Authoring of Adaptive (and Adaptable) Educational Hypermedia A 3 EH Course ; day2 part2/2

1. Authoring of Adaptive (and Adaptable) Educational Hypermedia A3EH Course ; day2 part2/2 Dr. Alexandra Cristea a.i.cristea@tue.nl http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~alex/

2. Outline Theory • Adaptive Hypermedia of the Past, Present and Future • Example systems and applications • Authoring for Adaptive Hypermedia • AH Authoring reference architecture: LAOS • A closer look on adaptation design: LAG • Learning Styles in Adaptive Hypermedia • Conclusions

3. Authoring AHS • content alternatives, • model population • adaptation mechanism & whole • user-system interaction mechanism design

4. Content alternatives (attributes) ex. Title: Adaptive Hypermedia Introduction: Adaptive Hypermedia deals with personalization and adaptation in hypertext and hypermedia. Concept Keywords: adaptive; hypermedia; hypertext; personalization Introduction: Adaptive Hypermedia deals with personalization and adaptation in hypertext and hypermedia. Text: Adaptive Hypermedia is a special type of hypermedia that customizes the information that each user receives. Based on an interpretation of the user’s current needs, interests, goals, knowledge, etc., adaptive hypermedia systems provide the users with information ...

5. User model population (initialization) ex. overlay free Concept1 Knowledge: 0 Learning style: unknown Interest: 50 Age group: 10 years Concept2 Knowledge: 10 Concept3 Knowledge: 20

6. Presentation model population (initialization) ex. overlay free Concept1 Color char: Red Screen resolution: 1024x768 pixels Page no.: 3 Min char size: 10 points Concept2 Color char: Blue Connection: 56kbps modem Concept3 Color char: Black

7. Adaptation techniques ex. Concept1 prerequisite Concept3 Concept2 prerequisite

8. Adaptive navigation & presentation

9. Adaptive navigation & presentation

10. Adaptive navigation & presentation

11. Adaptive navigation & presentation

12. Adaptive navigation & presentation

13. Adaptive navigation & presentation

14. Adaptive navigation & presentation

15. Adaptive navigation & presentation

16. (some) Authoring perspectives • Conceptual view: defining concepts, interrelationships and resources. • Navigational (goal) view: defining navigation behavior. • Presentation view: defining presentation aspect like frame, frameset, and window and pages content .

17. Authoring AHS • content alternatives, adaptation mechanism & whole user-interaction mechanism design • complicated heavy task => help, guidelines & automation facilities needed • for AHS to spread widely => facilitate author work (Open Learning Repositories)

18. “Authoring problem” Defining:- content alternatives & multiple paths through the content - adaptation techniques - whole user-interaction mechanism design Alleviating “Authoring problem”Improving reuse capabilities:(reuse of previously created material & other components)- reuse of static & dynamic parts of the courseware Our solutionReuse of static materials:LAOS (learning repositories) ; implementation: MOTReuse of dynamics:“Exchanging not only the ingredients, but the recipes as well”Adaptation languages:-LAGimplementation: MOT- LAG-XLS (read as “LAG-excels”)

19. Authoring & standardization • Formalization attempts: • standardizingthe whole procedure • Research on a systematic base • clear explicit models for adaptive authoring

20. Outline • Adaptive Hypermedia of the Past, Present and Future • Example systems and applications • AH Reference architectures: AHAM • Authoring for Adaptive Hypermedia • AH Authoring reference architecture: LAOS • A closer look on adaptation design: LAG • Learning Styles in Adaptive Hypermedia • Authoring system: MOT • Delivery System: AHA! • Conclusions

21. LAOS • What is LAOS? • Concept based adaptation • LAOS components • Why LAOS? • LAOS authoring steps • Future directions

22. What is LAOS?

23. What is LAOS ? • a generalized model for generic adaptive hypermedia authoring • based on the AHAM model • based on concept maps • http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~alex/HTML/Minerva/papers/WWW03-cristea-mooij.doc • http://www.ifets.info/journals/7_4/7.pdf

24. Why LAOS?

25. General motivation for layer distributed information • Flexibility • Expressivity (semantics: also meta-data) • Reusability • Non-redundancy • Cooperation • Inter-operability • Standardization

26. LAOS components

27. LAOS components • domain model (DM), • goal and constraints model (GM), • user model (UM), • adaptation model (AM) and • presentation model (PM)

29. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Why user model (UM)? • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Why presentation model (PM)?

30. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Because of historical AHS, ITS, AHAM • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Why user model (UM)? • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Why presentation model (PM)?

31. LAOS • supporting adaptive hypermedia authoring • five layers: • Domain Model (DM) • Goal and constraints Model (GM) • User Model (UM) • Adaptation Model (AM) • Presentation Model (PM)

32. DM

33. Creation of the LAOS Domain Model • Domain Model in MOT is represented by a list of Domain Maps, called Conceptmaps

34. Conceptmaps in MOT • each concept map corresponds roughly to a “book” as is required by the LAOS model • these books should describe different topics • however, just as in reality, different books may treat a similar topic

35. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Why user model (UM)? • Because of historical ITS, AHS, AHAM • Because of personalization aim • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Why presentation model (PM)?

36. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Why user model (UM)? • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Because of AHAM • Because of personalization aim • – see also LAG for more details!! • Why presentation model (PM)?

37. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Why user model (UM)? • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Why presentation model (PM)? • Because of Kuypers, AHAM • Because of non-user dependent parameters

38. LAOS motivation in detail • Why domain model (DM) ? • Why goal and constraints model (GM)? • Because of book metaphor • Also because of goal adaptation!! (see adapt to what?) • Why user model (UM)? • Why adaptation model (AM)? and • Why presentation model (PM)?

39. LAOS • supporting adaptive hypermedia authoring • five layers: • Domain Model (DM) • Goal and constraints Model (GM) • User Model (UM) • Adaptation Model (AM) • Presentation Model (PM)

40. Creation of the LAOS Goal and Constraints Model • Goal and Constraints Model in MOT is represented by a list of Lesson Maps, called Lessons

41. Lessons in MOT • Lessons are filtered versions of the (domain) Conceptmaps • they actually represent an overlay model with pedagogic information • Lessons contain prerequisites • Lesson contain ordering information • Lessons contain labels & their respective weights

42. GM book metaphor – why? • Domain model only: • equivalent to skip the presentation and just tell the user to read the book. • search space too big • Not only one purposeful orientation

43. GM motivation • intermediate authoring step, • goal & constraints related: • goals: focused presentation • specific end-state • constraints: limit search space • DM filter

44. GM

45. Authoring steps in LAOS • STEP 1: write domain concepts + concept hierarchy + attributes (contents) + other domain relations • STEP 2: add content related adaptive features regarding GM (design alternatives – AND, OR, weights, etc.) • STEP 3: add UM related features (simplest way, tables, with attribute-value pairs for user-related entities (AHAM); UM can be represented as a concept map) • STEP 4: decide among adaptation strategies, write in adaptation language medium-level adaptation rules or give the complete set of low level rules (such as condition-action (CA) or IF-THEN rules). • STEP 5: define format (presentation means-related; define chapters) Only precondition is Step 1 before Step 2!!

46. Any questions?

47. LAOS components – definitions

48. Domain concept model • Definition 1. An AHS domain mapDM is determined by the tuple <C,L, Att>, where • C: set of concepts, • L: set of links, • Att a set of DM attributes • Definition 2. A domain conceptcDMi. C is defined by <A,C> • where A : set of attrs and C set of sub-concepts. • Constraint 1.Amin is the minimal set of (standard) attributes required for each concept to have (AAmin). • for sufficient meta-data • if Amin = required standard attributes.

49. Domain concept model inMOT • Definition 1. An AHS domain mapDM is determined by the tuple <C,L, Att>: C: set of concepts,  L: set of links : only hierarchical and relatedness Att a set of DM attributes • Definition 2. A domain conceptcDMi. C is defined by <A,C> where A : set of attrs and C set of sub-concepts. • Constraint 1.Amin is the minimal set of (standard) attributes required for each concept to have (AAmin). • Amin = {title, introduction, text, figure, exercise, conclusion} • Amin

50. Domain concept model – cont. • Definition range 2.1. A domain concept cC is a composite domain concept if c.C. • Definition range 2.2. A concept cC is an atomic domain concept if c.C=. • Definition 3. A domainlinklL is a tuple <S, E, N, W> with S,E{DMi.ck}i,k (S, E) start and end sets of DM concept instances, respectively; N set of labels of the links; W set of weights of the links.