Content-Type: text/html

Interactive Computer Approaches







Interactive Computer Approaches to a Crisis Communication Case Problem







Jane W. Brown, Assistant Professor, Mass Communication
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0109B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D8834738%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_279738011%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>
812-479-2379

and

Mark L. Shifflet, Assistant Professor, Mass Communication

Department of Communication
University of Evansville
Evansville, Indiana



Abstract:
Interactive Computer Approaches to a Crisis Communication Case Problem

Jane W. Brown, Assistant Professor, Mass Communication
Mark L. Shifflet, Assistant Professor, Mass Communication

Department of Communication
University of Evansville
Evansville, Indiana

In a study involving 46 public relations students at a small Midwestern University, we compared two versions of an interactive crisis communication simulation developed with Director 7 software. One version used a hypermedia approach. The second used a linear approach approximating textbook learning. Each offered advantages and drawbacks in enhancing students' learning of crisis communication principles. Observations of students working with the two approaches revealed that neither approach held a clear advantage over the other.




Interactive Computer Approaches to a Crisis Communication Case Problem
The authors of this study come from two different perspectives. One of them teaches crisis communications to inexperienced undergraduate students and finds that traditional methods--paper-and-pencil tests, textbook case studies, and even role-playing in class--do not help students understand the ambiguities and uncertain bases for decision-making that make crisis communication such a difficult skill to acquire and practice.
The other author of this study is interested in discovering which computer applications can facilitate learning in ill-structured domains of knowledge such as complex, real-world situations like crisis communication. A hypermedia approach offers certain advantages, while a linear approach offers others. Most attempts to test these competing applications have used narrowly-based, easily controlled domains of knowledge. Jonasson et al. (1994) state,
Perhaps the major failing of instructional systems technology research has been the lack of concern with the effects of context. We test treatments on unsuspecting and often unwilling subjects who have no interest or need to know about the content embedded within our treatments. That instruction and media exist in and rely upon their surrounding context is usually ignored. (p. 32)
Many studies of hypermedia and other interactive computer approaches, while interesting, were not as useful when applied to real-world problems that are as ill-defined and lacking in "correct" answers as those involving crisis communication. By contrast, a simulation based on real-world problems demanding solutions using only partial knowledge poses a distinct challenge to those attempting to study the most effective means of presenting the material. While a problem of this type is more difficult to manage than one more narrowly defined and controlled, both authors of this study consider the task a necessary and rewarding attempt to push back the boundaries of research in this area. As Jonasson et al. (1994) note, "According to contemporary theories of learning, . . . learning is most effectively situated in the context of some meaningful, real-world task." This is, in fact, why the case method has become such a widespread pedagogical tool.
To join our investigations of pedagogical practice and technological theory, we collaborated in comparing two versions of an interactive computer application developed for a case study in crisis communication. One version took a hypermedia approach while the other took a linear approach. We hypothesized that the hypermedia version would more nearly simulate the conditions surrounding crisis communication, while the linear version could help students organize their thoughts about how to apply crisis communication principles. We further hypothesized that an individual student might find either the hypermedia or the linear approach more useful depending on that student's learning style.


BACKGROUND

Hypermedia vs. Linear Learning Models

Much has been written in the past few years about the potential for computer and multimedia technology to enhance learning in a number of academic fields.  The ability to provide students with a variety of instructional tools has led several scholars to promote the use of new technologies as a tool that can support classroom instruction and in some cases even replace it.  This idea has become especially prevalent with the growth of the World Wide Web.

        Especially in problem-based and case-based learning situations, these types of computer applications seem to offer useful new approaches.  Hoffman and Ritchie (1997) define problem-based learning as

a student-centered pedagogical strategy that poses significant, contextual zed real-world, ill-structured situations while providing resources, guidance, instruction, and opportunities for reflection to learners as they develop content knowledge and problem-solving skills (p.97).

The case method provides students with the opportunity to develop these important skills.  However, it is often difficult from a practical perspective to create these types of environments for students.  Hoffman and Ritchie point out that interactive multimedia provide an important advantage to problem-based learning applications: a simulation of the ability, characteristic of real life, to break out of time, place, and physical limitations.

An important aspect of Hoffman and Ritchie's definition is the idea that problem-based learning is well suited for areas of study where the application of knowledge must occur in ill-structured situations, where decision making is heavily influenced by context.  A number of scholars have pointed to the inadequacy of more traditional methods of instruction to address these ill-structured domains of knowledge.  Spiro, et al. (1991) argue that learning failure in these ill-structured domains is due in large part to conceptual oversimplification and the inability of students to transfer knowledge to new cases.  According to the theory of cognitive flexibility, students will be able to transfer knowledge to novel situations in an ill-structured domain when they have the opportunity to construct a "knowledge ensemble" by being exposed to knowledge represented through different conceptual and case perspectives (Spiro, et al., 1991). Jonassen et al. (1992) state that learning complex know
ledge domains through rigidly-packaged, simplified segments may make it easier for students to learn concepts and facts but will make it more difficult to adapt this knowledge to real world contexts outside the instructional setting.

Yet in public relations classes where crisis communication is taught, the biggest problem is how to help students translate the simplified principles they learn in the orderly classroom environment to the complex situations they will one day encounter in the disorderly world of real organizations confronting real crises.

        Many scholars have pointed to research that demonstrates how hypermedia instructional tools can facilitate learning. Computer technology that utilizes hypermedia in its presentation of a case--such as a case problem involving an organization in crisis--can create the type of environment that takes advantage of the learning model outlined in cognitive flexibility theory.  The advantage of hypermedia is its ability to represent the web-like complexity of knowledge (Jacobson & Spiro, 1995). Chen and Rada (1996) indicate that research studies suggest hypermedia instruction is better suited to complex (open) tasks than more traditional, linear approaches to instruction. Iiyoshi and Hannafin (1998) argue that hypermedia promotes more open-ended learning as students develop their own strategies and sequences of learning.

While a number of scholars point to the advantages of hypermedia instruction, others express reservations. One concern is that the freedom to choose the path of instruction places additional burdens on a student's cognitive processing. McKelie and Preece argue that hypermedia, with its link processing requirements, can place additional demands on a user's memory (1993). Freedom of choice can create confusing experiences for students because it increases decision-making. This can be compounded by easily accessible information which is peripherally relevant to the task at hand (Paolucci, 1998).

Besides the additional cognitive load placed on students in a hypermedia learning environment, there is the additional factor of the learner's ability and motivation to take advantage of all the instructional elements that are available.  McKnight, et al. (1990) contend that the majority of students are not able to set learning objectives for themselves and autonomously evaluate their performance in relation to the study. Kozma (1991) argues that unrestricted control and a lack of learning goals can dampen learning in a hypermedia environment. Horney (1993) found that students tend not to view all links available to them.  Nelson and Palumbo (1992) suggest that for hypermedia systems that focus on knowledge presentation with little explanation of the relationship between nodes, the developer should provide guided tours through the information to ensure all content is viewed. In summary, a strong argument can be made that providing students the freedom to learn does not assure effe
ctive learning (Marchionini, 1988).

Using the Case Study to Teach Crisis Communication

Public Relations Education for the 21st Century: A Port of Entry (1999) declares, "The teaching of public relations at all levels should emphasize active learning. . . . Simulations and role-playing . . . are very effective teaching methods for selected topics. Both encourage student involvement (affective learning) and aid in student retention of material" (p. 31). The case method and problem-based learning would then appear to offer particularly fruitful methods of studying public relations, especially fields within public relations such as crisis communication, where the application of principles in real situations requires the ability to transfer principles to dynamic situations.

In fact, public relations textbooks are filled with emblematic case analyses of organizations that solved or failed to solve the problems posed by crisis situations: the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol poisoning case and the Malden Mill fire, to name two crisis communication cases that have come to symbolize excellence in public relations; the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Bridgestone/ Firestone fiasco, to name two crisis situations that have come to symbolize mishandled public relations efforts.

Not only do teachers of public relations use cases to communicate the most important information about crisis situations, but public relations practitioners do so as well. They benchmark other organizations that have successfully weathered crises, and they create realistic scenarios as part of crisis training. Long (2001) describes the value of "staging hypothetical situations to test an organization's ability to deal with a range of realistic challenges" (p. 14). Types of crisis scenarios used in organizations include the "tabletop" exercise in which small groups work on a scenario together for a set length of time, multidisciplinary exercises involving a number of departments and organizational functions, and full-scale crisis drills. The most useful hypothetical crisis scenarios "should provide for 'developments' caused by demands for information from reporters, elected officials, investors and others" (p. 14).

Yet any use of cases, whether actual or hypothetical, must ideally be grounded in theory. Kruckeberg (1998) reviews the problems inherent in teaching the public relations case but concludes that the advantages outweigh the danger that discussions of cases will deteriorate into the merely anecdotal. Wakefield (1993) usefully discriminates among the "case," the "case history," the "case analysis," the "case study," and the "case problem." Kruckeberg and Wakefield both point out that effective use of the case in the public relations classroom must derive from sound theory and help students to understand how the case demonstrates theory.

Wakefield (1993) defines the case problem (one among a number of possible uses of the case method in the public relations curriculum) as "a question related to a public relations case and requiring inquiry, consideration, and/or solution based on public relations theories and models" (p. 1). Wakefield's discussion of possible approaches includes the use of cases "to promote critical thinking skills, . . .to provide role-playing opportunities, and to allow problem-solving and decision-making experiences in which new ideas can be tried--and mistakes can be made" (p. 2) in the safe environment of the classroom. Guided by Wakefield's criteria, the teacher of public relations intending to introduce a useful crisis communication simulation into a classroom must therefore design an exercise supported by theories of crisis communication.

Wakefield cautions especially against the use of cases in introductory public relations courses, where students may not have the background to analyze cases appropriately (1993). The simulated crisis communication case in this study, however, was used in an introductory public relations course. While introductory students may indeed lack the background to analyze actual cases, a simulation--especially one in which each step requires the student to refer to theory--can aid the student in understanding how theory applies to an unfolding crisis situation. Students are then equipped build from the knowledge of theory they have acquired through the simulation exercise to more profitably analyze actual cases.

Adams (1994) has shown the advantages to introductory students of case analysis when it is properly handled. The 46 introductory public relations students in this study, for example, worked through the simulation exercise in the ninth or tenth week of a fifteen-week semester. Their assignment for the remaining weeks of the semester was to undertake, in teams, to analyze and extrapolate from actual cases. Following a simulation (such as the one in the study) with team analyses of actual cases (such as those recommended by Adams) can provide introductory students with some of the rigor that Wakefield warns may be missed if students are given cases at this early stage in the public relations curriculum.

        In this study, because the simulation is addressed to introductory students, the public relations and crisis communication theories undergirding the simulation are basic. The linear version of the exercise provided the students in the study with all of the necessary theory before they embarked on the simulated case. For example, students encountered the traditional public relations model (the Hendrix ROPE version rather than Marston's RACE) as they moved through the introductory material before they found out what happens in the case. So if they had forgotten the model (introduced in the first week of the semester) or if they were uncertain about it, they had the opportunity to review the model before tackling the case.

The hypermedia version of the simulation exercise, by contrast, exists in a kind of simulated "real time." Students do not have all of the facts of the case at the beginning; they learn these facts only gradually. So while the students randomly assigned to the hypermedia section, like the students in the linear section of the study, had the ROPE model available to them, they were not forced to look at it before beginning the case. They were able to look at it at any time during the progress of the simulation but, again, nothing forced them to do so. Nevertheless, the way this information was presented to them--unlike the linear version--simulates more closely the model of the public relations process as a dynamic and open system rather than a rigid progression from one step to the next. The discussion of ROPE or RACE in most public relations textbooks emphasize this dynamic nature of the model, reinforcing the discussion with diagrams. Yet the linear nature of the textbook makes it hard for inexperienced students to appreciate the concept. (See, for example, Cutlip et al., p. 244; Guth & Marsh, p. 15.)

        In general, the approach to crisis communication theory in both versions of the exercise is harder to define. That is because, as  Fishman (1996) notes, the interdisciplinary nature of this public relations subspecialty and the lack of solid models result in widespread confusion of terminology and a number of eclectic approaches. Warning that "there are still many unanswered research and pedagogical questions about crisis communication," Fishman calls for more research on the subject. Nevertheless, the approach that Fishman labels "issues management" provides an especially useful starting point for a crisis communication problem presented to students as part of a theory-based public relations curriculum.

The issues management approach to crisis communication divides an organization's crisis initiative into a long-range planning phase and an actual crisis communication phase. In the long-range planning phase, the organization is engaged in "monitoring issues, establishing priorities, and communicating the company's viewpoint to its several constituencies" (Fishman, 1996). In time of crisis, the organization is then positioned "to draw upon the reservoir of good will and trust that the company previously has established" (Fishman, 1996). Such a method draws heavily on the Hunt-Grunig two-way symmetrical model of public relations, another theory emphasized in the introductory public relations course from which the study subjects were drawn.

THE STUDY

        The purpose of this study was to examine two versions of an interactive computer application developed for a case simulation in crisis communication.  One version represented a more linear approach that attempted to emulate a traditional learning environment in which students were exposed to all the resource material in a linear order and then were presented a case problem.  The idea was to create a situation that simulates that of a student who first reads through a textbook and then is asked to complete some task, in this instance, the case problem.

The second version presented students with a hypermedia approach that allowed them to choose when and how they would view the resource material.  In this version, students began the case problem immediately.  Throughout the study, these students had access to a series of links that connected them to the resource materials available at any time.  The idea behind this approach is to create an environment that simulates the real world of the public relations professional who needs to access specific information that applies to a specific situation.

        Based on the literature, each approach brings specific strengths and weaknesses to the case study.  The linear version assures that students are exposed to all the resources available in the case study before they begin.  However, all the material is read outside the context of the situations that will develop in the case study.  The hypermedia version gives students a specific context in which to search for information that pertains to the task at a given moment.  However, the students are left on their own to find all the information that is relevant to the task.

Methods

        The subjects in this case were taken from two sections of a first-level public relations class at a small private mid-western university. All students had completed an introductory series of lectures on crisis communication and were given a multiple choice pre-test to determine their level of knowledge concerning the basic principles of crisis communication.  Students were randomly assigned to one of the two versions of the exercise--linear or hypermedia--which were then administered over a two-week period. A total of 46 students participated in the study.

        The case simulation was created on Director 7, a software application used for developing interactive multimedia projects for both the World Wide Web (in the form of Shockwave) and CD-ROM.  This particular study was stored on the hard drive of a G3 Power Macintosh and was presented to students at full screen capacity.  All students who completed the study used the same computer in the same location in individual sessions.  A proctor was present during each of the 46 sessions. The proctor tracked how long it took each student to complete the study and kept a general log of the resources the student accessed at certain points in the study when presented with new information and asked to answer a question in the questionnaire. Proctors were allowed to answer questions about how the application functioned if students were having difficulty (which was noted) but they were not allowed to direct students to any specific resources or provide any information about the case problem.

        The case problem involved a chocolate company (Aunt Lolly's Gourmet Chocolate) confronted with the death of a customer possibly caused by product tampering.  The simulation put the student in the role of the director of public relations for the company. Each student was provided a questionnaire with a series of questions regarding the study.  At certain points in the study, the computer application would direct the student to a specific section in the questionnaire. Each student was required, based on the information at hand, to make decisions in the role of the public relations director. Students were faced with making decisions based many times on insufficient or even misleading information that was filtering into the organization.  The resources in the study were presented in the form of documents, such as interoffice memos, in order to simulate how resources would be available in a real organization.  The goal of this approach was to force students to sort through information
 to find what was relevant to the task at hand and apply it properly.

        In the linear version, students were informed that they would first read through four knowledge areas. These areas are:

        Basic Public Relations Principles
        Internal Communications
        Guidelines for Media Communication
        Communication Resources

Students in this version of the study could only navigate through the knowledge areas forward or backward one page at a time (similar to someone thumbing through a textbook).  Students were not required to read through another section, "Aunt Lolly's Information," which provided specific information about the company. This section was presented as a separate link on the study's pages. (FIGURE 1)

In the hypermedia version, the resource materials were divided into four knowledge areas that were presented as hypermedia links on every page, as well as the fifth link labeled "Aunt Lolly's Information." Within each of these areas were specific documents that fit each category. When a student clicked on one of these links, a new window would open with a menu that contained a list of all the documents available.  Students had the option of opening and closing windows one at a time or having multiple windows open at the same time.  (FIGURE 2)

        As mentioned, students in the linear section of the study were given the opportunity to look back at resources, but only as a whole and only with the ability to move back and forth one page at a time. While this added an element of interactivity and learner control to the linear version, it was thought that not allowing the linear students to refer back to documents (relying solely on memory) would give the hypermedia version too much of an advantage and would taint the results of the study.

Each question in the questionnaire was classified by two characteristics--necessity and specificity--that might determine whether a student would feel a need to access information from the document resources. First, because this case involved students who were already exposed to aspects of crisis communication and therefore had some level of knowledge regarding the topic, questions were classified by how important the document information was to the task of correctly answering the question. Each question was classified into one of the following three categories based on necessity:

        1 - Documents necessary to answer question
        2 - Documents important for answering question
        3 - Documents useful for answering question

Second, questions were classified by the specificity of the answer required for each particular question.  Each question was identified as being in one of the following three categories based on specificity:

        1 - Answer is direct factual information from the documents
        2 - Answer is a fact applied from document information
        3 - Answer is a concept applied from concepts in the documents

        The questionnaire was made up of 34 questions divided among 12 sections (labeled A through L). Each section marked a point in the study when a student was presented with new information in the case and was directed to the questionnaire.  Each questionnaire was graded by the course instructor.  Each question was worth one point total.  However, a student could receive partial credit for getting part of the answer correct.  The questionnaires were coded so that the instructor did not know the name of the student or the version of the case study that they used.  After grading the questionnaire, the authors of the study eliminated one question from the analysis because of misleading wording.

Results

        Of the 46 students who participated in the study, 43 students completed the entire study.  Three students, for various reasons, were unable to finish.  Their scores were not figured into the total results but were figured into the results for the individual questions they completed.  Results of the study show that students taking the linear version did slightly better on the total score than students taking the hypermedia version ( 25. 8 - Linear / 23.3 - Hyper) (TABLE 1).  However, the difference was not statistically significant (at p <.05).  This difference mirrored the difference in scores on the pretest in which the linear students had higher scores than the hypermedia students--a difference that was not, however, statistically significant (38.3 - Linear / 36.8 - Hypermedia). When scores were broken down by question, hypermedia students scored higher on 17 questions, linear students scored higher on 16 questions, and one question scored even.

Of all these questions, 6 were significantly higher (p<.05) for linear students while only one was significant in favor of hypermedia students.  It is worth noting that 4 of the questions on which linear students scored higher were among the first 6 questions on the questionnaire.  When the questionnaire is broken into two halves (sections A-E / sections F-L) (TABLE 2A & B), linear students scored higher or even on 11 of 17 questions in the first half while hypermedia students scored higher on 12 of 18 questions in the second half. Looking at questions across the necessity and specificity scales showed no significant differences across versions of the case study (TABLE 3A & B) (FIGURES 3-8).

There was a significant difference (p <.008) in the time it took students to complete the study based on the version used.  The linear students on average took 78 minutes to complete the study compared to 64 minutes for hypermedia students (TABLE 4).  There was no significant difference in scores based on the time it took to complete them.  The logs of student access to resources do not show any impact on student scores (TABLE 5).  As expected, students in the linear version did not access the documents as often as hypermedia students since they had already been exposed to them. They also accessed documents more often on sections that contained questions in which document information had been defined as necessary. The vast majority of hypermedia students accessed documents on every section with the exception of two which contained very open-ended questions. Again, there was no relationship between the number of sections a student accessed in the case-study documents and the scores, either by section or by total score.


Discussion

An analysis of these two approaches to a hypermedia case study shows the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. An important note concerning how the hypermedia students began the study shows they had some understanding of how the application was structured. Of the 23 students who began the hypermedia version, 13 began the study without recognizing the document files were available through the links on the screen.  They often redid section A when they realized linked information was available. This happened even though the existence and importance of these documents to the study were explicitly pointed out in the instructions. Some students stated that they thought they were supposed to rely on information they picked up in class. Some students said they were so focused on the facts of the study and figuring out when to go to the questionnaire that they didn't notice the section of links that appeared on the page. It may be that some students were intimidated by the applicati
on and in the process became so focused on one aspect of the application that they missed an important element.  The problem might best be described as a type of "tunnel vision" that led students not to survey the entire environment of the application. (As the designers of the simulation refine it further, they are already working on clarifying features of the introductory screens.)

The one noticeable drawback for the students taking the linear version was fatigue.  Students often gave implicit or explicit signs that they were tired of reading through all the material before the study began.  Once in the study, a couple of students complained that they couldn't keep track of everything they read and that they had seen the answer to the question somewhere but couldn't find it.

While there was no substantial statistical difference between the two groups, pedagogically speaking the students in the hypermedia group appeared to have encountered a crisis communication problem in a more realistic way than the linear students did. This "gut feel" about the results of the exercise has proven to be very hard to test. That is because the conditions of the exercise created a classic "catch-22" situation. If the knowledge areas on which both groups could draw had been restricted to an easily-controlled body of information, the realism of the crisis situation would have been violated; crises, by their very nature, are notoriously difficult to control and understand. On the other hand, the uncontrollable nature of the knowledge areas surrounding the crisis situation makes it difficult to test how various methods of accessing them actually work.

The study did attempt to sort students into cross-referenced groups based on learning style. However, available tests of learning style turned out to be too coarse-grained to make the fine discriminations needed to yield any useful differences for this exercise.

For those students who are ready, though, the hypermedia version offers endless potential for exploring the subject of crisis communication. As Michael Joyce put it (1993):

Hypertext readers not only choose the order of what they read but in doing so also alter its form by their choices. . . . Hypertext takes advantage of the computer's ability to retrieve information in any order . . . and to store it in any form. . . Hypertext enables interaction between viewers of its material and those who created or gathered that material.

Writing in 1993, Joyce was standing on the brink of a revolution. As our more technologically savvy students already know, text has been joined by graphics, by sound, by any other artifact that can be digitally encoded. While some students now are slowed or baffled by hypermedia, the students of the future, cutting their teeth on this technology, probably will not be. In a very short time, perhaps under a decade, the distinctions this study was designed to examine may be moot. Computer simulations of cases like this one may one day be among the most widely-used tools on the public relations department's workbench.












REFERENCES


Adams, W. (1994). Using Case Studies in the Introductory Public Relations Course. Teaching Public Relations, 34, 1-5.

Chen, C. & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 125-156.

Commission on Public Relations Education.(1999,October). Public Relations Education For the 21st Century: A Port of Entry.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective Public Relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fishman, D. (1996). Perspectives on Crisis Communication. Teaching Public Relations, 41, 1-5.

Guth, D. W. & Marsh, C. (2000). Public Relations: A Values-Driven Approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hoffman, B. & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multimedia to overcome the problems of problem based learning. Instructional Science , 25, 97-115.

Horney, M. (1993). A measure of hypertext linearity. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(1), 67-82.

Iiyoshi, T. & Hannafin, M.J.(1998, April). Cognitive tools for open-ended learning environments: Theoretical and implementation perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Jacobson, M.J. & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.

Jonassen, D. H., Ambruso, D. R., & Olesen, J. (1992).  Designing a hypertext on Transfusion medicine using cognitive flexibility theory. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 2, 309-322.

Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with Media: Restructuring the Debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 31-39.

Joyce, M. (1993). Of Two Minds: Hypertext Pedagogy and Poetics. Hypertext and Hypermedia.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 6(2),179-211.



Kruckeberg, D. (1998). Using Case Studies in the Classroom. In L. M. Sallot (Ed.), Learning To Teach: What You Need To Know To Develop a Successful Career as a Public Relations Educator (pp. 331-347). New York: Educators Academy, Public Relations Society of America.

Long, R. K. (2001, January). Realistic Drills Enhance Survival in Crisis. Public Relations Tactics, 14.

Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology, 28(11), 8-12.

McKerlie, D. & Preece, J. (1993). The hype and the media: Issues concerned with designing hypermedia. Journal of Microcomputer Applications, 16(1). 33-47.

McKnight, C., Richardson, J., &  Dillon, A. (1990). Journal articles as learning resource: What can hypertext offer? In D. Jonnasen and H. Mandl. Eds, Designing Hypermedia for Learning. (pp.277-291). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Nelson, W. A. & Palumbo, D. B. (1992). Learning, instruction, and hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(3), 287-299.

Paolucci, R. (1998). The effects of cognitive style and knowledge structure on Performance using a hypermedia learning system. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 123-150.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J. &  Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instructions for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology , 31(5), 24-33.

Wakefield, G. (1993). The Public Relations Case as a Teaching Tool. Teaching Public Relations, 29, 1-9.


























Table 1
Total Case Study Scores and Pre-Test Scores by
Case Study Version



                                        Hypermedia               Linear
                                           Version              Version
Pre-Test Score
(45 total)                                  36.81                 38.28

Case Study Score                            23.25                 25.78
(34 total)






































Table 2A
Case Study Version with the
Highest score per Question

                                Version with the Highest Score
Section A
     Q.1                                        Linear
     Q.2                                        Dropped
     Q.3                                        Linear*
     Q.4                                        Linear*
Section B
     Q.1                                        Linear*
     Q.2                                        Hypermedia
     Q.3                                        Linear*
Section C
     Q.1                                        Linear
     Q.2                                        Hypermedia
Section D
     Q.1                                        Hypermedia
     Q.2                                        Linear
     Q.3                                        Hypermedia
     Q.4                                        Linear
Section  E
     Q.1                                        Linear
     Q.2                                        Linear
Section  F
     Q.1                                        Even
     Q.2                                        Hypermedia*
Section G
     Q.1                                        Linear*
     Q.2                                        Hypermedia
     Q.3                                        Linear
     Q.4                                        Hypermedia
     Q.5                                        Hypermedia
     Q.6                                        Hypermedia
     Q.7                                        Hypermedia
     Q.8                                        Linear

*Statistically significant at p < .01



















Table 2B
Case Study Version with the
Highest score per Question

                                Version with the Highest Score
Section H
      Q.1                                       Hypermedia
      Q.2                                       Hypermedia
      Q.3                                       Hypermedia
Section I
      Q.1                                       Linear
      Q.2                                       Hypermedia
      Q.3                                       Hypermedia
Section J
      Q.1                                       Hypermedia
      Q.2                                       Linear
Section K
     Q.1                                        Linear
Section L
     Q.1                                        Linear


































Table 3A
Classification of Questions by
Necessity and Specificity

Necessity Scale
        1 - Documents necessary to answer question
        2 - Documents important for answering question
        3 - Documents useful for answering question
Specificity Scale
        1 - Answer is direct factual information from the documents
        2 - Answer is a fact applied from document information
        3 - Answer is a concept applied from concepts in the documents

                              Necessity      Specificity                High Score Version
Section A
     Q.1                                1               1                       L
     Q.2                                                                        Dropped
     Q.3                                1               2                       L*
     Q.4                                2               2                       L*
Section B
     Q.1                                3               2                       L*
     Q.2                                3               2                       H
     Q.3                                2               1                       L*
Section C
     Q.1                                3               3                       L
     Q.2                                3               2                       H
Section D
     Q.1                                1               1                       H
     Q.2                                1               1                       L
     Q.3                                1               1                       H
     Q.4                                1               1                       L
Section  E
     Q.1                                1               1                       L
     Q.2                                2               2                       L
Section  F
     Q.1                                3               3                       L
     Q.2                                3               3                       H*

*Statistically significant at p < .01

















Table 3B
Classification of Questions by
Necessity and Specificity

                            Necessity       Specificity         High Score Version
Section G
   Q.1                          3               1                       L*
   Q.2                                  1               1                       H
   Q.3                          3               1                       L
   Q.4                          1               1                       H
   Q.5                          3               2                       H
   Q.6                          3               2                       H
   Q.7                          3               2                       H
   Q.8                          3               3                       L
Section H
   Q.1                          3               2                       H
   Q.2                          3               2                       H
   Q.3                          2               1                       H
Section I
   Q.1                          3               2                       L
   Q.2                          3               2                       H
   Q.3                          1               1                       H
Section J
   Q.1                          1               1                       H
   Q.2                          3               2                       L
Section K
   Q.1                          3               3                       L
Section L
   Q.1                          2               3                       L

* Statistically significant at p < .01



























Table 4
Time it took to complete the case study by version

                                   Time
                                (minutes)

Hypermedia                          64.3

Linear                      78.1


Statistically significant at  p<.008










































Table 5
Number of Students who referred to Case Study
Documents by Section by Case Study Version

                                    Hypermedia          Linear
                                      (21 total)*                  (21 total)*
Section A                               17                              17
Section B                               17                              15
Section C                               11                               5
Section D                               19                              17
Section E                               20                              12
Section F                               18                               6
Section G                               21                              11
Section H                               20                              10
Section I                               19                              13
Section J                               18                              13
Section K                                5                               4
Section L                               15                               6

*Students with incomplete logs were dropped from this table





























































FIGURE 3























FIGURE 4























FIGURE 5























FIGURE 6























FIGURE 7























FIGURE 8























FIGURE 9