This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
Cortese then compares learning of basic facts, definitions, and “knowledge structure density 1” across basic, definitional, and relational site designs. The findings, however, are not as initially expected.
Based on the results of the first, well-controlled study, Cortese finds that the relational site appears to actually inhibit definitional knowledge gain compared to the other two site designs. The design of the site—initially, at least—also appears to have no influence on the other two forms of knowledge. Combining across a number of tests with various levels of statistical control, one could conclude that the best overall site design would be the definitional site design because it increased definitional knowledge (compared to the relational site) but did not appear to inhibit either factual learning or knowledge structure density.
However, the story is more complicated than this. In fact the effectiveness of the relational site is dependent upon the user’s level of motivation. Among those highly motivated (and the likely real-world users of such a health site), the relational site is considerably better at encouraging knowledge structure density than its basic and definitional competitors. Those who are generally least motivated, do worst at increasing knowledge structure from exposure to the relational site. This appears to be further evidence that there is often an interaction between user characteristics and media attributes or design—similar to what educational technologists have called the “aptitude-treatment interaction” and communication researchers have studied under the “knowledge gap hypothesis”—that makes it impossible to offer a “one size fits all” design solution that will optimize results for all users.