7. Future Directions
The tested system was implemented as a Java Applet, which did not take long to show its limitations with
respect to flexibility, functionality and speed when placed on the Internet. A follow up system was designed and
is being implemented as Java Servlets. These are server side processes that are responsible for filling up the
different parts of a frame-based page. These areas are divided into three main areas, one for the verbal
description, the second for the animated Flash file and the third for interaction with students. In short, Servlets
offer the ability to call any one of the verbal descriptions and the matching animation according to student
progress ensuring adaptability. It would be interesting to find out if students would prefer a particular type of
animation for a particular section and prefer verbal descriptions for another. Additional tests could be done to
students similar to those for individual differences to test if any interaction occurs with the multi-modal
representation.
Acknowledgments
The second author would like to thank god, first and foremost for insight, and for giving her a guiding star. Both
authors wish to thank Prof. Waheeb AlNaser for his support. This research is supported by a grant from the
Deanship of Scientific Research, University of Bahrain.
References
AlBalooshi, F., & Alkhalifa, E. M. (2002). Evaluating Multimedia Educational Software: The DAST
Experience, Paper presented at the 2002 Information Resources Management Association International
Conference (IRMA 2002), May 19-22, 2002, Seattle, Washington.
Alkhalifa, E. M. (2001). Why Re-Invent the Wheel? Insights from Cognitive Research on Continued Education
in Logic. Paper presented at the A Millennium Dawn in Training and Continuing Education conference, April
24-26, 2001 , Isa Town, Bahrain.
Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animation as student aids in learning computer
algorithms. Computers and Education, 33 (4), 253-278.
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors, Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Services.
Freyd, J. (1987). Dynamic Mental Representations. Psychological Review, 94 (4), 427-438.
van Jooligen, W. R. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal for Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 10, 385-397.
Lawrence, A. W., Badre, A. N., & Stasko, J. T. (1994). Empirically Evaluating the Use of Animation to Teach
Algorithms. Technical Report GIT-GVU-94-07, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Monaghan, P., & Stenning, K. (1998). Effects of representation modality and thinking style on learning to solve
reasoning problems, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, August 1-4,
1998, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things, New York: Currency/ Doubleday.
Pane. J. F., Corbett, A. T., & John, B. E. (1996). Assessing Dynamics in Computer-Based Instruction. In Tauber,
M. J. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New
York: ACM Press, 197-204.
Sharples, M., & du Boulay, B. (1988). Knowledge representation, teaching strategy and simplifying assumptions
for a concept tutoring system. Paper presented at the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August
23-28, 1998, Brighton, UK.
55