uses data Learners in the environment
Creators of new material Creators of new material Other experts
neuropsychologists occupational therapists Material editor
learning space Interface to the
produces data
Evaluation and assessment provides material
Figure 1.1: The learning environment for the thesis.
to act on behalf of the user and execute tasks but to help the learner in conceptualizing the learning task. Because of the openness for various ma-terials and different instructional approaches or theories, the task conceptu-alization can be achieved, for example, by different types of metacognitive support in tasks.
1.3 Structure of the thesis
In the next chapter, we formulate the definitions and additional terminology that the thesis is built upon. Since the thesis is multi-disciplinary and tries – among other things – to bridge the gap between different disciplines, the concepts also cover other areas than the area of computer science.
The third chapter presents an interlude to related research in the area by reviewing and classifying educational software. The purpose of the clas-sification is to motivate the need for an open model described in the thesis.
The main contribution of the research begins in the fourth chapter. The chapter defines the expressive model for structuring any learning material.
The model allows hosting different domains and different users, and can be effective in different situations by providing adaptation (i.e. individual learning experiences). In addition, the model does not restrict the use of
various learning theories or approaches. The part of the thesis describing the model is mainly based on a seminal paper about the model (Kurhila &
Sutinen 2000b), updated and refined for the purpose1. Later in the chapter, we try to illuminate the operation of the learning space model by reflecting it against the operational principles in traditional tutoring systems, mainly to those well-established in cognitive science. The section derives from the issues discussed in Kurhila & Laine (2000).
The fifth chapter deepens the discussion about the features of the learn-ing space model and describes the different content the domain indepen-dence enables. First, we review how the traditional computer-aided instruc-tion can be incorporated into the learning space model, before proceeding into more advanced types, such as educational hypermedia, rudimentary adaptive educational hypermedia, computer games and simulations. The last two sections discuss learning material supporting specific deficiencies and evaluational material for neuropsychological assessment. Apart from the two last sections in the fifth chapter, the text is mainly based on Kurhila
& Sutinen (1999). The last section discussing the support for mental pro-gramming is an enhanced version of Kurhila & Sutinen (2000a).
The sixth chapter describes the empirical evaluations of the learning space model. Two studies were conducted to test the model from the learn-ers’ point-of-view, one in the context of special education and one in the context of elementary education. The learning space model presented in the thesis is more powerful than the empirical evaluations suggest. The evalua-tions carried out were deliberately simple since large-scale evaluaevalua-tions were out of reach due to the heavy workload included in learning material design and implementation as well as organizing the field-trials. The two studies were originally presented in Kurhila & Varjola (2002) and Kurhila et al.
(2002), respectively. The third study presented in the chapter concentrates on examining the model from the authors’ point-of-view, illustrating the importance of ease of authoring in adaptive systems for learning. The third study is from Kurhila (2003).
Formalizing a scientific endeavour can open up possibilities otherwise missed. The seventh chapter makes a tentative step towards formalizing the learning space model and discusses some properties of the model. The chapter suggests some lines of work that could be followed. The text in the chapter builds on the work presented in Kurhila et al. (2001).
The last chapter summarizes the main points and discusses some of the questions raised throughout the thesis. In addition, some issues for future work are pointed out.
1Origins of the work are in Kurhila & Sutinen (1998) and Kurhila et al. (1998).
Chapter 2
Terminology related to the thesis
2.1 Hypertext, hypermedia and hyperspace
Today, hypertext and hypermedia are common concepts. The idea of hy-pertext dates back to the time before computers, and it is credited to Van-nevar Bush (Bush 1945). A typical definition ofhypertextis that hypertext consists of nodes and links between the nodes. Nodes are normally con-cepts, and links present relationships between the concepts. The concepts in nodes are presented in a textual form. If the nodes contain graphics, video, audio or any other non-textual format, it is normal to refer to the collection of nodes and links as hypermedia (Smith & Weiss 1988).
The links in hypertext or hypermedia can be bidirectional or restricted to one direction. The links can also be typed, for example, as specification links, elaboration links, membership links or others. In addition, the links can be referential for cross-referencing or hierarchical.
Hyperspace, on the other hand, refers to the nodes and their intercon-nections (links) as a structure. The use of the term hyperspace is often interchangeable with the term hypermedia. There is a clear distinction in the emphasis, though: hypermedia refers to the content of the hypermedia environment, and hyperspace refers to the nodes and links regardless of the node content.
Hyperspace can also be a space defined by more than three dimensions.
Mathematically, a space may be defined by any number of dimensions, and the position of objects within that space may be located, much as we might locate an object in 3-space on the basis of axes of length, width, and height.
7