Mike Reddy & Ray Kingdon University of Glamorgan Llantwit Road, Pontypridd

Jonathan Bishop

The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow

Masters Dissertation in E-Learning

The potential of persuasive technology in educating heterogeneous user groups

Academic Years: 2002/03 & 2003/04

To My Mother

Authors Forward
The purpose of undertaking this project was so that the author could develop further the ideas that came out of doing his degree dissertation and joint project about developing virtual environments for enhancing real-world communities (see Bishop, 2002a; Bishop & Mannay, 2002). The authors degree dissertation and joint project led him to become interested in the role of technology in improving people lives through providing opportunities for them to change and adapt their behaviour to meet individual and collective goals and it is this desire to discover new ways of using technology to allow people to reach their potential that has directed his current research. This Masters dissertation addresses two key issues; firstly, how technology can be used to encourage individuals to develop specific attitudes and behaviour, and secondly, how technology can be used to allow an increasingly heterogeneous population access education without their individual differences being prejudiced. To address the first issue the author decided to focus on the use of persuasive technologies, which rely on the cooperation of the user to achieve a particular goal or outcome. This builds on his degree work on recommendation 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 system being 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, those that form part of the Net Generation and those that come from bilingual communities. The Net Generation is the group of individuals born between 1977 and 1997 who are enthusiastic towards the principle of persuasion, as they have come to value technology that provides them with choices, meaning they are more likely to accept the technology. Whilst the majority of Internet users do not speak English as their first language, the majority of Websites are designed around the culture of the English language, limiting the persuasiveness of them to bilingual groups, which means that there is scope for improvement in 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 for providing the Learning Styles Questionnaire used in the user experience analysis, the staff and students at Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive School and Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelin for their support in the development of the virtual learning environment as well as all the anonymous reviewers who provided comment and feedback during this project.

Table of Contents
AUTHORS FORWARD.................................................................................................................................. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 THE NET GENERATION ............................................................................................................................. 4 Demographic Data.......................................................................................................................... 4 Knowledge....................................................................................................................................... 5 Skills and capabilities ..................................................................................................................... 5 Interests and Preferences ............................................................................................................... 5 Goals and Plans .............................................................................................................................. 5 E-LEARNING POLICY AND PRACTICE....................................................................................................... 6 Distance Learning........................................................................................................................... 6 The Way Forward ........................................................................................................................... 6 BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE ......................................................................................................... 7 The British Experience.................................................................................................................... 7 The French Experience................................................................................................................... 7 The Spanish Experience.................................................................................................................. 8 PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................................. 9 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION ....................................................................... 10 EDUCATOR-LEARNER INTERACTION................................................................................................. 12 LEARNING THROUGH MEDIATING ARTEFACTS ..................................................................................... 12 LEARNING STYLES ................................................................................................................................. 14 LEARNING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15 Alternative Forms of Assessment ................................................................................................. 15 PERSUADING NET GENERATION LEARNERS ................................................................................... 17 FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSUASION OF THE NET GENERATION .......................................................... 17 Control........................................................................................................................................... 17 Attention Focus ............................................................................................................................. 17 Curiosity ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Surveillance................................................................................................................................... 18 Entertainment................................................................................................................................ 18 Affection......................................................................................................................................... 18 Escape............................................................................................................................................ 19 Social Identity................................................................................................................................ 19 Social Bonding .............................................................................................................................. 19 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN......................................................................................................................... 20 INTERACTION AND PERSUASION IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ............................................................... 20 Persuasion and Mediated Activity Systems.................................................................................. 20
Situated Action Theory...................................................................................................................................21

Persuasion through Artefacts ....................................................................................................... 22

Mantovanis model and learning styles .........................................................................................................24

Increasing the Persuasiveness of Virtual Learning Environments ............................................. 25 EVALUATING QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN VLES ............................................................. 26 User-friendly ................................................................................................................................. 26 Presentation .................................................................................................................................. 27 Engagement................................................................................................................................... 27 Information.................................................................................................................................... 27 Knowledge..................................................................................................................................... 27 Understanding............................................................................................................................... 27 Level .............................................................................................................................................. 28 Type of Learning ........................................................................................................................... 28 Language....................................................................................................................................... 28 Graphics ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Text ................................................................................................................................................ 28 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 29

USER EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 29 Design Issues................................................................................................................................. 29 The Design..................................................................................................................................... 30 DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................... 30 ACCESSIBILITY TESTING ........................................................................................................................ 31 EXPERT EVALUATION............................................................................................................................. 31 USER EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 32 CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................ 32 ATTENTION ............................................................................................................................................. 32 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 33 DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................... 34 PERSUASIVE ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................................. 34 Animated Pedagogical Agent ....................................................................................................... 34 Increasing Flow Through Artefacts ............................................................................................. 35 ADAPTIVE ARCHITECTURE..................................................................................................................... 36 Dynamic Text ................................................................................................................................ 36 Adaptive Learning Levels ............................................................................................................. 37 Special Educational Needs and Cultural Factors ....................................................................... 37
Multilingual Support.......................................................................................................................................37

Learning Style Paradigm.............................................................................................................. 38

Determining Learner Model...........................................................................................................................39

SOCIABILITY ARCHITECTURE................................................................................................................. 40 SUSTAINABILITY ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................................................... 41 Shared Artefacts............................................................................................................................ 41 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................ 42 ACCESSIBILITY TESTING ........................................................................................................................ 42 EXPERT EVALUATION............................................................................................................................. 42 User-friendly ................................................................................................................................. 42 Presentation .................................................................................................................................. 43 Engagement................................................................................................................................... 43 Information.................................................................................................................................... 43 Knowledge..................................................................................................................................... 44 Level .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Type of Learning ........................................................................................................................... 44 Language....................................................................................................................................... 45 Graphics ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Text ................................................................................................................................................ 45 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 46 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..................................................... 47 APPENDIX I INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 48 APPENDIX II DATA FLOW DIAGRAMS.............................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX III ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS ..................................................................... 50 APPENDIX IV SYSTEM COMPONENTS.............................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX V SYSTEM PARAMETERS, ACTION CONTROLS AND FUNCTIONS................... 52 APPENDIX VI CODE FOR KEY APPLICATION FUNCTIONS....................................................... 57 CODE FOR SETTING SYSTEM PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 57 CODE FOR INSERTING VALUES OF SYSTEM PARAMETERS .................................................................... 58 CODE FOR ACTIVATING AGENT FUNCTIONS .......................................................................................... 59 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 60 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 61 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 67

. . . . . . . . . . The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow

The potential of persuasive technology in educating heterogeneous user groups Introduction
It is widely accepted that the introduction of computers in education is challenging the very nature of learning and behaviour (Stephens & Evans, 1973; Cuban, 2003). The proliferation of new media technologies that are allowing widespread access to masses of information is seeing the role of traditional learning environments, such as schools and colleges being reassessed 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 frequently expressed scepticism at ideas that have been presented to them by educators, because whilst they may understand concepts such as molecular structures or a particular theory on how the Earth was formed, they may not necessarily accept the word of the educator if they have already developed contradictory beliefs through other sources (Chinn & Samarapungavan, 2001). Even so, whilst it is accepted that learners should actively question ideas and concepts presented to them by educators (Golden et al., 2002), it is clearly not in the interest of learners 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 persuasive approaches, such as posing stimulating questions, encouraging open discussion and seeking confirmation from learners to ensure that the presented concepts have been accepted. The studies also found that educators need to take into account the social and cultural background of learners, as well as their pervious beliefs and personal goals in order to influence the way they understand and consider ideas and concepts. Indeed, Kragler (1996) argues that it is essential for educators to learn as much as possible about the language, background and cultural experience of learners, suggesting this can be achieved through adopting an approach that encourages learners to work cooperatively and share their experiences.

The Net Generation

Sometimes referred to Generation Y, Baby Boomlets, and the Millennials, the Net Generation (N-Gen) is the term used to describe the group of people born between 1977 and 1997. The culture of this generation is incredibly different from previous generations, whose attitudes were shaped and formed by broadcasted information (e.g. television, autocratic teaching styles) as a result of new media technologies, such as the internet that have provided them 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 for interaction designers as this group is not made up of homogenous individuals with similar interests and attitudes as was the case with previous generations because every subgroup consumes different products and services, with different lifestyles, interests, values and life experiences (Leung, 2003). Current heuristics used by interaction designers to model users of hypermedia systems have five common features; demographic data, knowledge, skills and capabilities, interests and preferences, and goals and plans (Kobsa et al., 2001). Demographic Data Demographic data consists of factors such as age, gender, language and socio-economic status of an individual, which interaction designers use to predict attitudes and behaviour of users and adapt hypermedia systems to meet their needs (Shneiderman, 1998; Badre, 2002). Whilst demographic analysis has proven an effective tool for understanding users of hypermedia systems, traditional techniques fail to take into account the effect of new

technology, particularly in the context of N-Geners (Epstein, 1998; Tapscott, 1998). The expansion of the Internet and other forms of communication has changed the ways in which demographics affect the attitudes and behaviour of individuals towards products and services and has led information architects to reconsider how they develop strategies to form relationships with users. The most obvious demographic affecting how N-Geners interact with hypermedia systems in comparison with other generations is age. Currently being between the ages of 6 and 26, the access to and use of the Internet is varied, due to restrictions and differing needs. Some Internet-based hypermedia systems, such as virtual marketplaces often require a credit card, which limits the age of participation. Gender is another demographic that has formed an important factor in the design of hypermedia systems. Studies into the relationship between gender and use of these systems by X Generation users have consistently demonstrated that they are regarded as being part of the male domain, with females considering them to be detached and the way they are taught in education environments as gender-biased (Durndell et al., 1997; Heimrath & Goulding, 2001). However, studies amongst N-Gen Internet users have found that use of hypermedia systems is higher amongst females, who find they can identify with culture of the Internet and the social opportunities it provides (Kinnes, 1999). Language forms an important part of the identity of N-Geners, and significantly influences the ways in which they relate to their peers and their environment (Gee et al., 2001). In particular, the bilingual N-Gen consumers in the Catalonia region of Spain have received significant attention from marketers in recent years, who have adapted their products to take advantage of the increased consumption rates of bilingual products (Redondo-Belln, 1999). Through adapting their products to the language of consumers, marketers have been able to portray and image of sensitivity towards regional culture and increase consumer affinity towards such products (Dunn, 1976; Hoslow et al., 1994). Knowledge The significant amount of choice available to N-Geners in many aspects of their lives is driving their demand for personalised products that reflect them as individuals. This attitude is changing the relationship between learning and working, with an increasing diffusion between this generations knowledge and personal information into everyday products (Tapscott, 1998). Skills and capabilities Currently being between the ages of 6 and 26, the skills and capabilities of the Net Generation are considerably diverse and this can significantly affect how they interact with hypermedia systems and the extent to which they are able to participate in virtual learning environments. However, despite this diversity in relation to skills and capabilities, N-Geners are increasingly becoming more and more sophisticated and demanding. Whereas past generations may have been satisfied with software that was visually appealing and easy to use, these individuals are demanding systems that demonstrate an understanding of their values and lifestyles and will develop negative attitudes to systems that do not have these attributes (Jordan, 2000). Interests and Preferences The Internet forms an integral part of the lifestyles of many N-Geners, with Internet-based hypermedia systems offering them a number of distinct uses, ranging from escapism to entertainment as well as a source of communication and community (Grant & Waite, 2003). Goals and Plans Recognition of individual goals and plans is seen as an important consideration in the design of hypermedia systems (Shneiderman, 1998; Badre, 2002). Much research into what motivates individuals to use these systems and how this affects how they navigate such environments is based on the presupposition that they always know what they are looking for and have a self-defined goal in mind (Jordan, 2000). Such a belief fails to take account of the exploratory nature of hypermedia systems such as virtual communities, which often encourage users to develop goals as they use the system through meeting certain human needs (Turkle, 1995). In the context of virtual learning environments, the goals, such as outcomes are usually determined by educators, which can restrict the freedom of users to meet 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-based economy (Hodgson, 2002). However, the use of ICT as a teaching aid in European schools is not commonplace, as computers have been used primarily for the purposes of teaching computer packages, allowing learners to complete assignments and accessing the Internet. Even so, this is not a phenomenon confined to Europe alone, even continents where computers are widely accessible, the use of ICT to enhance teaching is not necessarily commonplace. Many mainstream schools in the USA that have significant access to computers still see e-Learning as using commercial productivity applications (such as word processors and spreadsheets) as opposed to software built to aid teaching and improve learning (Cuban, 2001). In the European education establishments where ICT is used effectively, there has been a significant change in the educator-learner relationship. The traditional role of the educator has been to teach through instruction, presenting facts and other information. Educators in classrooms that use computers for learning have seen their role change to that of a facilitator as the technology has provided learners with more autonomy. Distance Learning Distance 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 of educational services through e-Learning systems. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government has committed itself to modernising secondary schools in the region by planning to move away from fixed timetables, and some forms of classroom-based teaching, to more flexible modes that are adapted to the needs of the individual learner and supported by increasing provision of distance learning and computer facilities (DfTE, 2001). The Enterprise College Wales (ECW) distance-learning programme, based at the University of Glamorgan in Wales received 6 million in funding from the European Union under the Objective One initiative. The ECW programme delivers courses focused on developing entrepreneurial skills, leading to management qualifications and provides support for learners via tutors, mentors and online student forums. However, not all higher education providers have shown the same level of support to distance learning as the University of Glamorgan. Indeed, the University of Wales College, Newport stipulated that the new models of teaching delivered by distance learning should only be considered as means 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 are only one element in a learning environment, along with educators, other learners and other media. The Way Forward Despite there being overwhelming political support across Europe for advancing the use of eLearning systems in providing educational services, it is important to assess the educational benefits of this technology before concluding whether it will address the issue of exclusion and improve learning. A case study by Moss et al. (2001) has demonstrated that policies that aim to drive forward a technological solution without effectively considering the needs of learners can lead to situations where decisions are being made for managerial reasons as opposed to adding value to the educational experience.

Bilingual Education

in Europe

Proficiency in more than one language has become essential for learners within the European Union (EU) in order for them to benefit from the occupational and personal opportunities offered by the border-free Single Market. The European Commission has encouraged governments within the EU to support language proficiency within schools in order to allow learners 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 the dominance of the English language in these systems. However, the potential of using bilingual VLEs in schools could be particularly advantageous in the geographical areas with limited language support and could benefit society by making it possible for some school activities to be transferred to the home environment (Baker, 1985). The British Experience Great Britain consists of eleven regions, of which two have nation status and their own regional 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 the introduction of the Welsh Language Act that the recognition of a language other than English became enshrined in UK law. Welsh is the language of the nation-region of Wales, and has formed part of the curriculum in schools in Wales since the Education Act of 1988. Amendments to the Welsh Language Act in 1993 created The Welsh Language Board, which saw an emphasis on bilingualism with more schools and governmental bodies being required to provide materials though the medium of Welsh in addition to English. The formation of the National Assembly for Wales as a result of the Government of Wales Act in 1998 has seen Welsh become a compulsory subject in almost all schools for those aged between five and sixteen within Wales, with over 463,000 learners being taught Welsh between 2001 and 2002. In addition to teaching the Welsh language, more secondary schools in Wales now offer qualifications and examinations through 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 in Scottish schools since the Education (Scotland) Act of 1980. The formation of the Scottish Executive as a result of the Scotland Act of 1998 has led to the language being used far more in primary and secondary schools with bilingual education regarded as a priority by the government (Scottish Executive, 2000). Bilingual education policy in the nine English regions is not as developed as in Wales or Scotland, as there has historically been an attitude by education policy makers to focus on English, regarding modern European languages as unnecessary in a predominantly Englishspeaking world (DfES, 2002). However, there has been a shift in education policy in the English regions as a result of the formation of the National Languages Steering Group in 2001 and the publication of the Language Learning policy document in 2003 by the UK Government. The government has set out to change the attitudes towards second language learning and plans to increase the number of primary and secondary schools offering language courses and to encourage the use of ICT for language development. The French Experience National language policy in France has traditionally been orientated towards providing monolingual education, with the French Constitution requiring the preservation of the language since 1992. Recent changes in second language learning policy by the French Government has seen an increased emphasis towards introducing learners to other European languages at an earlier age in all French regions. Modifications to the curriculum in 2000 has made second language learning compulsory in secondary schools, with the government planning to extend the scheme to all primary schools by 2005.

The Spanish Experience The 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 the Spanish regions, with legislative powers and limited financial controls. Between 1982 and 1986, 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 recent years, leading to the Catalan language becoming an accepted teaching medium at both primary and secondary level. The Catalan Language Act of 1997 requires all broadcast mediums to have at least half of their programmes broadcast in Catalan and the Linguistic Policy Law of 1998 has made it a requirement for all buildings that are accessible to the public, including educational establishments and retail outlets to display signs and other information in Catalan in addition to Spanish (Redondo-Belln, 1998).

Persuasive Communication
The concept of persuasive communication assumes that a learner will maintain a particular belief, 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 the intention of the individual to perform the behaviour in question. Understanding these behaviours and predicting when they occur, means that individuals can be influenced through persuasive communication to increase the likelihood of them carrying out a desired behaviour or adopting a particular attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980). Fogg (1998, 2003) suggests that applying persuasive communication techniques to hypermedia systems can significantly increase the satisfaction level of users. He argues that designing hypermedia systems in this way contrasts significantly with methods that attempt to coerce users into adopting a desired behaviour or attitude by concentrating on fulfilling their needs as opposed focussing on the goals of interaction designers and their clients. Computer Environments
video games palmtops CD-ROM PDAs exercise equipment agents

Goals of Persuasion
behaviour change motivation change in worldview compliance attitude change

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

Foggs 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 role persuasion in the design of technology. However, research into the effectiveness of persuasion in virtual learning environments has been somewhat more limited and inconclusive, with studies comparing the persuasiveness of printed text with traditional hypertext finding that learners find computerised representations of persuasive material to be more 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 of education and the attention focus of learners, they will not necessarily change the knowledge or behaviour of those using them. Their study found that learners were more likely to consider the content of the hypertext node containing the persuasive text more relevant than the additional information in linked nodes, suggesting that learners prefer to avoid the interactive elements, such as hyperlinks and video in order to access the information in a linear manner. Furthermore, Murphy et al (2003) suggest that the emphasis on increasing use of ICT in education will not enhance learning beyond that achievable using printed mediums and indicate that hypermedia systems are more likely to present additional problems that inhibit the level of understanding that a learner can potentially reach. These findings are supported by early research into the use of hypertext systems for presenting information, including Marchionini & Shneiderman (1988), which compared utilising information in hypertext systems to printed media and found that individuals were able to retrieve information significantly faster from the printed material. However, the significance of these findings need to be considered in the context of current research into the design of hypermedia systems as the studies by Long et al. and Murphy et al. only investigated the

persuasiveness of a traditional hypertext document as opposed a hypermedia system that has been optimised to improve the readability of text. A study by Thring et al. (1995) suggests that taking into account the experience of flow in the design of a hypermedia system, which they refer to as global coherence, is essential to increasing the readability and comprehension of hypertext and can facilitate the user in constructing a mental model of the system. They suggest that providing cues on the hypertext structure within nodes and the nodes they are linked to, users are more likely to develop an understanding 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 through providing additional information on the content of nodes through artefacts, such as text or graphical animation. It is possible that even though fluid documents can increase the perception of control and increase the attention focus of users towards the content presented in a hypermedia system, they can potentially reduce the flow experience of a user by diverting their attention from the primary information using familiar artefacts that require them to make additional decisions based on the secondary information presented. Furthermore, the systems that disturb the position of primary information can cause some users to develop a negative attitude towards the system with others finding the varied arrangement 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, it has not fully addressed the findings of Long et al (2001) and Murphy et al. (2003) that a hypertext 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 hypermedia systems have presented the text in a linear format, which has been demonstrated by past studies to be an ineffective means of communicating information in this medium. Indeed, early research into hypertext systems (e.g. Nelson, 1987) emphasise that hypertext systems are non-sequential in nature, and that users take on the role of co-author through selecting the text 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 to rethink 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 benefit the user through increasing engagement and flow, it is quite possible that this may lead to addictive behaviours in some individuals that could have adverse effects on their lifestyles. Young (1996, 1998) indicates that addictive behaviour on the Internet resembles that of pathological gambling, in which the experience of flow in operating the gambling machines persuades these individuals to continue with the activity, despite the cost to them from doing so. Wallace (1999) emphasises that this pathological use of the Internet can have negative effects on the lifestyles of learners, pointing out that spending an excessive amount of time engaging in virtual environments can lead to a reduction in time spent studying, attending classes and is likely to adversely affect their grades. She suggests that the case studies and preliminary surveys in this area provide a basis for further research into its prevalence, symptoms, prognosis and treatment. However, Rheingold (2000) questions the research into pathological Internet use, suggesting that it has been superficial through only investigating the behaviour of a selected population as opposed to a sample that represents a wider spectrum of Internet users. He indicates that the research that has compared this behaviour with gambling addictions has failed to take into account the use of the Internet as a social medium and research tool. In the context of the Net Generation, Lueng (2003) found that if members of this group are suffering from a lack of self-esteem or have little social support, they are likely to develop strategies for using the Internet that will allow them to continue to receive the gratifications of persuasive interfaces. The study suggests that N-Geners with compulsive tendencies are more likely to take part in synchronous activities, such as online games and discussions, but such environments are also likely to encourage individuals that are more reserved to become active 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 will become less susceptible to compulsive use of the Internet due to their familiarity with the medium. Young (1996) and Wallace (1999) indicate that it is mainly those who have little experience of the Internet that are most likely to become compulsive in their use, but the compulsion of this group is likely to be diminished over time as their level of experience increases.

Educator-Learner

Interaction

The relationship between educators and learners in traditional learning environments has seen 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 the human factors that will form part of designing future virtual learning environments. Current methods for facilitating learning in hypermedia systems have been widely based on systematic processes, such as task analysis, in which understanding of learning is broken down into steps or stages, emphasising that in order for learners to complete complex tasks they have to first develop lower-order skills. Indeed, Preece et al. (1994) argue that task analysis is central to designing hypermedia systems as they focus on different aspects of tasks such as the task structure, ease of learning a task and understand the knowledge of the user, which they argue is essential to users carrying out the relevant actions achieve their goals. However, whilst these methods can be beneficial in identifying techniques that enable users to achieve pre-determined tasks (e.g. find out the definition of a word in an online dictionary, or decide which book to buy from an online store), they are often unable to take into account the unique perspectives and cultural values of users, which may not conform to a rigid hierarchal structure, thus limiting the potential of task analysis as a model for designing 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 to achieve their goals through providing interaction designers with concrete yet flexible examples of situations a user may find themselves in.

Learning Through Mediating

Artefacts

Mediating artefacts form a core part of a users experience with a hypermedia system. Consisting primarily of text and graphics, such as hypertext and icons, artefacts are used by users to carry out actions in order to meet their goals. This being the case, interaction designers can design VLEs that use artefacts to persuade learners that adopting specific actions will help them achieve their goals. Such techniques have been used effectively in health education programmes, which have been able to persuade individuals to adopt particular 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 knowledge they have of their meaning and the ability they have to use them. As each user will have had a different history with any particular artefact, a hypermedia system needs to be designed in such a way that the differing interpretations individual users have of artefacts can be taken into account so that the persuasiveness of the system is maintained. Understanding how users solve problems and learn have formed an important aspect of designing VLEs that take into account how factors such as attention, perception, memory and categorisation affect how these subjects interact with hypermedia systems. However, this does not fully explain the relevance of artefacts and other users in decision-making and persuasion (Susi & Ziemke, 2001). Indeed, whilst stimuli-response perspectives of learning have been influential in the development of hypermedia systems that attempt to change the knowledge and behaviour of users of hypermedia systems (e.g. Caldwell & Soat, 1990; Mbakwe & Cunliffe, 2003) many more processes than learning and memory affect the actions of users and the once accepted idea that behaviour can be explained and modified by the 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 and remember in many ways, including through response-transfer (Cahill et al., 2001). The notion of response-transfer, which was first put forward by Vygotsky (1978) in his concept of mediated activity, invalidates the stimuli-response approach to learning through

demonstrating that users of a hypermedia system (referred to as subjects) actively remember through the use of signs and will change their environment using tools in order to modify behaviour. For example, when a user customises their homepage of a VLE to remind them of a plan they want to carry out, they are constructing the process of memorising by forcing an external artefact to remind them of the plan and therefore transferring it into an external activity. Vygotsky developed the mediation model to represent this concept that both tools and signs are mutually linked and at the same time separate from the cultural development of a subject (Figure 2), indicating that the function of a tool is to serve as the conduction of a subjects influence on the Mediated activity object of an activity. In this context, the term object refers to something that can take the form of a plan or idea and is used to motivate the existence of mediated activities (Kuutti, 1996). The model proposes that as mediated activities are externally-orientated, the outcome of the activity must be a change in Sign Tool the object and that the sign, which is internally-orientated, must not change the object of the activity.
Figure 2 Vygotsky's mediation model

Engestrm (1987) adapted Vygotskys mediation model by introducing the concepts of rules, which describe the social norms and conventions of mediated activity, community, which identifies those who share the same object as the subject and division of labour, which refers to the organisation of the community in relation to the transformation from object to outcome. In the case of a learning environment (either virtual or physical), the subject would be either an educator or a learner and the object would be to change the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the learner. The artefacts, which are tools and signs, would be used by educators to transfer knowledge, with the outcome being either persuasion an erroneous action. The community would consist of all subjects who share the same object, including educators, learners and assistants, the division of labour would be the amount of decisionmaking responsibilities for each subject and the rules would determine how activities are structured. Whilst Engestrms model incorporates Vygotskys concept of subjects learning through the use of artefacts, it focuses on the object of the mediated activity, whereas the process of transformation occurs as a result of an externally-orientated action being reconstructed into an internally-orientated one, meaning that the object of an activity system cannot be stable until a subject has reflected on the outcome (Vygotsky, 1978). This is consistent with studies investigating the likelihood of subjects retaining persuasive communications (e.g. Hovland et al., 1954), which have found that subjects are more likely persuaded by artefacts if they are already familiar with the concepts being presented, whereas if detailed knowledge is required, then the persuasiveness of the artefacts is likely to be diminished. These studies have also found that when the social context of persuasive artefacts conflicts with the plans, values and understanding of artefacts that subjects have already 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 of persuasive artefacts, they are more likely to be persuaded to adopt a particular attitude or behaviour.

Learning Styles
Learning styles can play an important role in defining the audience for a virtual learning environment and developing an effective user interface. Through understanding how a user learns (e.g. whether they prefer drill and practice or tutorial systems) a hypermedia system can 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 that take them into account can increase the likelihood that they will want to take part in classroom activities, particularly in the case of male learners (Ofsted, 2003). Current understanding of the styles used by individuals to learn has been heavily influenced by the work of David Kolb (1984) who developed the experiential learning cycle for understanding learners based on them having concrete experiences, reflective observations, abstract conceptualisations and active experimentations. Honey & Mumford (1982) modified Kolbs experiential learning cycle to introduce the notion that an individual has four learning styles of varying strengths that affect their performance at each of the four stages of a learning experience. The emphasis of the Honey & Mumford model is on the individual development of the learner with the learner playing a central role in planning their own learning, making it particularly suited as a model for developing collaborative VLEs. Even so, as the model is based on the principle that learning is a process, where a learner has an experience, reviews the experience, concludes from it and then plans the next steps, it fails to take into account that learners may approach learning from different perspectives in which the order of their learning experience becomes irrelevant to their learning outcomes. However, the Honey & Mumford model does take into account that a learner will have varying strengths of learning styles 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 stage of the cycle and continue on the next.

Stage 1 Having an experience Activist Stage 4 Planning the next steps Pragmatist Stage 3 Concluding from the experience Theorist
Figure 3 Honey & Mumford's adaptation of Kolbs experiential learning cycle

Stage 2 Reviewing the experience Reflector

Learning Assessment
A core part of learning in education establishments is assessment, which often takes the form of matching the current knowledge state of a learner with a rigid curriculum or syllabus and assigning them a grade based on this. Shneiderman (2002) argues that these traditional models of assessing learning emphasise competition, especially where differentiation between learners means not all are in a position to achieve an A Grade. Indeed, a study by Oram (2003) found learners are more likely to perform well in non-competitive learning activities that involve collaboration, especially those that effectively combine creativity and literacy. Shneiderman indicates that by designing experiential learning environments using adaptive hypermedia techniques, learners benefit from increased collaboration and differentiation based on their individual learning styles and talents. Differentiation between learners is often achieved through standardised tests, which usually assess the knowledge retention or intellectual capabilities of learners. However these methods do not always reveal what a learner actually knows or is capable of doing, and can be 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 at standardised tests found that strong Theorists performed better than weak Theorists at multiple-choice tests, with strong Pragmatists have significantly low scores on examinationbased tests. Lynch et al. also found that there was no relationship between learning styles and scenario-based assessments, where the learners are required to discuss how they would respond to specific situations and reflect on past experiences. Alternative Forms of Assessment Honey & Mumford (1992) indicate that through keeping portfolios, which they refer to as learning logs, learners are able to reconstruct their experiences through reflection and improve their learning style profile, suggesting this is a suitable form of assessment for all learning styles. Much research into the use of learning logs has been in relation to workbased learning, but the concept of portfolio assessment has formed a core part of mediated literacy instruction. Wagner & Brook (1996) investigated using learning logs to encourage learners 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 it difficult to express their experiences in words, they improved as they engaged in discussions with their peers and applying what they learned in their own situations. The study concludes that through words and social interaction, keeping learning logs enables learners to move from having spontaneous ideas to developing structured scientific concepts. A potentially effective means of implementing portfolio assessment into virtual learning environments could be in the form of weblogs. Weblogs usually form part of an online hypermedia system, comprising of hyperlinks to articles, news releases, discussions and comments 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 the people that read them better informed about a broader range of opinion and can improve the writing skills of the individuals that author them. Conversely, Talbot (2000, 2001) argues that weblogs will do nothing to encourage greater literacy, because the medium is more about the immediate expression of thought than the construction of meaningful concepts. He indicates 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 to Activists 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 as opposed to facilitating theoretical conceptualisations, suggesting they are less appropriate for Theorists and Reflectors. However, studies by Barclay (1996a, 1996b) found that Theorists and Reflectors are more positive towards using learning logs as a form of assessment, with Activists less likely to continue using them. She suggests that in order for learners to use learning logs effectively, educators need to provided clear guidelines about how to plan and write 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 an audience, offering a number of advantages, including supporting a constructivist approach to learning and assessment, which emphasises the sharing of experiences with others. Indeed, Wagner & Brock (1996) indicate that young learners are motivated by the prospect of seeing the learning logs of their peers and discussing the content with them. However, some learners can often become attached to their learning logs and may not want to share their experiences with others, suggesting that weblogs may not be appropriate for all learners and may require educators to investigate other means of encouraging these individuals to share their experiences. Wagner & Brock suggest that learners who are less keen on sharing their experiences can be encouraged to do so through using photographs of their experiences and discussing these with a more competent adult or peer. Even so, Callahan (1999) warns that using learning logs as a standardised form of assessment can lead to outcomes from other forms of assessment, such as essay-based assignments being adversely affected and the process of reflective writing becoming integrated with instruction to the extent that it becomes the focus of educational activities as opposed to the means to improve learning and understanding. However, she indicates that learning logs encourage learners to develop a multi-draft approach to writing, increasing their ability to reflect on writing processes and generate positive attitudes towards literacy development.

Persuading Net Generation

Learners

Net Generation learners differ significantly from previous generations and are demanding more 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 to interactive 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 relatively unexplored, a ground-breaking study by Leung (2003) has identified key characteristics of NGeners and how these factors influence the way they use the Internet. The study found that this generation use the Internet primarily as a social technology and are motivated by the ability to show affections, establish social bonds and escape. Perceived factors, including pleasure of control and fluidity of identity were identified as some of the gratifications obtained from using the Internet, suggesting these to be key factors in persuading N-Geners online. These findings are consistent with other research into how individuals use the Internet, including Nel et al. (1999), which found that learners considered control, attention focus, curiosity and intrinsic interest to be important factors in their positive experiences of the Internet. Control Creating the perception of control is an important factor in developing persuasive hypermedia systems (Nel et al., 1999; Fogg, 2003) and is core reason why N-Geners regularly engage in online activities, such as gaming and information seeking (Tapscott, 1998; Leung, 2003). However, whilst increased control over a hypermedia system could increase its persuasiveness and engage N-Geners, too much choice can lead to the learner becoming distracted from their learning. Gay (1986) and Hammond (1993) suggest that providing multiplicity of choice without guidance may prevent the learner from asking the correct type of questions during their use of the system and require them to make unnecessary decisions and seek out directional cues. Attention Focus Nel et al. (1999) argue that through creating a state of flow, the attention of an individual can be narrowed to a limited stimulus field within a hypermedia system, meaning that irrelevant thoughts and distractions are likely to be filtered out. A study by Golden et al. (2002) found that whilst N-Geners can become disinterested in educational activities very quickly, educators who adapted their lessons towards individual needs and abilities led to their attention being maintained for longer. Golden et al. suggest that providing activities that are relevant to the interests and needs of learners and ensuring that these are short and varied is more likely to engage N-Geners with their learning. This view is supported by Tapscott (1998), who argues that past research that investigated why NGen learners have a limited attention span have been incorrectly based on assumptions that do not take into account the multitasking abilities of this new generation. He suggests that through their use of digital media, N-Geners have become able to ignore sources of information they deem inappropriate and concentrate on the information they feel essential to meet their needs and goals. Curiosity The curiosity of individuals can be increased through experiencing novel situations, increasing their desire to explore an idea or concept further. Internet users gain excitement and pleasure from seeking out new information and incorporating elements of novelty into hypermedia systems can increase the experience of flow and satisfaction in these individuals (Huang, 2003). However, curiosity can also be increased through interrupting the state of flow and diverting a learners attention focus using artefacts that they associate with the concepts 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 persuade learners to modify their goals to explore ideas or concepts other than what they had originally planned, through creating the perception that other opportunities are available within the VLE (Fencott et al., 2003). It is sometimes the case that interaction designers that design VLEs to stimulate the curiosity of the learner to explore and experiment with new concepts can focus too narrowly on typical user tasks as opposed to facilitating the needs of learners to accomplish something meaningful (Davis & Wiedenbeck, 1998). Indeed, whilst the exploratory nature of these environments can provide learners with a high degree of curiosity and confidence, they may cause frustration in learners who are more passive and less confident (Conati, 2001). Surveillance Studies have revealed that a significant proportion of N-Geners use the Internet to seek out information and contribute to virtual communities (Grant & Waite, 2003; Leung, 2003). Whilst these studies have established the reasons why N-Geners use the Internet for seeking information as well as the approaches they take, few have indicated the persuasiveness of online material to this group and what factors influence their perception of the quality of online information. However, a study by Lorenzen (2001), which investigated a small group of 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 resources influenced N-Geners perceptions of an online resource. The study found that learners would perceive a website to have greater credibility if it had a bibliography and was indexed in popular search engines, with those websites that looked professionally designed being considered more reliable sources of information. Entertainment Individuals do not limit their use of the Internet to completing tasks, but also for their own enjoyment and pleasure (Webster et al., 1993; Nel et al., 1999), suggesting that interaction designers should consider taking this aspect of the user experience into account when designing VLEs. However, a limited study by Scanlon & Buckingham (2003), which investigated examples of VLEs combining education and entertainment, found that these environments are often lacking in content related to the National Curriculum used by education providers and are overly commercialised. Even so, Scanlon & Buckingham overlook the persuasive potential of VLEs rich in entertainment content, such as the Cadbury Learning Zone, which attempts to combine artefacts, such as animations with text to teach principles of mathematics, history and the environment using chocolate-related metaphors. Environments such as the Cadbury Learning Zone demonstrate that the use of animations and entertainment techniques can increase the persuasiveness of a system, suggesting that these techniques could be beneficial in VLEs. However, Fogg (2003) raises concerns over using persuasive communication to target children, indicating that this group could be particularly vulnerable to persuasive techniques that influence them to develop positive attitudes toward purchasing particular products and particular values. This is supported by Tapscott (1998), who recognises that hypermedia systems that use cartoon characters or other entertainment techniques to persuade N-Geners to adopt a particular attitude pose significant ethical questions, particularly where persuasive advertising is integrated with educational content. However, he argues that N-Geners are likely to become less susceptible to such marketing techniques and are more likely to be sceptical towards methods that they feel inappropriate or that attempt to exploit them. Affection The Net Generation are emotionally open and will seek out Internet services that allow the to express themselves freely, suggesting that a VLE that encourages users to express their feelings 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 is unlikely 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 concept of self-esteem and may even negatively affect them.

Escape The Net Generation view the Internet as a solution to occasional boredom and a window of escapism in which they can lose themselves in a virtual world and communicate with friends and family as a way to escape from feelings of loneliness and maintain social networks (Grant & Waite, 2003). Social Identity The influence of accepted social context in the construction of the identity of N-Geners is becoming less relevant as the social rules that formed part of traditional communities, such as family and school are being challenged by this new generation, with this process being accelerated 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 the development of the identity of this generation, as hypermedia systems that take into account socio-cultural factors in the design of hypermedia systems, through including artefacts that provide subtle cultural and contextual cues can be an effective means of motivating collaboration, the negotiation of power and the exploration of identity (Raybourn et al., 2003) Social Bonding The Net Generation perceives the Internet as a social technology and will seek out services that provide them with the opportunity to share ideas and communicate freely (Tapscott, 1998; Leung, 2003). Virtual communities such as Friendster, which use a circle of friends metaphor (see Bishop, 2002a; Powell, 2002) have become popular with N-Geners, who use this technology to build networks of friends with whom they share common interests (Damazo, 2003).
Figure 4 Friendster.com

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

Instructional

Design

Goodman & Goodman (1990) indicate that current forms of instruction that attempt to support 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 the educator as an expert imparting knowledge and discipline, causes the learner to become dependent 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 the educator as a credible expert, which can sometimes be challenged if the learner has heard a contradicting message from a source they deem more credible. They emphasise that the key differences between traditional instruction and persuasive instruction are the expectations or anticipations that effect the likelihood the learner will accept or reject the communication. These expectations are even more apparent in hypermedia systems where learners are more likely 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, traditional design methods have been based on the assumption that individuals see these systems as tools for completing planned tasks and therefore the aim of interaction designers should be to allow users to complete tasks with a reasonable degree of efficiency and within acceptable levels of comfort (Preece et al., 1994). These models have failed to take into account factors relating to how the needs and attitudes of individuals affect how they interact with hypermedia systems through concentrating solely on their cognitive and physical characteristics (Jordan, 2000). Even so, a computer that is designed as a tool or instrument often increases the capabilities of individuals, and thus reduces barriers, increases selfefficacy, enables better decision making and changes mental models. Through focusing on the needs of individuals, by understanding whether they are using technology as a tool to increase their capabilities, a medium to provide experiences, or as a social actor to create relationships, interaction designers will be able to increase the persuasive effectiveness of a hypermedia system (Fogg, 1998, 2003) Persuasion and Mediated Activity Systems Fogg (2003) developed the functional triad as a conceptual model to illustrate the different roles that technology can play in persuading individuals to assist interaction designers in thinking about computing from the perspective of Tools the user (mediated activity systems. Figure 5). The model fails to take into account many of the factors that explain how users interact with pocket calculator persuasive technology, including the level at which they control the interaction and the role of nonmediated social actors during persuasion. telewebHowever, combining the concepts of the functional robotics agents triad with Foggs model of computers as persuasive technologies (Figure 1) suggests that persuasion is the result of a transformation (e.g. of attitudes or virtual reality virtual system pet beliefs) by a subject using tools, which form the components of mediated activity systems. Social Actors Medium
Figure 5 Fogg's Functional Triad

Mediating Artefacts

Subject

Object

Outcome

Rules

Community

Division of Labour

Engestrms adaptation of Vygotskys mediation model (Figure 6) describes a mediated activity system as consisting of various artefacts, such as signs that are directed by a subject to achieve an outcome. It stipulates that the behaviour of these individuals should be considered in the context of units of activity as opposed to the actions of individuals through examining the collective mediated behaviour directed towards an outcome.

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

Engestrms model appears to support the concept of persuasion in which all subjects need to want to be persuaded in order for it to occur, as an important aspect of the stability of an activity system is that the subject and community share the same object to achieve the same outcome (Engestrm, 1993; Kuutti, 1996; Thorne, 2000). However, the model fails to explain the concept of persuasion being used to change an object (e.g. convincing a learner to learn something other that what they planned to) whilst they are within a situation. Whilst activity theory acknowledges that objects can change during an activity, it stipulates that they can not change on a moment-by-moment basis (Nardi, 1996), which fails to take into account the conflicting and spontaneously changing needs and goals of subjects in heterogeneous environments, particularly in the context of Net Generation learners who are capable of multitasking 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 open multiple instant message (IM) windows, with more than one object (e.g. to share and experience with one person and illicit information from another), which can be influenced and changed through interaction with their environment, meaning the object of interacting with 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 the object of interacting with another subject). In this example, the subject (referred to as Anoki) had planned to share an experience with one 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 both Aulani and Yoshi. In the context of a one-to-one IM system (a mediating artefact), Anoki is part of two activity systems (Anoki/Aulani are part of activity system A/A and Anoki/Yoshi are part of A/Y) at the same time in which the communities are made up of two subjects who both determine the rules and the division of labour. When Anoki received the information from Aulani, he was forced to change his plan, now he had achieved the outcome of A/Y through his actions in A/A. Anoki would now have to decide whether to terminate his participation in A/Y, whether to continue meeting the object of A/A or 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 Anoki and Aulani would have to redefine their rules and division of labour and change the object to decide whether Yoshi should form part of the activity system and what the new shared object should be. Situated Action Theory The above example clearly demonstrates the limitations of activity theory in the content of HCI, as is also clear in the viewpoint taken by Nardi (1996) who in an attempt to understand how situations relate to an environment assumes that they are shared by subjects as opposed to individually constructed by them, arguing that all subjects in an activity system are part of the same situation. However, the concept of a subject planning to use specific artefacts to achieve 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 to their goals and individual competencies (Mantovani, 1996a). The concept of plans changing as a result of participation in a situation is supported in a recent study by Bor Ng (2002), who found that when a subject is engaged in a state of flow within a hypermedia system, they do not carry out their planned actions and respond based on situational factors. Indeed, Suchman (1987) and Lave (1988) take the view that far from being the means with which a subject achieves their goals, plans are resources for situated actions, which the subject can call upon when they are in a suitable situation. He indicates that when reflecting on an experience, subjects can convince themselves that they have followed a rational plan, but this emphasises the approach individuals take to reflection as opposed 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 messaging software and language) and carry out the same activity (sending messages) they are part of the same situation with different objects that have lead to the creation of a situation (e.g. the discovery of a piece of information) through carrying out plans to achieve them as opposed to being reconstructed as a result of them. However, Anoki had no intention of receiving the information from Aulani even though this was a goal of his during his interaction with both Aulani and Yoshi. The discovery occurred as result of having been part of the situation and not 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 to construct a rational account of the situation that was transparent to them during situated action, and then use this to reassess their goals and needs, before seeking out opportunities to meet these new requirements, resembling experiential learning models. Indeed, Mumford (1994) describes the reconstruction of a situated action as a retrospective approach to learning, whereby subjects acquire knowledge, skills and beliefs through reviewing and concluding on an experience. The planned approach to learning, which Mumford refers to as a prospective approach involves all the aspects of the retrospective approach, but requires the subject to plan to learn before an experience takes place. Whilst at first this appears to support the activity approach of planned action, Mumford points out that when a subject seeks out learning opportunities, the situation that develops is likely to be different from what the subject had planned. However, he stresses that through thinking about the potential learning opportunities offered in an environment, the subject is more likely to meet some of their 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 in the context of learning, Schlesinger (1996) argues that the model over simplifies the learning process. He indicates that as the model is sequential, it does not take into account all aspects of situated action, suggesting that this model treats experience as a concrete behaviour, overlooking the concept of experience being the result of situated action. However, the experiential learning model emphasises a transactional relationship between the subject and their environment, in which a change in knowledge or attitude occurs as a result of the subject interpreting the current situation in the context of their objective and subjective experiences (Kolb, 1984). Persuasion through Artefacts The concept of subjects constructing situations based on their current state is echoed by Mantovani (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 the opportunities in every day situations to develop goals in order to achieve these goals through interacting with their environment using artefacts. Mantovani argues that social actors move on their own initiative in these environments, pursuing autonomously defined interests and goals independent of other social actors. He proposes that actors construct situations according to their competencies, reducing their field of attention to the aspects of a situation that are within their capabilities and can be managed in order to meet their interests.

actors

selection goals/needs interpretation situations opportunities interaction environment

Figure 7 Mantovanis model for understanding interaction in a virtual environment

Mantovani (1996) proposed a three-level model of social context to describe how subjects form social context (level 1 as Figure 7), in order to provide the elements that allow situations to be interpreted (level 2), leading to the formation of goals that are mediated through the use of artefacts (level 3). Whilst this model has received very little attention from proponents of activity theory models, it shares many of the concepts in the Vygotsky model of mediated activity, perhaps more closely than the models that have attempted to improve on Vygotsky. Through focusing on the actions of subjects on artefacts and not the object of their actions, Mantovani argues that subjects, which he refers to as social actors, move on their own initiative within environments, pursuing self-defined interests and goals independent of other social actors. He proposes that these actors construct situations according to their competencies, reducing their field of attention to the aspects of a situation that are within their capabilities and can be managed in order to meet their interests. Trepess & Stockman (1999) extended Mantovanis model to take account of how the plans of an actor change during their interaction with an environment as a result of conflicts, which they suggest should be classified as; social conflicts, which occur at level 1; planning conflicts, 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), planning conflicts occur when the plan of one actor is incompatible with the plans of another, and situation 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 an environment (level 3), changing the state of artefacts subsequently affects the other two levels, reinforcing the importance of social context in understanding the role of artefacts on the actions and behaviour of actors. The model proposes that an erroneous action can have either single-user consequences (SUCs) or multiple user consequences (MUCs), depending on whether or not the artefact and its meaning are shared. SUCs occur when the actor makes an erroneous action that has no affect on other actors, such the deletion of a file that only they have access to. Perhaps the most common erroneous action that leads to a MUC is conflicting interpretations of the social context of a textual artefact in conversations, either computer-mediated or otherwise. For example, a customer returning a wrist watch that she believes to be counterfeit to an online jewellery store might write, I dont want this, I want the real thing and would expect to be given the genuine artefact. However, if the online store had not accounted for the context of the situation, they might return a can of a popular cola, because they associated her request with the artefact, The Real Thing, which is used by the cola company to persuade people to buy their brand. Both MUCs and SUCs result in the actor having to change or divert from their initial goals and plans in order to recover from their mistake, although the consequences of their actions are unlikely to become apparent until 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, are common in those actors with social impairments, who when constructing a situation, will often 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 not appreciating the context of the situation (Attwood, 2000). It would be unlikely that these actors could be persuaded to take a particular action through artefacts such as images of happy people on a poster selling loans, as whilst they are capable of accumulating vast amounts of textual artefacts (e.g. the interest rate or name of the loan provider), they are often unable to adapt these to different social contexts. Despite not being able to appreciate social context of artefacts, socially impaired actors can be easily persuaded to carry out actions that will not help them achieve their goals through deceptive use of textual artefacts, which may lead to unintended consequences (Baron-Cohen, 2001). However, textual artefacts can also be used to help these actors achieve their goals, as demonstrated in a study by Bishop (2003), which investigated using mobile phones to display translations of artefacts that require an appreciation of social context, including idioms, on to the screen of the phone in the form of literal text. The study found that socially impaired actors were more able understand the context of the situation and felt more willing to participate, clearly demonstrating that artefacts can be used to persuade actors to carry out particular actions and influence their goals through changing the way they interpret situations. Difficulty in understanding the social context of artefacts is not something that is unique to socially impaired actors, as those who are new to a virtual environment may have difficulties in 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 in persuading actors to take part in mediated activities, such as chat rooms and discussion groups with other actors who shared common interests, found that through using artefacts that represent the culture and values of the community, actors were more likely to adapt and participate in the environment and more willing to express themselves through artefacts, thus influencing the culture and practices of the community. Mantovanis model and learning styles Mantovani indicates that actors who do not have the capabilities to conceptualise a situation may overlook the available opportunities because they are unable to competently take part in those activities. In the context of the Honey & Mumford learning styles, Mantovanis model suggests that actors will select opportunities suited to their strongest learning styles and avoid those that require their low preference learning styles, limiting what they can learn from the situation. However, Mantovani points out that the degree to which an actor limits their attention focus is heavily motivated by their goals and interests, indicating that the more interests an actor has, the more likely it is opportunities in the environment will become apparent to them. He emphasises that these interests are often disordered and as environments tend to be unstable, actors are required to respond to situational factors through making unwanted and unplanned actions in order for them to achieve their goals. This suggests 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 structured approach to learning in order to reach their goals, even if there are no opportunities in the environment that make use of their Activist abilities. A VLE designed on Mantovanis model may be able to persuade learners to develop their weaker 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 their learning 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 by the educator, increasing the likelihood that a learner will find it acceptable to persevere with a VLE not optimised for their strongest learning styles. When learners access a VLE from a remote location such as their home, the goals for using the system are more likely to be selfdetermined and involve greater exploration of ideas and concepts (Kennewell, 2003). However, whilst this suggests that VLEs using an experiential approach is beneficial, it is possible that learners are unlikely to benefit significantly from it unless they are encouraged to reflect on what they have experienced. This suggests that learners with a very low preference for the Reflector learning style will be at a particular disadvantage if they are not given the right amount of learning support, particularly as home environments do not always offer the sociocultural opportunities of the classroom environments that enable learners to discuss their experiences with others. Increasing the Persuasiveness of Virtual Learning Environments The use of persuasive communication in the design of virtual learning environments has been somewhat limited, particularly because of problems with making digital artefacts as persuasive 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, where persuasive artefacts have been used in VLEs to successfully change attitudes and encourage specific 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 individuals who wanted to cease smoking, which they were able to access at a time and place of their choosing. The VLE required smokers to provide information on their current attitudes and behaviours, including how soon they expected to quit smoking, and used artefacts in the form of text and graphics to provide assistive information in order to persuade them to adopt positive attitudes and actions toward quitting smoking. The study found that the smokers that believed 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 too frequently and the system did not change with them, emphasising the importance of ensuring that presented artefacts are relevant to the current goals and attitudes of the actor in the situation they have constructed. Existing research into adapting VLEs based on learning styles have been based on optimising these hypermedia systems for the strongest learning styles of a learner, as opposed to providing support to persuade them to develop their weaker learning styles. A study by Clibbon (1995) investigated the effect presenting instructional material through different mediums had on the learning outcomes of learners and how they varied between learning style groups and found that a relationships exists between the instructional method and the learning outcomes of these groups. It found that Theorists learned least from traditional hypertext systems and most from adaptive hypermedia systems and lectures. This validates the initial research of Honey & Mumford (1982), which found that Theorists benefit from environments where they are presented with alternatives and are able to ask questions. However, Theorists also benefit from environments where artefacts are accessible in a structured manner with a clear purpose, a feature common in traditional hypertext environments. This finding suggests that Theorists may approach hypermedia systems differently to traditional environments or that the hypertext system used in the study did not effectively present the information.

Pragmatists learned the most from the AHS, which presents information in the most appropriate way to learners. This could be because Pragmatists achieve more in environments where they are shown material they feel is relevant to them as concisely as possible (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Figure 9 shows that the learners who used an Adaptive Hypermedia System performed as well as those who took part in lectures, suggesting that VLEs can be as effective as traditional methods at delivering learning if they are designed to meet the needs of the individual learner. Whilst only investigating the effect of the strongest learning style of a learner, Clibbons study clearly demonstrates the potential of VLEs in providing personalised instruction based on the learning style profile of the learner.

22 20 18 16 14 12 10

Lecture Adaptive Hypermedia Traditional Hypertext

Activist

Reflector

Theorist

Pragmatist

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 learning environment; user-friendly, presentation, graphics, engagement, information, knowledge, understanding, level, type of learning, language and text. User-friendly Sambrook (2001) argues that a VLE can be considered user-friendly from the point of view of a learner if it is easy to use and has clear instructions. However, this is only a limited definition of a term that is widely open to subjective judgments. Shneiderman (1998) suggests eight heuristics for designing and evaluating user-friendly interfaces; strive for consistency, enable frequent users to use shortcuts, offer informative feedback, design dialogues to yield closure, offer error prevention and simple error handling, permit easy reversal 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 action performed by a user should be the same in similar situations. For example, menus, prompts and nodes should use the same terminology, and layout, colours and styles should be consistent so that the user can become engaged in a state of flow and not be required to adjust to the differing design of individual nodes. Achieving consistency can particularly difficult in heterogeneous environments as users construct situations differently, and therefore some may find 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 reducing the number of interactions a user has to make by giving them opportunity to use special keys or commands to achieve a task quicker. Offering informative feedback for each situated action is essential to ensuring the user knows that their action has been successful. For situated actions that occur often, the feedback should be minimal so not to interfere with the sate of flow, whereas less frequent situated actions should have more visible feedback.

Designing dialogs to yield closure involves providing users with feedback when they have achieve their goal and providing them with information on other opportunities available. Offering error prevention and simple error handling involves ensuring that when a user makes an error it is recognised by the system and users are provided with simple and constructive information for recovery. Permitting easy reversal of actions means that systems should be design so that users can counter erroneous actions so that they are encouraged to explore the system without anxieties. Supporting locus of control, as explained in detail in a previous section (see p17), is essential to making the user feel they are in control of the system, meaning that unnecessary distractions that interfere with the state of flow should be avoided. Reducing what Shneiderman terms short-term memory load, involves keeping displays simple and consolidating multiple nodes so that users are not require to remember something 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 more effective, Eisenberg (2001) argues that taking into account other factors that influence the persuasiveness of the system is also essential. He indicates that users of hypermedia systems need to be guided, encouraged, influenced and motivated to carry out particular actions, not simply put in a position where they can carry out actions in the most effective way. Presentation Sambrook (2001) found that users believe that the presentation of information in a VLE is effective 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 key component of a hypermedia system, they should be both visually appealing and structured in an organised way. Engagement Sambrook (2001) argues that the level of engagement in a VLE is affected by whether it generates 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 virtual environment they will be required to learn the meanings of artefacts beyond their personal understanding 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 an interaction designer, who should consider designing systems with barriers to entry, in order to increase the curiosity and sense of community of users (Powazak, 2002). Information Sambrook (2001) indicates that the amount and quality of information in a VLE and whether there is too little or too much can significantly affect how learners interact with these environments. Knowledge The extent to which learners gain new knowledge using a VLE can affect how they perceive these environments (Sambrook, 2001). Indeed, as explained in a previous section (p5), this is particularly true of N-Gen learners who have diverse skills and abilities. It is therefore important for interaction designers to familiarise themselves with the knowledge and experience of users through developing conceptual models and metaphors of the user interface consistent with the needs and goals of users and their use of artefacts in everyday situations (Badre, 2002). Understanding The extent to which learners are able to understand the material presented to them in a VLE significantly affects how they view such environments (Sambrook, 2001), as research reviewed in previous sections indicates (p15, pp20-25). However, in addition to measuring the level of understanding a learner has of instructional material, educators need gather information on the degree to which a learner believes what they have learned. Traditional measures that assess the change in knowledge of a learner fail to take into account that learners 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 to contrast 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 assist learners in appreciating the value of understanding theories on their own terms, without making pre-emptive judgements about what they should believe. Chinn & Samarapungavan also indicate that whilst experiential learning can allow learners develop their own conceptions strictly through exploration or guided discovery, it is important that explanations of fact are also provided. This ensures that learners take into account evidence other that what they themselves have witnessed, meaning they are more likely to be persuaded through having an accurate understand of the target theory. Level The extent to which learners find the material in a VLE to be too basic or too steep for their current 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 the level of experience a user has with a hypermedia system and should adapt the amount of information the user receives based on their capabilities (Badre, 1982, 2002). Type of Learning The type of learning model used in a VLE can effect the extent to which learners are able to retain 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. Language Sambrook (2001) indicates that the way in which language is used in a VLE, in particular whether it is difficult to read, uses jargon or lacks definitions affects how satisfied learners are with these systems. This is even more so the case with N-Gen learners, as their diverse backgrounds 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 most new media involves the use of text, requiring them to develop a greater understanding of the social context of words, beyond that which is required in broadcast mediums, such as the television (Tapscott, 1998). Graphics Sambrook (2001) argues that the number and quality of graphical artefacts in a VLE significantly effects how learners perceive these environments. The selection of graphics should involve considering their cultural meaning, as artefacts may mean something positive in one culture and something negative in another (Rieber, 1994). Furthermore, as identified in an earlier section (see page 22), the meaning of artefacts is not always determined by mass culture, but is dependent on how it has been interpreted by the individual learner. This suggests that whilst graphics can be persuasive and enhance learning, they can also have negative effects if cultural factors are not taken into account. Text Sambrook (2001) indicates that the amount of text used and how this is balanced with graphics 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 do not necessarily follow a particular sequence or systematic process, but change as the result of continuous evaluation. The elements of the lifecycle are not ordered or connected is a sequence, meaning that interaction designers can theoretically start with almost any development activity and move onto any other one. Figure 10 is a modified version of Hix & Hartsons lifecycle, based on previous usage as a model for rapid application development (Bishop, 2002a; Bishop & Mannay, 2002) and the specific requirements of this project outlined below.

User experience analysis

Delivery Evaluate

Selecting technology and planning learning

Refining and testing learning

Designing, implementing and testing prototypes

Figure 10 Adaptation of Hix & Hartsons Star Lifecycle for Interaction Development

User Experience

Analysis

The process of analysing the user experience involves understanding every aspect of a hypermedia system and ensuring that every experience a user has with the system is the result of conscious design on the part of the interaction designer. He indicates that through looking at a system in its component parts and from different perspectives it can be made to provide 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 learn and 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 & Mumford learning styles and the characteristics of Net Generation learners, as identified by Tapscott (1998) and Leung (2003). Design Issues Existing studies that have attempted to draw correlations between learning styles and other attributes (e.g. Clibbon, 1995; Papanikolaou, 2002) have compared the strongest learning style of a learner with a dependent variable. This approach has limitations, in that a learner is not either an Activist or Theorist for example, but has varying strengths in each of the four learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Taking into account that a learner has four approaches to learning, with varying preferences for each, it is difficult to attribute the value of a dependent variable to any one learning style. In order to develop a more accurate understanding of the relationship between the learning preferences of a learner and a dependent variable, such as attitude, the effect of all independent variables need to be taken into account.

This could be achieved by measuring the attitude of a learner to a VLE optimised for one particular learning style, comparing the strength of their learning style with the strength of the attitude towards the VLE and carrying out the same process for a VLE optimised for their other learning style preferences. The advantage of such a design is that confounding variables, such as gender and level of Internet use are controllable, but this method also introduces further confounding variables in the form of order, demand and practice effects. In this case, the participant would have to use four different VLEs and complete four questionnaires to determine their attitude towards individual attributes of each VLE. The order effects could be eliminated through counterbalancing, in which the order in which participants use each VLE is changed, so that one group assesses the Activist-optimised VLE first and the one optimised for Pragmatists last, with the other group completing it in the opposite order. Reducing the effect of practice in this study is somewhat more difficult, even after counterbalancing, as the participant would have to complete the thirty-item questionnaire four times to determine their attitudes for each VLE. The demand and practice effects could be overcome through having four separate groups assessing a VLE optimised for each learning style. However, this would recreate the problems with the past studies in which only VLEs adapted to the strongest learning styles were evaluated and would introduce further confounding variables, such as the quality of the hypertext design and appropriateness of the adapted learning material. The Design To overcome these problems, the study identifies the strength of all four learning styles of participants using the Learning Style Questionnaire of Honey & Mumford (1992) and compares these with their attitudes towards the factors that can affect the persuasiveness of the Internet as identified in a previous section (see page 17 above) using a multiattributal design 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; and refine and test learning is based on the lifecycle for designing effective learning environment developed by Weller (2002). This model was chosen because it presents the factors that should be taken into account for all aspects of the VLE and integrates effectively with the model of social context of Montovani (1996a), through showing the elements most likely to persuade actors (i.e. learners, peers, educators) to interact with their environments using artefacts and constructing symbolic order using technology.
Learner Sense of accomplishment Quality of outcome Satisfaction with the process Ability to work at own pace Sense of self-expression Using Technology Problem Solve Manage Conflict Develop Norms Process Information Together Communicate with One Another Connect Peers Collaboration Teamwork Sense of wellbeing and support Reflection Reduced isolation

Educator 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

Technology Communication and task completion Unrestricted communication Transparency and ease of use Tasks A common sense of purpose Source of motivation to participate Source of collaboration

Figure 11 Wellers lifecycle for designing effective virtual learning environments

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 factors identified by Sambrook (2001) as discussed above (p26) to determine the effectiveness of the VLE. Whilst using experts are able to identify many common problems with the design and development of VLEs, Shneiderman (1998) warns that the problem conducting this type of evaluation is that the experts may not have an adequate understanding of the domain or user experience, indicating that interaction designers should ensure they choose experts that are knowledgeable and familiar with the situation. He stresses the importance of putting experts in 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 based on their goals and competencies, making this difficult to achieve with experts, as by their very nature, they are not representative of the target group and would therefore find it difficult to construct a situation from their perspective.

User Experience

Analysis

This section presents the results of the User Experience Analysis, outlined on page 29. The 30-item questionnaire is made up of ten factors, each tested three times. The purpose of the correlation 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 a probability of 0.3% that this result was due to sampling error, suggesting the relationship is very significant. Comparing Control1 with Control2 (r=0.177, p=0.08) shows a weak relationship, with 3.13% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of 8% that this was 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 of Control1 compared with Control2 and Control2 compared with Control3 shows that it is very likely these results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chance the result was due to other factors. Control1 Control2 Control3
Control1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1.00 . 100 0.177 0.080 99 0.295 0.003 99 0.177 0.08 99 1.00 . 99 0.012 0.9070 99 0.295 0.003 99 0.012 0.907 99 1.00 . 99

Control2

Control3

Table 1 Correlation Matrix for 'control' attribute

Attention
Correlation analysis of the control variable (Table 1) shows that Attention2 and Attention3 (r=0.367, p < 0.001) are strongly related, with 13.47% of the variance being accounted 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 accounted for and a probability of 0.85% that this was a result of sampling error. Comparing Attention1 with Attention3 (r=0.091, p=0.370) shows that there is no relationship between these two variables. The significance levels of Attention1 compared with Attention2 and Attention1 compared with Attention3 shows that it is very likely these results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chance the result was due to other factors. Attention1 Attention2 Attention3
Attention1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1.00 . 100 .020 .847 99 .091 .370 99 .020 .847 99 1.00 . 99 .367 .000 99 .091 .370 99 .367 .000 99 1.00 . 99

Attention2

Attention3

Table 2 Correlation matrix for 'attention' attribute

Summary
It is possible that the ambiguous results obtained could be partly down to the wording of the questions used in the survey were not understood by the participants. The importance of the wording of questions is seen as essential to ensuring that participants in a study are able to clearly understand what is required of them. These individuals may not be able to understand complex terminology and that educational and cultural background need to be taken into account so that the questions can be understood by the particular sample group (Oppenheim, 1992). Indeed, some individuals with social impairments are unable understand the meanings behind common phrases or idioms (Bishop, 2003), suggesting it is important that the background of participants is properly considered. The Honey & Mumford (1992) questionnaire contained several idioms, including dot the is and cross the ts, analysis to paralysis and here and now activities, which could have caused difficulties for individuals without a cultural understanding of these phrases. The questions used to identify the attitudes of 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 this study, as statements such as I am able to control the interaction and I contribute to a pool of information may not be understood by Year 10 (aged 14-15) learners, particularly if they take a literal understanding of the statements. All the questions used in the study had been independently validated by their respective authors, but as they had only been tested on adult learners, it is possible that the questions had been targeted to this age group and are therefore not necessarily appropriate for younger learners.

Design & Development

The preceding sections have identified that persuasive virtual learning environments have the potential to meet the educational needs and goals of the Net Generation and bilingual communities. This section outlines the design of the virtual learning environment and how it fits within the existing educational environment. The conceptual model presented in Figure 12 is based on the view that the classroom of tomorrow will not simply consist of educators and learners or indeed only hard-wired personal computers, but will be accessible at a distance through many forms of new media, including mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and interactive television (iTV).

Educators PC Distance Learners Mobile Device

Distance Learners PC

Classroom Learners PCs

Figure 12 The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow

In order to make such an environment suitable to the Net Generation learners in a bilingual environment, 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 Agent The purpose of the Animated Pedagogical Agent (APA) is to provide information to users through either prompts or responding to queries and persuade them to carry out particular actions or approach educational activities in a particular way. The main difference between Animated Pedagogical Agents and other agents is that APAs exhibit life-like characteristics and emotions in order to improve the attitude of users towards the VLE they are using and enhance their learning experience (Lester et al., 1997).
Figure 13 Animated Pedagogical Agent

The persuasive functions of the APA include presenting information to learners to encourage particular actions and receiving information to personalise the system and make it more persuasive. Using the principles of argumentation theory, the APA encourages learners to think about the content on the current screen they are viewing in a particular way and carry out specific actions in order to beet the learning outcomes of the lesson. When applied to hypermedia systems, argumentation theory suggests that as users pursue their own goals, a system should be designed so that it uses negotiation techniques to achieve cooperation with the user in order to change their attitudes or behaviour (Kraus, et al., 1998). This is implemented into the system through requiring the user to interact with the APA at specific occasions (e.g. when a screen loads or closes) in order to persuade them to carry out particular actions, such as encouraging those who are sharing the same machine to share the keyboard and mouse, or persuade them to provide information, such as their interests and hobbies 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 formed part of the PARLE System (Bishop, 2003) to provide learners with additional information on the mean of words and phrases that are stored in the database. This function is activated through 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 the activity the user is currently carrying out and matches it to the appropriate word stored in the database. For example, if the user was studying ICT the definition of the word, agent would be a program that works automatically on routine tasks specified by a user, whereas if they were studying business it would be somebody representing somebody else in business. Increasing Flow Through Artefacts The system using artefacts, such as text and graphics to attempt to increase the flow of users that are using the system through providing cues to content they may want or need. This is most obviously manifested in the fluid links mechanism (see Figure 14), which displays textual artefacts to the user in the status bar of the browser and beneath the text links in some cases.

Selecting a fluid link displays a description of destination in browser status bar, and longdesc attribute for use with Screen Readers.

Figure 14 Fluid links mechanism

Adaptive Architecture
The Adaptive Architecture of the VLE is based on adjusting the values of specific variables that 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 override database table that is used by educators. This has the negative effect of making the system slower while the entries are retrieved from the database, but has the advantage of providing the user with a more personalised and engaging interface.

Receives Learning Material

Recommends & Personalises Learning Material

Outputs Learning Material

Virtual Learning Environment

Educator Learner

Sends Feedback

Updates Profile

Figure 15 Context Diagram of Adaptive Architecture

Dynamic Text Educators have the option to embed parameters (see Table 7, Appendix III) into learning material to personalise it with textual artefacts that have been defined by the individual learner. This is achieved through placing the parameter into a specific part of the text and surrounding it with parentheses. For example, if the learners favourite actor was Tom Cruise, the text, Write about a movie starring {User_Char_FavActor} that you enjoyed would be converted into Write about a movie starring Tom Cruise that you enjoyed, which should create a positive attitude towards the activity as it is about something the learner is interested in. Furthermore, as the interests of secondary school learners are likely to change frequently, educational material will always appear current and relevant if the learner is encouraged to update their profile.

Adaptive Learning Levels The 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 to perform at a higher level when under the supervision of an educator or more competent peer that when they are learner by themselves. This is achieved through the educator assigning an individual learner two National Curriculum levels for each subject, one based on the level they think they are currently able to achieve under examination conditions, and the other what they are able to achieve with the support of the educator or a more competent peer. The wording of questions and statements is then adjusted based on the differing complexity of words in Blooms Taxonomy (Krathwhol et al., 1965). This enables learners to be required to approach a task from different perspectives depending on whether they have the support of an educator or not. For example a learner at NC Level 5 would be required to focus of the application of artefacts, such as text or graphics, and one at Level 6 would be required to analyse the problem more (see Table 3).
NC Level
1 2 3

Bloom Level
1 1 2

Personalisation
Knowledge: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage observation and recall of artefacts and subject matter As NC Level 1 Comprehension: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage learners to develop a social context of artefacts and understand their meaning. As NC level 3 Application: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage learners to apply knowledge to other social contexts and situations Analysis: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage learners to make relationships between artefacts and recognise patterns and hidden meanings. Synthesis: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage learners to use artefacts in different contexts and situations and develop new concepts and ideas. Evaluation: Restructures content and rewords questions to encourage learners to compare uses of artefacts and develop theories and select artefacts based on reasoned argument.

4 5 6

2 3 4

Table 3 Personalisation based on National Curriculum Levels and Blooms taxonomy

Special Educational Needs and Cultural Factors Through the use of parameters, it is easily possible to adapt the system so that it takes into account special educational needs and the cultural background of learners. Whilst the use of the technology for this purpose is not fully explored in this study, the issue has been considered in the design of the VLE. For example, it is possible that an individual with a social impairment may be at a high level (e.g. NC Level 8) in terms of their ability to recognise artefacts, but at a lower level (e.g. NC Level 3) when they have to put them into some form of social context (Bishop, 2003). In terms of the cultural and religious background learners, modifications to material may have to be made to ensure that the appropriate artefacts are used to take account of their differing social contexts. Multilingual Support The implementation of multilingual support in the VLE involves having multiple database fields, suffixed by the identifying characters of the language. For example, the English version of a lesson title is stored in the Lesson_Node_Title_EN field and the Welsh language version is stored in the Lesson_Node_Title_CY field. This enables other languages to be added through varying the suffixes.
Figure 16 Multilingual fields in database

Learning Style Paradigm Honey & Mumford (1982) emphasise the importance of learners not concentrating solely on activities that emphasise their stronger learning styles. However, research into the effectiveness of learning style models have found limitations in applying them to traditional learning environments. Indeed, research has been unclear as to whether learning should be adapted to match the strongest learning style of a learner or require the learner to undertake activities that force them to increase their learning versatility through undertaking unfamiliar learning approaches (Allinson & Hayes, 1988; Robotham, 1995). Recent studies that investigated the role of adapting VLEs to an individuals learning style have failed to address this issue. Both Clibbon (1995) and Papanikolaou et al (2002) only provide limited implementations of the Honey & Mumford adaptation of Kolbs experiential learning cycle, by classifying learners according their strongest learning style as opposed to evaluating a system that takes into account the effect of their weaker learning styles as well. North West Quadrant THE-VL PRA-VL THE-L PRA-L

Specified Tasks

North East Quadrant

THE-S

THE-VS

REF-VS

REF-S

Educator-Directed
REF-VL REF-L ACT-L ACT-VL South West Quadrant

Learner-Directed

PRA-S

ACT-S

PRA-VS

ACT-VS South East Quadrant

Open-ended, strategic Tasks

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 to overcome the limitations identified in previous learning style models. It provides a framework for modifying VLEs to utilise a learners strongest learning styles when they are directing their own learning and develop their weakest learning styles when they are under the direction of an educator. This represents a departure from the view of experiential learning as a systematic process, through accepting constructivist principles that focus on the individual development of the learner through collaboration. Coomey & Stephenson (2002) developed the OPG after reviewing over one hundred studies that occurred between the years 1998 and 2000. Their research found that structured dialogue, secure active involvement of learners, personal support and feedback, as well as allowing learners to exercise a degree of control over their learning were essential considerations in the development of effective online VLEs. The OPG categorises VLEs into four sectors; those that are educator-directed with specified learning activities (North West Quadrant), 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 strategic learning (South East Quadrant).

North West Quadrant The VLEs in this sector attempt to engage the learner in solving a problem where there is usually a correct answer. In this quadrant, it is the responsibility of the educator to specify the activities and outcomes, including deadlines, timings, exchanges and online content, leaving the learner with little scope for initiative, except in carefully controlled situations (Commey & Stephenson, 2002), making them particularly suitable to Pragmatists and Theorists. North East Quadrant In this sector, the VLEs encourage learners to consider the subject from different perspectives (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 learner achieves the solution and not the solution in itself. Educators specify learning tasks and learning goals, but learners have control over how they work towards and achieve the set goals and the tasks (Commey & Stephenson, 2002). This suggests that this quadrant would provide an optimal experience to strong Theorists and Strong Pragmatists, as Theorists learn most easily from activities where they are offered interesting ideas and concepts, and Reflectors are benefit from environments where they can investigate and gather information and consider many possibilities before coming to a decision (Honey & Mumford, 1992). South West Quadrant The overall direction, generalised outcomes, purpose, field, scope or level of VLEs in this sector are set by the educator, with the learners being able to explore, access and use any specific material relevant to the direction of the programme. They simulate daily situations to allow learners to develop skills and reflect on their experiences under the supervision of an educator or with peers (Commey & Stephenson, 2002). The VLEs in this sector potentially give educators a platform to assist learners in strengthening their Activist and Reflectors learning styles. Learners with a low preference for the Activist learning style can develop in environments where they have to act spontaneously, develop new experiences and be able to generate ideas (Honey & Mumford, 1992). South East Quadrant The VLEs in this sector enable learners to apply their knowledge and skills to practical problems, which do not need to have a best or right answer. These environments put the learner in control of the overall direction of learning, including learning outcomes and longer-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 of learners through providing a real time sense of participation (Mason, 1998), which are particularly suited to strong Activists, who learn most from activities where there are new experiences and problems to become engrossed in short experiential activities as well as Pragmatists, who learn most easily from activities where there is an obvious THE-VL link between the subject matter and a PRA-VL current problem or opportunity (Honey & REF-S Mumford, 1992). Determining Learner Model The example in Figure 18 is of a learner with a strong preference as an Activist (ACT-S), a strong preference as a Reflector (REF-S), a very low preference as a Theorist (THE-VL) and a very low preference as a Pragmatist (PRA-VL).

Educator-directed learning model Learner-directed learning model

ACT-S

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 a social process and that collaboration amongst educators and learners is desirable for meeting learning outcomes.

Educator

Classroom

Learners

Virtual Learning Environment

Learner Social Support Distance Learner

Remote Location
Figure 19 Sociability Architecture of the Virtual Learning Environment

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

Tool
Chat facility Circle of Friends Message board Weblog

Description
Enables synchronous discussion between learners and educators. Enables learners to keep a buddy list and leave feedback on their friends for others to read. Enables asynchronous discussion between learners and educators. Enables learners to publish their reflective work online. Table 4 Summaries of Communication Tools

Sustainability

Architecture

To achieve the level of pervasiveness required to make the system sustainable, it has been designed 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 that additional coding of commands for each system would be necessary. To overcome this, the system is controlled through Event Actions, which are triggered by a user carrying out a situation action through triggering an event (e.g. onClick, onDrag). These Event Actions are used to call particular scripts that change the state of the system in some way, such as moving to the next node, or changing the system profile of the user. A summary of the pervasive aspects of the Sustainable Architecture is set out in Table 5 and the details are in the Appendices.
Component
Node Structure Content Scripts

Description
Node structure programming is separated from content and procedural 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 the node, meaning content is independent of the mark-up. Nodes are made up of regions in which modules are added. Similar to Content Scripts these are independent of the node so that they can be included in any node and modified without having to update each node. Commands, such as next page. submit form or activate agent are linked to scripts separate from the node mark-up so that they can be made independent of the environment.

Node Modules

Event Actions

Table 5 Pervasive Aspects of Sustainable Architecture

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

Unique ID: 106 Name: Bitmap Graphic Type: Picture Subject: ICT Meta Data ID: ICT-0022 Description: This is an image of an enlarged bitmap graphic
Figure 20 Example of data assigned to a Shared Artefact

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

Evaluation
The evaluation consisted of accessibility testing and an expert evaluation and was conducted on the prototype of the virtual learning environment, which at the time of going to press was available 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 of images and other tags. Most of these were corrected, but the system still failed to meet some of the criteria of higher priority levels.

Expert Evaluation
The evaluators were asked to log-in using their details and evaluate a lesson on designing presentation, which is accessible by accessing the prototype (link above), clicking on the Learn tab, selecting Information & Communications Technology from the subject listbox, selecting Presentations and Multimedia Authoring from the topic selection table and selecting 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 the system was set to 5 (see p37 for details), which although not entirely appropriate for experts in computing and education, who should be at Level 8, should give them a clearer idea of what the average learner will experience. The learning style paradigm settings were configured for the North East Quadrant (see p39), based on the assumption that the experts will be more likely to be strong Theorists or strong Pragmatists and taking into account that they would be assessing the system remotely and therefore would not need the same level of support as a non-expert. In addition, the system was standardised to use the English language, set to the Blue interface design, the Animated Pedagogical Agent interface was disabled and only the Learn section was available. Whilst this could affect factors including the user friendliness and engagement of the system, it attempts to ensure that the evaluators focus on the adaptive and instructional aspects of the system. User-friendly The evaluators were asked to comment on the user friendliness of the system based on set criteria.
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 WIMP environment, 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 dont know where I might want to go. Evaluator 1

This evaluator found that the system might confuse learners through not providing them with information on its scope; a factor that Fleming (1998) argues interaction designers should ensure is implemented. However, Fleming indicates that the reason for this is that most users of hypermedia systems are looking for a specific piece of information, whereas this evaluator was 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 its purpose. Evaluator 1

The issue raised by this evaluator was taken into account with the implementation of fluid links (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 does not use the status bar, meaning the additional information was outside their attention focus. Presentation Evaluators were asked to comment on how information was presented.
Isnt clear enough that when I click on a subject I have actually gone in to that section and that I now have lessons which I can choose. Evaluator 1

The points raised by this evaluator (as well as anonymous reviewers) was that when they selected a subject, the next screen looked similar to the one they just came from. This is something 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 of bullets 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 more visually appealing, using artefacts in this way is incompatible with the Multilingual Support as 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 enable multilingual 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. Engagement Evaluators 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 things happened 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 engagement with the system. However, their comment that they did not feel in control emphasises the importance 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 set correctly for this user, but they felt that the writing tasks were time consuming, which might make them inappropriate for some learners. Information Both evaluators felt that the system could offer more information relating to the activities they are being asked to carry out.
I didnt get presented with any information, I was asked to enter text. I felt that I needed information such as why I was doing this but didnt 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 or more competent peer, but in the case of learners using the system on their own at a remote location, the system will have to be adapted to provide more accessible information. This could be achieved through greater use of the animated pedagogical agent to provide assistance during the learning activity, or through techniques that will not interrupt the state of flow, such as presenting cultural signposts, or artefacts.

Knowledge The evaluators were asked to indicate whether they felt the level of knowledge required to use the system was appropriate to the target user group.
This system will require patience and some level of experience to use. Lacks instructions and an indication of the size of any one lesson Evaluator 1

This evaluators indicates that the system may not be appropriate for all NC levels, but suggests that using more instructions may help. Level The evaluators were asked to indicate whether they found the level of material presented to be at an appropriate level for the target user group.
Some of the language seemed to be suitable for users who were fairly mature. Interpret whether the order of your slides represent the order of importance of the information. will require 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 Blooms taxonomy and their suitability for learners in secondary school, suggesting that some learners might not be able to understand what is required from them as a result. This concern is valid, and emphasises the difficulty in ensuring learners are encouraged to undertake activities that are challenging, whilst ensuring that they are not beyond their means. The terminology, which is linked to the learners learning level (in this case, level 5 for ICT), could be made more appropriate through linking it to the level of their literacy, or by adjusting it depending on whether the learner is doing a self-directed activity, or under the guidance of an educator. Type of Learning The evaluators were asked to provide feedback on the types of learning used, including the implementation of the Learning Style Paradigm (LSP).
Dont like this type of learning, it felt as if I wasnt in control of the system and I didnt have a 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, indicating that it is important that the system presents information in a way appropriate to the learner. It may have been the case that this learner was neither a Theorist nor a Pragmatists and would have 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 in developing VLEs that adapt depending on the competencies of a learner. For self-directed learners, who are likely to know more about the subject, it might be more appropriate not to put the conclusion at the start (i.e. the learning outcomes), as they might be less likely to learn or be persuaded (Hovland, 1954).
For me, this was much too text based and boring. Lacked graphics and interaction such as dragging and dropping Evaluator 1

This evaluator raises a valid concern about maintaining a balance between the amount of text and graphics. However, with one of the aims of the system being to encourage greater literacy and reflective thinking, it is necessary for learners to use text to convey their thoughts and ideas. In addition, whilst it is possible to implement the drag and drop capabilities suggested by this evaluator, the functionality would be limited to those users with 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 receive adequate feedback relating to their reflective writing to ensure that they have developed a full appreciation for what they have experienced and to encourage them to continue to do so. Language The evaluators were asked to indicate how appropriate they found the language used in the system. They were not asked to evaluate the multilingual support.
Felt the language was quite mature and the lack of instructions meant I was constantly trying to guess what was going to happen next. Evaluator 1

This evaluator felt that the language used was too mature for the target audience, suggesting the use of Blooms taxonomy may not be entirely appropriate for this age group. Graphics Evaluators were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the graphics used.
Very scarce, would have liked to see much more together with many other multimedia elements. Evaluator 1

This evaluator was concerned about the limited use of graphics and other forms of multimedia, suggesting that the system would have benefited from having more. Indeed, Rieber (1994) indicates that instructional graphics can aid learning, as visual information is an effective method of communication, arguing that as graphics form a core part of successful teaching strategies then incorporating them into computerised instructional material is advantageous to learning. Text The 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 onscreen text and that there was too much body text. Whilst this could be address by adding more graphics, Rieber (1994) points out that as graphics move the attention focus of the learner away from the instructional text, they can inhibit learning.

Discussion
The introduction of computers in educational establishments, such as school and colleges has seen the role of educators change from an instructor delivering a fixed curriculum towards that of a facilitator, who is required to persuade learners that adopting particular attitudes and actions towards educational problems will benefit them (Commey & Stephenson, 2002). Persuasive technology has an obvious role to play in assisting educators in the provision of education to heterogeneous learners who have their own beliefs and approaches towards their education. This is particularly true in the case of the Net Generation, who have strong attitudes towards their right to an education and a strong belief in their right to make individual choices (Epstein, 1998; Tapscott, 1998; Leung 2003). This study identified the many factors in the research that affect how the Net Generation can be persuaded, including control, attention focus, curiosity, surveillance, entertainment, affection, escapism, social identity and social bonding. An attempt was made to draw correlations between these factors and the learning style preferences of learners, but no correlations were found as a result of sampling error. Even so, these factors were taken into account in the development of the VLE with particular attention towards the control and attention focus attributes. The expert evaluation found that whilst these factors were important and were taken into account, more needed to be done in relation to using multimedia, such as graphics to improve the user experience for learners. The multilingual support that formed a core part of the design of the VLE enables government policy on the teaching of languages in schools to be extended to computer-based learning activities. This was achieved through having separate database fields for each language. The method of instructional design used in the VLE was based on that used in mediated literacy instruction, involving a significant degree of writing to a learning log, which was made 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 they had 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 has been constructed by the user. This issue could be resolved through a more effective implementation of the animated pedagogical agent, which could be aware of when the learner is 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 part of the design with the implementation of the Learning Style Paradigm (LSP). Based on the Online Paradigm Grid (OPG) that was developed by Coomey & Stephenson (2002), the LSP takes into account the four learning styles identified by Honey & Mumford (1992) in the context of virtual learning environment. Whilst adapting a VLE based on four learning styles or Quadrants can personalise the learning material to a certain degree, it does not fully take into account the unique differences of individual learners, who are heterogeneous in nature. This was taken into account with the implementation of customisable variables, which displayed text and graphics in different ways depending on the preferences of the individual learner. The role of interaction design and in particular, the significant role mediating artefacts play in developing persuasive VLEs. Through taking into account factors such as culture and language, VLEs can be developed to encourage learners to use artefacts, such as text or graphics to achieve their goals and the goals of educators and other learners. In the context of the developed VLE, artefacts were used in the form of text, to adapt the system with words that are familiar to the user and through interactive graphics that encourage learners to make comparisons between artefacts and express these in written form. This study has demonstrated that heterogeneous user groups can benefit a great deal from persuasive VLEs that adapt based on the individual preferences, particularly when their cultural 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 role persuasive technology can play in educating heterogeneous user groups, particularly in the case of agent-based systems and those that adapt based on learning styles. However, more research need to be carried out in order to determine the effectiveness of persuasive VLEs on learning and understanding as well as the role the technology can play in specific education programmes. This study has demonstrated the relevance of learning styles in the development of VLEs targeted at heterogeneous user groups, but more research needs to be carried out to determine whether adapting hypermedia systems based on learning styles can result in improved learning outcomes.

Appendix I Information

Architecture

Home

Learn

Create

Communicate

Getting Started

Institution Information

Your Circle of Friends

Your personal information

Virtual Classroom

Review Progress

Revise

Encyclopaedia

Your Assignments

Undertake Assignments

Review work

Upload work

Your Weblog

Discussion Groups

Virtual Chat

Gallery of work

Figure 21 Information Architecture of the Virtual Learning Environment

Appendix II Data Flow Diagrams

Below is the Data Flow Diagram (DFD) for the core functions of the VLE. A tick () within a process box indicates that the process has been implemented; a dash (-) indicates that it is partially implemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in this version.
D2 Weblog Data Weblog Entry 1.3 1.4 D3 Discussion Data Message

Process Weblog

Process Discussion

Weblog Entry

Message

Message

LEARNER

EDUCATOR

Lesson Lesson Lesson

1.1

1.2

Process Lesson

Create Lesson

Lesson Lesson

D1

Lessons Figure 22 Level 1 Data Flow Diagram for Virtual Classroom section

Appendix III Entity Relationship

Diagrams

Lesson

To allow for platform independence, a lesson is made up of many screens of which contain many 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 in the <asp:tablecell> tag, which is displayed as the <td> tag in the HTML document.
Figure 23 ERD for 'lesson' component of Virtual Classroom

Lesson Screen

Lesson Row

Lesson Row Field

Appendix IV System Components

The Complexity column indicates the complexity of implementing the component, which can be simple (1), medium (2) or complex (3). The Dev column is used to signify whether that component has been implemented in the version of the VLE available at the time of printing. A tick ( ) indicates it is implemented, a dash (-) indicates that it is partially implemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in this version.
Component Name
Animated Pedagogical Agent Circle of Friends Learning Style Paradigm Multilingual Support Table 6 System Components

Description

Complexity
3 1 2 2

Dev

Appendix V System Parameters,

Action Controls and Functions

This appendix outlines the parameters, actions and functions that control the system, as explained on page 41. The Dev column is used to signify whether the specific parameter/action/function has been implemented in the version of the VLE available at the time of printing. A tick () indicates it is implemented, a dash (-) indicates that it is partially implemented and a cross () indicates that it has not been implemented in this version.
Parameter ID
Learning_Lesson_Navigation_GoToQuiz Learning_Lesson_Navigation_MoveNext Learning_Lesson_Navigation_MovePrevious Node_Word_Describe Node_Word_Identify Node_Word_Interpret Node_Word_Solve Node_Word_Summarise System_Agent_Visual_Icon_ID System_Computer_Environment_ID System_Course_ID System_Course_Outcome_ID System_Learning_Level_ID System_Learning_Level_ID_1 System_Learning_Level_ID_2 System_Learning_Level_ID_3 System_Learning_Level_ID_4 System_Learning_Level_ID_5 System_Learning_Level_ID_6 System_Learning_Level_ID_7 System_Learning_Level_ID_8 System_Learning_Paradigm_Direction System_Learning_Paradigm_ID System_Lesson_ID System_Lesson_Node_ID System_Lesson_Node_Row_ID System_Lesson_Quiz_Hint System_Lesson_Quiz_ID System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_1_ Selected System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_2_ Selected System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_3_ Selected System_Lesson_Quiz_Question_Answer_4_ Selected System_Locale_Language_ID_1 System_Locale_Language_ID_2 System_Locale_Region_ID System_Locale_Region_Name System_Media_ID System_Menu_Bar_ID System_Menu_Sub_ID System_Menu_Sub_Sub_ID System_Procedure_Action_ID System_Subject_Category_ID System_Subject_Category_Sub_ID System_Subject_ID

Description
Controls display of navigation Controls display of navigation Controls display of navigation Stores Blooms taxonomy word Stores Blooms taxonomy word Stores Blooms taxonomy word Stores Blooms taxonomy word Stores Blooms taxonomy word Current Animation ID Current computer used by user Current Course ID Current NC outcome

Example Values
True, False True, False True, False Describe Identify Interpret Solve Summarise 101, 106 MACX ECDL 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 4. 8 True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False Learner NE, SE 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 True, False 1, 2, 3 True, False True, False True, False True, False CY, EN EN, CY CYM, ENG Cymru 1, 2, 3 LOGO CLAS SESU ICTSOF ICTPRE ICT, PSE

Dev

Overrides user setting

Status of Quiz Answer 1 Status of Quiz Answer 2 Status of Quiz Answer 3 Status of Quiz Answer 4

System_Subject_Objective_ID System_Subject_Word_ID System_User_Profile_ID System_User_Profile_ID_1 System_User_Profile_ID_2 System_User_Weblog_ID System_User_Weblog_Item_ID System_User_Weblog_Item_Reply_ID System_Visual_Skin_ID User_Agent_ID User_Char_Ambition User_Char_FavActor User_Char_FavBook User_Char_FavGame User_Char_FavHoliday User_Char_FavMovie User_Char_FavMusician User_Char_FavShow User_Char_FavSubject User_Char_FavToy User_DIS User_DIS_Hearing User_DIS_Visual User_Gender User_Gender_Female User_Gender_Male User_Group_Cultural User_Group_Ethnic User_Group_Refugee User_Group_Religious User_Group_Social User_Group_Traveller User_Institution_ID User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_Educator User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_Learner User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NE User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NO User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_NW User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_SE User_Learning_Paradigm_ID_SW User_Learning_Style_ID_1 User_Learning_Style_ID_2 User_Learning_Style_ID_3 User_Learning_Style_ID_4 User_Learning_Style_ID_ACT User_Learning_Style_ID_NON User_Learning_Style_ID_PRA User_Learning_Style_ID_REF User_Learning_Style_ID_THE User_Learning_Style_Value_ACT User_Learning_Style_Value_PRA User_Learning_Style_Value_REF User_Learning_Style_Value_THE User_Learning_Weighting_ID User_Locale_Language_ID_1 ID of active user, used in single/shared mode ID of First user when in shared mode ID of Second user when in shared mode ID of Active Weblog ID of Text of Active Weblog ID of reply to text of Active Weblog ID of colour scheme for application ID of active agent Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Personalised text Name of learners disability True if learner has a hearing impairment True if learner has a visual impairment Learners gender True if learner is a female True if learner is a male Name of learners cultural group Name of learners ethnic group True if learner is a refugee Name of learners religion True if learner is part of a specific social group True if learner is a traveller ID of the institution user is part of LSP ID under educator supervision LSP ID under self-direction True is LSP ID is NE True is LSP ID is not defined True is LSP ID is NW True is LSP ID is SE True is LSP ID is SW Learners first preference learning style Learners second preference learning style Learners third preference learning style Learners fourth preference learning style True if primary learning style is Activist True if no primary learning style defined True if primary learning style is Pragmatist True if primary learning style is Reflector True if primary learning style is Theorist Users H&M Activist score Users H&M Pragmatist score Users H&M Reflector score Users H&M Theorist score ID of the weighting system used ID of users first language

1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 BLUE CREA

True, False True, False Male, Female True, False True, False Welsh Welsh True, False Christian True, False True, False BRYN NW. SW NE, SE True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False ACT, REF REF, THE THE, PRA PRA, ACT True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False 0, 10, 20 0, 10, 20 0, 10, 20 0, 10, 20 EXAM CY, EN

User_Locale_Language_ID_2 User_Locale_Language_ID_CY User_Locale_Language_ID_EN User_Locale_Language_ID_FR User_SEN User_SEN_Comms User_SEN_EFL User_SEN_Emotional User_SEN_Gifted User_SEN_Learning User_Status_Absent User_Status_TimeOut User_Teaching_Attention User_Visual_Skin_ID Table 7 System Parameters

ID of users second language True if the user can use Welsh True if the user can use English True if the user can use French Description of users educational needs True if learner has communication problems True if user has English as a 2nd language True if user has emotional difficulties True if user has exceptional talents True if user has special educational needs True if the user is absent If true then user can only access Time Out Time in minutes before learner needs help Users preferred colour scheme

EN, CY True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False True, False 10, 20, 30 BLUE

Action ID
Agent.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

Description

Agent Emotion

Dev

Function ID
Function_agentActivate Function_agentActivateTimed Function_agentAlert Function_agentDeactivate Function_agentHide Function_agentSleep Function_goHomepage Function_goNext Function_goPrevious Function_goToKeyURL Function_swapSound Function_swapSoundLoop Function_swapSoundRestore MM_callJS MM_checkBrowser MM_checkPlugin MM_controlSound MM_findObj MM_goToURL MM_popupMsg MM_preloadImages MM_swapImage MM_swapImgRestore Table 9 System Functions

Description

Example Values

Dev

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=0 Do 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 Not isDBNull(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 If ElseIf (Not objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Source").ToStr ing() Is Nothing) Then If (Session(objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_ID_Sourc e"))>=objConnection_DataReader_Procedure_Variable("Data_Variable_Value_LBoun d") And Session(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_Vari able_Value_" & Session("System_Locale_Language_ID")).ToString()) End If End 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 New OleDbConnection i=0 While (i<intScript_Array_Data_Variable_Count And i<5000) If (Not Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i))="" And Not Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)) Is Request.Form("NoSuchVariableExists") And Not Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)) Is Nothing And Not IsDBNull(Request.Form(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i)))) Then 'Update System Session(strScript_Array_Data_Variable_ID(i))=(Request.Form(strScript_A rray_Data_Variable_ID(i))) 'SET connection variables strConnection_String_Data_Variable_Insert=(strConnection_String_User) strConnection_Query_Data_Variable_Insert=("INSERT INTO User_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=New OleDbConnection(strConnection_String_Data_Variable_Insert) objCommand_OleDbCommand_Data_Variable_Insert=New OleDbCommand(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,heigh t=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&Qu ery=") & "'+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 PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGIES.......................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2 VYGOTSKY'S MEDIATION MODEL ........................................................................... 13 FIGURE 3 HONEY & MUMFORD'S ADAPTATION OF KOLBS EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING CYCLE.................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 4 FRIENDSTER.COM ......................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 5 FOGG'S FUNCTIONAL TRIAD ..................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 6 ENGESTRM'S ADAPTATION OF VYGOTSKY'S MEDIATION MODEL ............ 21 FIGURE 7 MANTOVANIS MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING INTERACTION IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 8 TREPESS & STOCKMAN'S ADAPTATION OF MANTOVANI'S MODEL OF SOCIAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 9 LEARNING OUTCOMES OF LEARNING STYLES FOR PRESENTATION MODELS ...................................................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 10 ADAPTATION OF HIX & HARTSONS STAR LIFECYCLE FOR INTERACTION DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 11 WELLERS LIFECYCLE FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS................................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 12 THE DIGITAL CLASSROOM OF TOMORROW ....................................................... 34 FIGURE 13 ANIMATED PEDAGOGICAL AGENT ....................................................................... 34 FIGURE 14 FLUID LINKS MECHANISM ....................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 15 CONTEXT DIAGRAM OF ADAPTIVE ARCHITECTURE....................................... 36 FIGURE 16 MULTILINGUAL FIELDS IN DATABASE ................................................................ 37 FIGURE 17 LEARNING STYLE PARADIGM FOR A PERSUASIVE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 18 LEARNING STYLE PARADIGM PROFILE EXAMPLE 1........................................ 39 FIGURE 19 SOCIABILITY ARCHITECTURE OF THE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 20 EXAMPLE OF DATA ASSIGNED TO A SHARED ARTEFACT............................. 41 FIGURE 21 INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE OF THE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 22 LEVEL 1 DATA FLOW DIAGRAM FOR VIRTUAL CLASSROOM SECTION .... 49 FIGURE 23 ERD FOR 'LESSON' COMPONENT OF VIRTUAL CLASSROOM ......................... 50 TABLE 1 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR 'CONTROL' ATTRIBUTE ......................................... 32 TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR 'ATTENTION' ATTRIBUTE ..................................... 32 TABLE 3 PERSONALISATION BASED ON NATIONAL CURRICULUM LEVELS AND BLOOMS TAXONOMY............................................................................................................ 37 TABLE 4 SUMMARIES OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS ............................................................ 40 TABLE 5 PERVASIVE ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE ................................. 41 TABLE 6 SYSTEM COMPONENTS ................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 7 SYSTEM PARAMETERS.................................................................................................. 54 TABLE 8 SYSTEM ACTION CONTROLS....................................................................................... 55 TABLE 9 SYSTEM FUNCTIONS...................................................................................................... 56

References and Bibliography

References
Alavi, M (1994) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation MIS Quarterly 18; pp159-174 Allinson, C.W. & Hayes, J. (1988) The Learning Styles Questionnaire: An alternative to Kolbs inventory? Journal of Management Studies 25 (3); pp69-281 Arbaugh, J.B. (2000) Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction in Internetbased MBA courses Journal of Management Education 24 (1); pp32-54 Attwood, T. (2000) Aspergers Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals Jessica Kingsley Publishing, London Badre, Albert (1982) Selecting and representing information structures for visual presentation IEEE Transactions on Man, System and Cybernetics 12 (4); pp495-504 Badre, Albert (2002) Shaping Web Usability: Interaction Design in Context AddisonWesley; 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 Management Development 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 Unpublished BSc 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 and recommender systems on buying activity in communities of commerce Unpublished BSc Report (available online at: http://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/ display.asp?Item=5) Bishop, Jonathan & Mannay, Lisa (2002) Development and Evaluation of an Adaptive Multimedia 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 impairments Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19 (4); pp546-556 Blom, Jan & Monk, Andrew (2001) One-to-one e-commerce: whos the one? CHI 2001; pp341-342 Bor Ng, Kwong (2002) Toward a theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between situated action and planned action models of behavior in information retrieval contexts: contributions from phenomenology Information Processing and Management 38 (2002); pp613-626 Buttle, Francis (1996) Relationship Marketing IN Buttle, Francis (Ed.) Relationship Marketing: 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 Video Viewing Unknown Publisher; pp135-144 Cahill, Larry; McGaugh, James L.; Weinberger, Norman M. (2001) The neurobiology of learning and memory: some reminders to remember Trends in Neurosciences 24 (10); pp578-581 Caldwell, B. & Soat, J. (1990) The Hidden Persuader InformationWEEK 42 (3); p47 Callahan, 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 a nonsequential 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, StudentControlled 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) A Negotiation Architecture for Fluid Documents UIST98 Proceedings; pp123-132 Chinn, Clark A. & Samarapungavan (2001) Distinguishing Between Understanding and Belief Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp235-241 Clibbon, Kelvin (1995) Conceptually Adapted Hypertext For Learning CHI 95; pp224-225 Colley, 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 Page Limited, London; pp37-52 Cuban, Larry (2003) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom Harvard University 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 of information technology MIS Quarterly 13 (3); p319-340 Davis, Sid & Wiedenbeck, Susan (1998) The effect of interaction style and training method on 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 National Assembly for Wales; pp38-39 DfES (2002) Language Learning The Stationary Office Ltd; pp1-9 DfTE (2001) The Learning Country: A Paving Document National Assembly for Wales; p25 DfTE (2002) Policy Review of Higher Education National Assembly for Wales; p21 Douglas, Yellowlees & Hargadon, Andrew (2000) The Pleasure Principle: Immersion, Engagement, Flow Hypertext 2000; pp153-160 Dunn, S.W. (1976) Effect of national identity on multinational promotional strategy in Europe Journal of Marketing 40 (4); pp50-7 Durndell, A.; Cameron, C.; Knox, A.; Stocks, R. & Haag, Z. (1997) Gender and Computing: West and East Europe Computers in Human Behavior 13 (2); pp269-280 Eisenberg, Bryan (2001) A Land Beyond Usability www.clickz.com; http://www.clickz.com/article.php/840431 Engestrm, 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.) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; p67 Engestrm, Y. (1999) Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Epstein, Jeffrey H. (1998) Demography: The Net Generation is Changing the Marketplace The Futurist 1998 (April); p14

Escoffery, Cam; McCormick, Laura & Bateman, Kathe (2003) Development and process evaluation of a web-based smoking cessation program for college smokers: innovative tool for education Patient Education and Counseling, In Press Estyn (2002) Excellent Schools: A vision for schools in Wales in 21st Century Estyn; p13 European Commission (1995) Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society European Commission; p47 Farris, 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); pp487-502 Fencott, Clive; Van Schaik, Paul; Ling, Jonathan & Shafiullah, Mohammed (2003) the effects of movement of attractors and pictorial content of rewards on users behaviour in virtual environments: an empirical study in the framework of perceptual opportunities 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: A case in Point Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp242-248 Fleishman, Glenn (2001) Been Blogging?: Web Discourse Hits Higher Level IN Blood, Rebecca (Introduction) Weve Got Blog: How Weblogs are changing our culture Perseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp107-111 Fleming, Jennifer (1998) Web Navigation: Designing the User Experience OReilly, 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 and Do Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, London; pp15-17, pp113-115, pp230-234, p246 Garrett, Jesse James (2003) The Elements of User Experience New Riders Publishing, New York; pp29-33 Gay, G (1986) Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (2003); pp225-227 Gee, James Paul; Allen, Anna-Ruth; Clinton, Katherine (2001) Language, Class, and Identity: Teenagers Fashioning Themselves Through Language Linguistics and Education 12 (2); pp175-194 Golden, Sarah; Spielhofer, Thomas; Sims, David; Aiston, Sarah & ODonnell, Lisa (2002) Re-engaging the Hardest-to-Help Young People: the role of the Neighbourhood Support Fund The Stationery Office Ltd; pp52-53, p63, p75 Goodman, Y.M. & Goodman, K.S. (1990) Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective IN Moll, L.C. (1991) Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of 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: An International 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 Computers 8 (1); pp89-111 Giuseppe, Riva (2001) From Real to Virtual Communities: Cognition, knowledge and interaction in the world wide web IN Wolfe, Christopher R. (Ed.) Learning and Teaching on the World Wide Web Academic Press Hammond, Nick (2003) Learning with Hypertext: Problems, Principles and Prospects IN McKnight, C.; Dillon, A & Richardson, J. (Eds.) Hypertext: A Psychological Perspective Ellis Horwood; pp52-69 Hagel, John & Armstrong, Arthur (1999) Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities Harvard Business School Press, Boston; pp186-188 Heimrath, Rosie & Goulding, Anne (2001) Internet perception and use: a gender perspective Aslib Program 35 (2); pp119-134 Hix, Deborah & Hartson, H. Rex (1993) Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product and Process John Wiley & Sons, New York; pp101-107

Honey, Peter & Mumford, Alan (1982) The Manual of Learning Styles Peter Honey Publishing Limited, Maidenhead; p7 Hovland, Carl I; Janis, Irving, L. & Kelley, Harold H. (1954) Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change Yale University Press, London; pp1-18; pp245-253 Huang, Ming-Hui (2003) Designing website attributes to induce experiential encounters Computers in Human Behaviour 19 (2003); pp425-442 Hynd, Cyndia (2001) Persuasion and Its Role in Meeting Educational Goals Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp270-277 Jarvis, Peter; Holford, John & Griffin, Colin (2003) The Theory & Practice of Learning Kogan Page, London; pp24-31 Jordan, Patrick W. (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products: An introduction to the new human 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 Elementary Education Kluwer Academic Publishers, London; pp75-81 Kinnes, S. (1999) Domain of Women Sunday Times Magazine, 19th September 1999; pp5557 Kobsa, Alfred; Koenemann, Jrgen & Pohl, Wolfgang (2001) Personalized Hypermedia Presentation Techniques for Improving Online Customer Relationships The Knowledge 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 and Development Prentice-Hall, New Jersey; pp27-33, pp36-38 Koslow, S.; Shamdasani, P.N. & Touchstone, E.E. (1994) Exploring language effects in ethnic advertising: a sociolinguistic perspective Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4); pp575-585 Kragler, Sherry (1996) Vygotsky and At-Risk Readers: Assessment and Instructional Implications IN Dixon-Krauss (Ed.) Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment Longman Publishers, New York; pp149-160 Kraus, Sarit; Sycara, Katia & Evenchik, Amir (1998) Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation Artificial Intelligence 104 (1998); pp1-69 Kuutti, Kari (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research IN Nardi, B.A. (Ed.) Context and Consciousnesses: Activity theory and Human-Computer Interaction The MIT Press, Cambridge; pp17-44 Lasagabaster, David (2001) Bilingualism, Immersion Programmes and Language Learning in the Basque Country Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22 (5); pp421-425 Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Law, Monica; Lau, Theresa & Wong, Y.H. (2003) From customer relationship management to customer-managed relationship: unravelling the paradox with a co-creative perspective 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 Pedagogical Agents CHI 97; pp359-366 Leung, Louis (2003) Impacts of Net-generation attributes, seductive properties of the Internet, and gratifications-obtained on Internet use Telematics and Informatics 20; pp107-129 Lindahl, Charlie & Blount, Elise (2003) Weblogs: Simplifying Web Publishing IEEE Computer 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 of Persuasive Messages: Comparing Traditional and Computerized Texts Theory into Practice 40 (4); pp265-269 Lorenzen, Michael (2001) The land of confusion? High School students and their use of the World Wide Web for research Research Strategies 18 (2001); pp151-163 Mantovani, Guiseppe (1996a) New Communication Environments: From Everyday to Virtual Taylor & 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 hypertext systems 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 Technology Design: Senses and Sensibility Linking Tradition to Innovation Through Design 2526 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 Frontiers Springer-Verlag, London; pp91-121 McGorry, S.Y. (1989) Measuring quality in online programs Internet and Higher Education 2003 (6); pp159-177 McDrury, Janice & Alterio, Maxine (2002) Learning through Storytelling Dunmore Press Limited, Palmerston North; p12, p32 Micarelli, A. & Sciarrone, F. (1996) A Case-Based Toolbox for Guided Hypermedia Navigation Unknown Publisher Morahan-Martin, Janet & Schumacher, Phyllis (2003) loneliness and social uses of the Internet Computers in Human Behaviour 19 (2003); pp659-671 Moss, Juliane et al. (2001) Techno Hero Fiasco IN Murphy, David (2001) Online Learning and Teaching with Technology Kogan Page Limited, London; pp155-161 Mumford, Alan (1994) Four Approaches to Learning from Experience The Learning Organisation 1 (1); pp4-10 Murphy, P.K., Long, J.F., Holleran, T.A., Esterly, E (2003) Persuasion online or on paper: a new take on an old issue Learning and Instruction 13 (2003); pp511-532 Nardi, B.A. (1996) Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models and Distributed Cognition IN Nardi, B.A. (Ed.) Context and Consciousnesses: Activity theory and Human-Computer Interaction The MIT Press, Cambridge; pp69102 NCTM (1989) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Nel, Deon; van Niekerik, Raymond; Berthon, Jean-Paul & Davies, Tony (1999) Going with the flow: Web sites and customer involvement Internet Research: Electronic Networking 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, pp21-24 Oram, 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, Ithaca Papanikolaou, Kyparisa A.; Grigoriadou, Maria; Magoulas, George D. & Mornilakis, Harry (2002) Towards new forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of a web-based learning environment Computers & Education 39 (2002); pp222-360 Payne, S.J. & Green, T.R.F. (1989) The structure of command languages: an experiment with task-action grammar International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 30; pp213234

Powazek, Derek M. (2002) Design for Community: The art of connecting real people in virtual places New Riders, Indianapolis; p167-190 Powell, Dean (2002) Website taps into town history Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer, 6 June 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 John Wiley & 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 in adaptive community-based virtual environments Interacting with Computers 15 (1); pp91-107 Redondo-Belln, Ignacio (1998) The effects of bilingualism on the consumer: The case of Spain European Journal of Marketing 33 (11/12); pp1136-1160 Rheingold, Howard (2000) The Virtual Community: Homesteading in the Electronic Frontier The 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 in Family Planning 2 (12); pp241-248 Russell, Terry (2001) Teaching and Using ICT in Secondary Schools David Fulton Publishers, London; pp98-114 Sambrook, Sally (2001) Factors influencing learners perceptions of the quality of computer based learning materials Journal of European Industrial Training 25 (2); pp157-167 Scanlon, Margaret & Buckingham, David (2003) Learning Online: E-Learning and the domestic market in the UK IN Marshall & Katz (Eds.) Learning in School, Home and Community: ICT for Early and Elementary Education Kluwer Academic Publishers, London; pp137-147 Schafer, J.B.; Konstan, Joseph; Riedl, John (1999) Recommender Systems in E-Commerce ACM E-Commerce 1999; pp158-166 Schlesinger, Eric (1996) Why learning is not a cycle: 1 discovering pattern Industrial and Commercial Training 28 (2); pp30-35 Scottish Executive (2000) Gaelic: Revitalising Gaelic a National Asset Taskforce on Public Funding of Gaelic Shneiderman, Ben (1982) The future of interactive system and the emergence of direct manipulation Behaviour and Information 1 (1982); pp237-256 Shneiderman, Ben (1998) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective HumanComputer Interaction Addison-Wesley; pp67-74, pp125-127 Shneiderman, Ben (2002) Leonardos Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies 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 DixonKrauss (Ed.) Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment Longman Publishers, New York; pp133-148 Stephens, J.M. & Evans, E.D. (1973) Development and Classroom Learning Holt, Rinehart and Winston, USA; pp116-128 Suchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Stout, Maureen (2000) The Feel Good Curriculum: The Bumbing Down of Americas Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem Perseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp119-140

Susi, Tarja & Ziemke, Tom (2001) Social cognition, artefacts and stigmergy: A comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks fot the understanding of artefact-mediated collaborative 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) Weve Got Blog: How Weblogs are changing our culture Perseus Publishing, Cambridge; pp157-159 Talbot, Neale (2001) Weblogs: What Are They Good For IN Blood, Rebecca (Introduction) Weve 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 in Instructional Uses of Persistent Conversation IN Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Thring, Manfred; Hannemann, Jrg & Haake, Jrg 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 in Adolescence Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (1); pp94-103 Trepess, David & Stockman, Tony (1999) A classification and analysis of erroneous actions in 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, Cees M.; Livingstone, Sonia & Marseille, Nies (1998) Young Peoples Ownership and Users of New and Old Forms of Media in Britain and the Netherlands European Journal of Communication 13 (4); pp457-477 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes Harvard University Press, Cambridge; pp49-57 Wadsworth, Barry J. (1984) Piagets Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development Longman, London; pp9-19 Wagner, Lyn Rothwell & Brock, Dana (1996) Using Portfolios to Mediate Literacy Instruction and Assessment IN Dixon-Krauss, Lisbeth (Ed.) Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment Longman Publishers, New York; 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 in human-computer interactions Computers in Human Behaviour 9 (1993); pp411-26 Weller, Martin et al. (2002) Delivering Learning on the Net Kogan Page Ltd, London Wilbur, Shawn P. (2000) An Archaeology of Cyberspaces In Bell, David & Kennedy, Barbara M. (Eds.) The Cybercultures Reader Routledge, London; pp45-55 Young, Kimberly S. (1996) Internet Addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder IN Paper presented to the 104th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 15 Young, Kimberly S. (1998) Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet Addiction 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 Study CHI 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 Inclusive Classroom RoutledgeFalmer Alessi, Stephen et al. (2001) Multimedia for Learning: methods and Development AB Longman

Bigge, Morris L. & Hunt, Maurice P. (1969) Psychological Foundations of Education: An Introduction to Human Development and Learning Harper & Row, London Chamillard, A.T. & Karolick, Dolores (1999) Using Learning Style Data in an Introductory Computer Science Course SIGCSE 99; pp291-295 Clancey, William (1990) Artificial Intelligence and Learning Environments MIT Press Cohen, Andrew (1975) A Sociolinguistic Approach to Bilingual Education Newbury House Publishers Directorate General for Research-Directorate A (2001) Multilinguality and the Internet European Parliament Engestrm, Y (1997) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki Hillier, Mathew (2003) The role of cultural context in multilingual website usability Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2003 (2); pp2-14 Hodgson, V.E. (2002) The European Union and e-learning: an examination of rhetoric, theory and practice Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2002 (28); pp240-252 Hutchings, Tim & Saunders, Danny (2001) Curriculum methodology Active Learning in Higher Education 2 (2); pp143-13 Jaques, David (2000) Learning in Groups Kogan Page Limited, London Jones, Ann (2000) Constructivist Learning Theories and IT IN Heap, Nick; Thomas, Ray; Einon, Geoff; Mason, Robin & Mackay, Hughie Information Technology and Society Sage Publications Ltd, London; pp249-265 Moll, L.C. (1991) Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical perspective Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Palloff, Rena et al. (2001) Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom Jossey-Bass Publishing Palmer, Richard (1987) What is CBT Interactive Video? NCC Publications Paulston, Christina (1992) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Bilingual Education Longdunn Press Sanger, Jack (1997) Young Children, Videos and Computer Games: Issues for Teachers and Parents The Falmer Press Shneiderman, Ben (1983) Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages IEEE Computer 16 (8); pp57-69 Shneiderman, Ben & Kearsley, Greg (1989) Hypertext Hands-on: An Introduction to a New Way of Organizing and Accessing Information Addison Wesley Stubbs, Michael (1990) Language, Schools and Classrooms: Contemporary Sociology of the School Routledge Suchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problems of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing) Cambridge University Press Tapscott, Don (1999) Educating the Net Generation Educational Leadership 56 (5); pp6-11 Turkle, Sherry (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in Age of the Internet Touchstone, New York Woodhead, Nigel (1990) Hypertext and Hypermedia: Theory and Applications Addison Wesley