Efficiency of Different Hypermedia Design

Abstract

In this study, the efficiency of three different hypermedia is determined and efficiency scores of these three hypermedia is compared. The students worked in three hypermedia design for four week and each week cognitive load scale was administrated. In order to determine student\'s success scores, the success test was administrated at the end of four weeks. The efficiency scores of hypermedia were calculated with cognitive load and success scores. Findings showed that the efficiency of well structured and unstructured hypermedia is high and the efficiency of ill structured hypermedia is low.

Keywords

• Hypermedia, efficiency, cognitive load, success

Farklı Hiper Ortam Tasarımlarının Etkililiği

Abstract

Bu çalışmada tasarlanan üç farklı hiper ortamın etkililiği belirlenmiş ve hiper ortamların etkililik puanları arasında farklılık olup olmadığı karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırmada öğrenciler tasarlanan hiper ortamlarda dört hafta çalışmışlar ve bu süreçte her hafta öğrencilere bilişsel yük ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Uygulamanın ardından öğrencilerin başarı durumlarını belirlemek amacıyla başarı testi uygulanmıştır. Ortamların etkililik puanları ise öğrencilerin bilişsel yük ve başarı puanları dikkate alınarak hesaplanmıştır. Araştırma bulguları; iyi yapılandırılmış ve yapılandırılmamış hiper ortamların etkililiğinin yüksek olduğu, az yapılandırılmış ortamın ise etkililiğinin düşük olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Hiper ortam, etkililik, bilişsel yük, başarı

References

1. Altun, A. (2000). Patterns in cognitive process and strategies in hypertext reading: A case study of two experienced computer users. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9 (1), 35-55.
2. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2001). Deneysel desenler. Ankara: Pegem A.
3. Clark, R. C. (2003). Authorware, multimedia and instructional methods.http://www.macromedia.com/support/authorware/basics/instruct/ind ex.html adresinden 12 Nisan 2003 tarihinde alınmıştır.
4. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey. IEEE Computer, 20 (9), 17- 41.
5. Daniels, H. L. ve Moore, D. M. (2000). Interaction of cognitive style and learner control in a hypermedia environment. International Journal of Instructional Media., 27(4), 369-383.
6. Dede, C. ve Lewis, M. (1995). Assessment of Emerging Educational Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions. Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service.
7. Demirbilek, M. (2004). Effects of interface windowing modes and individual differences on disorientation and cognitive load in a hypermedia learning environment. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. University of Florida.
8. De Troyer, O. (1998). Designing well-structured web site: Lessons to be learned fromdatabase schema methodology, ERı98 Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Springer-Verlag.

9. De Vries, E. ve De Jong, T. (1999). The design and evaluation of hypertext structures for supporting design problem solving. Instructional Science, 27, 285-302.
10. Jonassen, D. H., ve Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (s. 693-719). NewYork: Macmillan.
11. Kılıç, E. ve Karadeniz, Ş. (2004). Hiper Ortamlarda Öğrencilerin Bilişsel Yüklenme ve Kaybolma Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygumalada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 40, 562-579.
12. McDonald, S. ve Stevenson, R. J. (1996). Disorientation in hypertext: the effects of three text structures on navigating performance. Applied Ergonomics, 27 (1), 61-68.
13. Paas, F. ve Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737-743.
14. Paas, F., Renkl, A. ve Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1-8.
15. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. ve Van Germen, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 63-71.
16. Rogers, P. L. (2001). Designing Instruction for Technology Enhanced Learning. IRM Pres: London.
17. Shapiro, A. (1998). Promoting Active Learning: The Role of System Structure in Learning from Hypertext. Human-Computer Interaction, 13 (1), 1-36.
18. Shapiro, A. ve Niederhauser, D. (2003). How studies of hypertext-assisted learning inform educational system design. 25. Annual Meeting of Cognitive Science Society Conference, 31 July-3 August, Boston.
19. Shapiro, A. ve Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (s.605-620). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Shu-Sheng, L. (2001). Designing the hypermedia-based learning environments. International Journal of Educational Multimedia, 28 (1). 43-57.
21. Kommers, P. A. M. (2002). Four stages in designing educational hypermedia. In Orhun, E. ve Kommers, P. A. M.(Editors). Information and Communication Technologies in Education: A Focus on Cognitive Tools. (s.29-61). İzmir, Türkiye: Ege Üniversitesi.
22. Tolhurst, D. (1995). Hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia defined?. Educational Tsechnology, 35 (2), 21-26.