Skip to main content

Adaptive hypermedia instructional system (AHIS): A model

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

$$ AHIS\ Instruction=\frac{1}{a}\left(\frac{0.5\ast {Kcs}_{familiar}+{Kcs}_{new}}{Kcs_{known}+{Kcs}_{familar}+{Kcs}_{new}}+{\int}_{ilo=0}^6\left\{\sum \limits_{j=0}^n\frac{p_j.{m}_j.{e}_j.{n}_j}{c}-{d}_j\right\}\right) $$

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T. (1990). Type of inserted question and the study-posttest delay. The Journal of Experimental Education, 58(2), 77–86.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A Meta analysis of experimental studies. Human Computer Interaction, 11(2), 125–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. The American Statistician, 38(4), 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corporation, M. (2012). Microsoft manual of style. In Redmond. Washington: Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., Lenfel, R., & Trevino, L. (1986). The relationship among message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information support systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. In Learning and instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information of the human motor system in controlling amplitude and movement. Journal of Exprimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2004). Designing instructional and informational text. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 917–947).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruk, R. S., & Muter, P. (1984). Reading of continuous text on video screens. Human Factors, 3(26), 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability. In CHI 95 mosaic of creativity (pp. 1–2). USA: Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngo, D. C. L., Teo, L. S., & Byrne, J. G. (2000). Formalising guidelines for the design of screen layouts. Displays, 21, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norma, S. P., & Maria, G. W. (1990). The use of color in computer interfaces: Preliminary research. In CMU-ITC. Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil, D. (2012). Dynamically-created landing webpage. India: United States patent application publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, B. L., & Chaparro, B. (2003). Breadcrumb navigation : Further investigation of usage. Retrieved from https://usability.bcs.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH METHODS. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1021–1043).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohd Javed Khan.

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

Appendix 1 Variable description
Appendix 1 Data analysis
Appendix 1 Correlation matrix

1.2 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.91

1.2.1 Factor Analysis

Maximum change in communality at each iteration:

Appendix 1 Correlation matrix reproduced

1.2.2 Eigenvalues

Appendix 1 Eigenvalues
Appendix A.
figure 12

Graph for eigenvalues

1.2.3 Eigenvectors

Appendix 1 Eigenvectors

1.2.4 Factor pattern

Appendix 1 Factor pattern

1.2.5 Graph of factor loadings

Appendix A.
figure 13

Factor loading graph

1.2.6 Cronbach’s alpha

Appendix 1 Cronbach alpha

1.2.7 Correlations between variables and factors

Appendix 1 Correlation between variable and factors

1.2.8 Factor pattern coefficients

Appendix 1 Factor pattern coefficients

1.2.9 Factor scores

Appendix 1 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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09927-x

Keywords