model is the integration of principles of Ergonomics having Graphic Aesthetic as one of the constituent. Graphic Aesthetic decides Unity, Proportion, Balance, Sequence, and Cohesion for interface design. Next component is selection of suitable Media as per the categorized learning content. Merrill Component Display Theory has been utilized to categorized learning content. Research shows that media effects are significant in teaching learning process. Third significant component of the model is selection of Navigation structures. Navigation structures decide learner concentration level (learner engagement), restrict them from getting disoriented in hyperspace and finally direct them to their learning objectives. Research in the field of Navigation structures reveals that it’s potential for accelerating learning, when employed with well designed interfaces. Hence, time demands development of instructional model which identifies categorized learning content(pj), principles of Ergonomics for Interface Design(ej), Media selection criteria (mj) and selection of appropriate Navigation structures(nj) and improved learner engagement by calculating learner’s prior knowledge level based on learner known concepts(kcsknown), familiar concepts (kcsfamiliar) and new concepts(kcsnew).
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Abbad, M. M., Morris, D., & De Nahlik, C. (2009). Looking under the bonnet: Factors affecting student Adoptation of E-Learnig Systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2).
Agelight, L. (2001). Interface design guidelines for users of all ages. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle: Interface+Design+Guidelines+for+Users+of+All+Ages#0%5Cn; http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle: Interface+design+guidelines+for+users+of+all+ages#0.
Alberts, W. A., & van der Geest, T. M. (2011). A taxonomy of visuals in science communication. Journal of the Society for Technical Communication, 58(2).
Altaboli, A., & Lin, Y. (2011). Investigating effects of screen layout elements on interface and screen design aesthetics. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction., 2011, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/659758.
Andre, T. (1990). Type of inserted question and the study-posttest delay. The Journal of Experimental Education, 58(2), 77–86.
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.416.
Benabou, R., & Triole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 489–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253.
Bernard, M. (2001). Developing schemas for the location of common web objects. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/web_object.htm, Developing Schemas for the Location of Common Web Objects
Bernard, M., Mills, M., Peterson, M. and S. (2001). A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which is Best and When? Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/usability_news.html
Bernard, M., Linda, B., Riley, S., Hackler, T., & Janzen, K. (2002a). A comparison of popular online fonts: Which size and type is best.
Bernard, M., Marissa, F., & Hull, S. (2002b). The effects of line length on children and adult online Reading performance. Retrieved from http://usabilitynews.org/the-effects-of-line-length-on-children-and-adults-online-reading-performance/
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006.
Byrne, M. D. (1993). Using icons to find documents: Simplicity is critical. In INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 446–453).
Chen, Y.-L. (2014). A study on student self-efficacy and technology acceptance model within an online task-based learning environment. Journal of Computers, 9(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.4304/jcp.9.1.34-43.
Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A Meta analysis of experimental studies. Human Computer Interaction, 11(2), 125–156.
Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. The American Statistician, 38(4), 261–269.
Corporation, M. (2012). Microsoft manual of style. In Redmond. Washington: Microsoft Press.
Daft, R., Lenfel, R., & Trevino, L. (1986). The relationship among message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information support systems.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Dias, P., Gomes, M. J., & Correia, A. P. (1999). Dissorientation in hypermedia Enviornments: Mechanism to support navigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 93–117.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. In Learning and instruction.
Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001715714.
Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Education Technology Reserach and Development, 42(4), 55–72.
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information of the human motor system in controlling amplitude and movement. Journal of Exprimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.
Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1987). The vocabulary problem in human-system communication : An analysis and a solution. Communications of the ACM, 11, 964.
Grabinger, R. S. (1993). Computer screen designs: Viewer judgments. Educational Technology Research & Development, (35), 41.
Guerra, J., Schunn, C. D., Bull, S., Barria-pineda, J., & Brusilovsky, P. (2018). Navigatio support in complex open learner models: Assessing visual design alternatives. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 24(3), 160–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2018.1482375.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Syracuse, NY: Information Resource Publications, Syracuse University.
Harris, R. L. (2000). Information graphics: A comprehensive illustrated reference. Oxford University Press.
Hartely, J. (1996). Text design. In Handbook of research for eduactional comunications and technology (pp. 795–820).
Hartley, J. (1987). Designing electronic text : The role of print-based research. ECTJ, 35(1), 3–17.
Hartley, J. (2004). Designing instructional and informational text. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 917–947).
Hasan, E. H. R. (2001). Instructional design and media selection. University of Twente. Retrieved from www.tup.utwente.nl/uk/catalogue/educational/media-selection
Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures : A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.
Human N Health. (2013). Effect of different colors on human mind and body. Retrieved December 18, 2014, from https://humanhealth.com/effect-of-different-colors-on-human-mind-and-body/243/.
Jared Spool. (2014). Evolution trumps usability. Retrieved from www.uie.com/Articles/evolution_trumps_usability.htm
Jonassen, D. (1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Journal of Educational Technology.
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26–34.
Khan, M. J., & Mustafa, K. (2018). Modelling adaptive hypermedia instructional system: A framework. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 67(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6819-2.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxnomy of educational objectives: The classification of Eucational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. In International semantic web for elearning workshop at adaptive hypermedia.
Kruk, R. S., & Muter, P. (1984). Reading of continuous text on video screens. Human Factors, 3(26), 339–345.
Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability. In CHI 95 mosaic of creativity (pp. 1–2). USA: Denver, Colorado.
Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., & Nuckles, M. (2018). Does the accuracy matter? Accurate concept map feedback helps students improve the cohesion of their explanations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 2018–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9571-4.
Lash, J. (2002). Persuasive navigation. Retrieved from http://digital-web.com/articles/persuasive_navigation. Accessed 6 Dec 2018
Lee, D., Huh, Y., Lin, C.-Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2018). Technology functions for personalized learning in learner- centered schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1269–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9615-9.
Liu, S., Liao, H., & Pratt, J. A. (2009). Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 52(3), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.002.
Macdonald-ross, M. (1977). How numbers are shown a review of Reserach on the presentation of Quantative data in texts. AV Communication Review, 25(4), 359–409.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-47520200016-6.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Vol. 41, pp. 31–48). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_2.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187.
McFarlane, T., Green, K., & Hoffman, E. (1997). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Technology: Psychometric Evaluation of the Technology Attitude Survey. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Vol. 1997, No. 1)., 3–13. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411279. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Diaply theory. In Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 282–333).
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Morville, P. (1998). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (first). O’Reilly.
Moshagen, M., Musch, J., & Göritz, A. S. (2009). A blessing , not a curse : Experimental evidence for beneficial effects of visual aesthetics on performance. Ergonomics, 52(10), 1311–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903061717, 1320
Ngo, D. C. L., Teo, L. S., & Byrne, J. G. (2000). Formalising guidelines for the design of screen layouts. Displays, 21, 3–15.
Norma, S. P., & Maria, G. W. (1990). The use of color in computer interfaces: Preliminary research. In CMU-ITC. Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh.
Novak, E., Daday, J., & McDaniel, K. (2018). Using a mathematical model of motivation, volition, and performance to examine students e-text learning experiences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1189–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9599-5.
Patil, D. (2012). Dynamically-created landing webpage. India: United States patent application publication.
Quade, A. M. (1993). An assessment of the effectiveness of a hypertext instructional delivery system when compared to a traditional CAI tutorial. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree – Disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113509605.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Pastore, R., Wang, J., & Davis, R. O. (2018). Effects of organizatiinal picture and modality as feedback startegy on learner startegy comprehension and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 11423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9575-0, 1069, 1086
Rogers, B. L., & Chaparro, B. (2003). Breadcrumb navigation : Further investigation of usage. Retrieved from https://usability.bcs.org
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH METHODS. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1021–1043).
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext : Research issues and findings. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 605–620).
Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance , Unity , and focus on recall learning , study time , and completion rate. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 23–42.
Termens, M., Ribera, M., Porras, M., Boldú, M., Sulé, A., & Paris, P. (2009). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines : from 1 . 0 to 2 . 0. In 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (p. 2009). Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/1526709.1526912
Tolhurst, D. (1992). A checklist for evaluating content based hypertext computer software. Journal of Educational Technology.
Trant, J., & Wyman, B. (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve.museum. In Collaborative web tagging workshop at WWW2006 (pp. 1–6). Edinburgh, Scotland.
University of Twente. (2016). Expectancy value theory.Pdf. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht. Accessed 20 Sept 2016
Walz, J. (2001). Reading hypertext: Lower-level process. Candian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.475.
Williams, R. (2004). Non-Designer’s design book. Peachpit press. Berkeley, California, USA. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321534042. Accessed 23 Mar 2016
Yen, J., Tsai, C., & Chen, I. (2010). Exploring the effects of game-based instructional design on 3D animation : A perspective of technology acceptance. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 7(7), 955–964.
Zain, J. M., Tey, M., & Goh, Y. (2007). Does aesthetics of web page Interface matters to mandarin learning ? Journal of Computer Science and Netwrok Security, 7(8), 43–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 Result of reliability - factor analysis and validity – cronbach’s alpha
1.2 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.91
1.2.1 Factor Analysis
Maximum change in communality at each iteration:
1.2.2 Eigenvalues
1.2.3 Eigenvectors
1.2.4 Factor pattern
1.2.5 Graph of factor loadings
1.2.6 Cronbach’s alpha
1.2.7 Correlations between variables and factors
1.2.8 Factor pattern coefficients
1.2.9 Factor scores
Appendix 2
For use in the theory of presentation design, learning behaviour has been classified into the following categories:
-
Covert:
Covert learner behaviour includes listening, reading, observing, meditation, imagining, thinking through, etc.
-
Selective:
Selective learner behaviour includes selection of most appropriate answer from available multiple-choice or making pairs from available alternatives.
-
Constructed:
Writing, drawing, or typing.
-
Interaction:
Having discussion on complex topic with their classmates.
Learning behaviour in Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Domain can be measured through parameters that influence these Domains.
Cognitive domain focuses on intellectual skills and is well suited to the online environment. Parameters that influence cognitive domain include:
-
Comprehension:
It is related to the understanding of complex task. Explanation of complex task is provided in learners’ vocabulary level.
-
Reproduction:
It involves recall or reorganization of information, ideas and principles.
-
Demonstration:
It provides guidelines to complete a task through transfer and use of data and principles.
-
Discrimination:
It develops ability in learner to classify and relate assumptions, hypothesis, evidence or structure of a statement or questions.
-
Modification:
It generates ability in learners to originate, integrate and relate the assumptions, hypothesis, evidence or structure of a statement or question.
-
Summarization:
It involves assessing or appraising of what has been learned.
Cognitive domain is affected by attitude, motivation, willingness to participate and valuing what is being learned. These values termed as affective domain has direct influence on leaner mental state.
Parameters of Affective domain are not as sequential as the cognitive domain but are described as the following:
-
Listening:
Listening and following instructions is critical for understanding. Thus, this parameter is critical in affective domain.
-
Satisfaction:
Satisfaction is directly related to effective learning outcome. Satisfied learners actively participate, attend and react to learning activities thus improves learning achievement.
1.1 Appreciates
Appreciation is outcome of satisfaction. Satisfied learner appreciates learning activity. This attribute has direct effect on learner commitment and internalization of learning activity.
-
Motivation:
Motivation controls learner attitude towards learner behaviour. Motivated learner behaviour is pervasive and consistent and they also cooperate in group activities.
Affective learning encourages learner to set goals for themselves. Next domain is psychomotor domain. Psychomotor domain encourages learner to perform motor activities to a specified level of accuracy, smoothness, rapidity or force. Motor activities are based on cognitive understanding. In the higher education environment psychomotor learning is described as:
-
Sensory Cues:
Sensory cues guide motor activities. Learner detects non-verbal communication cues and interprets it for effective learning outcome.
-
Developing Mindset:
Positive mindset evokes desire to learn a new process. Mindset is related to learner’s affective domain. Mindsets are disposition that predetermines learner response to different situation.
-
Imitation:
Imitation is practicing. Adequacy of performance is achieved by practicing. Imitation involves demonstration and following instructions.
-
Training Proficiency:
This is the intermediate stage in learning a complex skill. Learned responses have become habitual and the movement can be performed with some confidence and proficiency.
-
Maneuver:
The skilful performance of motor acts involves complex movement patterns. Proficiency is indicated by a quick, accurate, and highly coordinated performance, requiring a minimum of energy. This category includes performing without hesitation and automatic performance.
-
Generating Responses:
Modify instructions to generate responses. Instructions must be designed such that it evokes response.
-
Construct Thinking:
Constructs a new theory. Creating new movement patterns to fit a particular situation or specific problem. Thus, construct thinking works on developing a new and comprehensive thinking.
Learning Domain measures learning outcome, hence Instructional Models must follow learning Domain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, M.J., Mustafa, K. Adaptive hypermedia instructional system (AHIS): A model. Educ Inf Technol 24, 3329–3392 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09927-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09927-x