October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

document without a need to obtain a whole document that the document unit originates from. In addition, these services observe Mark’s behavior and track the data of his interaction with document units (e.g., times when he browses and reuses document units) and the way he modifies reused document units to fit to a new context. The fourth and the last group of services provide Mark the ability to navigate across collections of documents stored on his laptop as well as those documents from the social network repository by following explicit semantic links between semantically related document units. The explicit semantic links are enabled by the new document representation form and are established based on the conceptualized semantics of document units. To summarize, the novel document representation and the envisioned services that will run on top of it will enable Mark and his colleagues: to form a social network around a given topic of interest; to transform their local documents in a new form that will enable semantic integration (i.e., semantic annotation and linking) of related data kept in different documents; to share such transformed documents within the social network, and thus, semantically integrate related document data that originate from different users; to semantically search local and shared collections of the semantically integrated documents for desired data; and to navigate across local and shared document collections by following semantic links between document units and thus discover more data units of their interest. Semantic Documents In order to bring desktop documents closer to the motivational authoring scenario, we introduced a new form of documents, namely semantic documents, described by a semantic document model (SDM), and designed a supporting software architecture called Semantic Document Architecture (SDArch). Semantic documents enable unique identification, semantic annotation, and semantic linking of fine-grained data units regardless of whether they belong to the same or different documents. Moreover, semantic documents enable semantic links to be established between semantically related data units stored on personal desktops and published on the Web into shared repositories of online social network communities. Therefore, semantic documents have potential to integrate data from desktop documents into a unified desktop information space. At the same, semantic documents can fill the gap between the desktop information space and the information space of the online social network communities. Novice processes such as semantic document search and navigation, which will run on such integrated information space, will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of desktop users in carrying out their daily tasks. In the rest of this section, we first outline the main features of SDM, and then, describe the SDArch design. In the next section, we take a closer look at SDArch tools and underlying services that are essential for the given motivational authoring scenario. Semantic Document Model – SDM SDM defines semantic documents as composite information resources composed of uniquely identified, semantically annotated, and semantically interlinked document units (DUs) of different granularity (Nešić, 2009). Each semantic document is characterized by unique, permanent machine-processable (MP) representation and a number of temporal human-readable (HR) representations rendered from the MP representation. The formal specification of SDM is done by the SDM ontology, which consists of four parts: the core part, the annotation part, the semantic-linking part and the change-tracking part. The core part of the SDM ontology provides a vocabulary (classes and properties), which defines possible types of DUs and structural relationships among them. The two main DU types are atomic DUs and composite DUs. An atomic DU contains a single unit of raw digital content that exists as a physical entity independently of the document unit it belongs to and cannot be disaggregated into smaller units. A composite DU aggregates a number of atomic or other composite DUs and organizes them in a given order. 37
The annotation part of the SDM ontology provides the annotation vocabulary that describes possible types of the DUs’ annotations as well as provides the annotation interface (i.e., properties) for linking annotations to DUs. The annotation interface is designed, so that all DUs’ annotations, regardless of the annotation type, are linked to DUs in the same way. The current version of the annotation vocabulary contains concepts and properties that specify the three types of DU annotations: semantic annotation, social-context annotation and pedagogical annotation. The semantic annotations refer to concepts from domain ontologies that represent the conceptualization of the information/knowledge held by DUs. The social-context annotations (Nešić et al., SoSEA 2009) capture relevant information about the user actions such as browsing, reusing and modification that are performed to DUs in a given social context. Finally, if semantic documents hold some learning content, then their DUs can be annotated by the pedagogical annotations that we introduced to model potential pedagogical roles (e.g., abstract, introduction, conclusion, definition, explanation, description, illustration, example and exercise) of the DUs. The semantic-linking part of the SDM ontology defines the interface for linking semantically related DUs. Semantic links are determined by the ontological concepts that conceptualize shared semantics between the linked DUs. The semantic links enable the semantic navigation across integrated collections of semantic documents and thus help in the discovery of semantically related DUs. Together with the semantic annotations, the semantic links constitute the semantic layer of semantic documents. The change-tracking part of the SDM ontology provides a vocabulary that defines possible changes of DUs as well as changes of the whole semantic document. Semantic documents, that is, instances of SDM, employ HTTP-dereferenceable URIs to identify DUs and the Resource Description Framework (RDF) data model to represent structural and semantic links between them. The use of the HTTP-dereferenceable URIs and the RDF data model is inline with the Linked Data principles, so that semantic documents can be seamlessly integrated to the Linked Open Data cloud (Berners-Lee et al., 2006) and further to the envisioned Semantic Web. Moreover, the conceptualization of the document semantics by ontological concepts and the establishment of explicit semantic links between related DUs, can lead to the creation of a sufficient amount of semantically integrated data. This creation is necessary for the Semantic Web to succeed. Semantic Document Architecture - SDArch In order to support semantic document management and to enable users to take advantage of semantic documents, we designed the supporting software architecture called the semantic document architecture or SDArch. SDArch is a three-tier, service-oriented architecture (see Figure 1) composed of the data layer, the service-oriented middleware, and the user interface layer. The data layer contains the semantic document repository that is composed of the RDF and the binary data repositories, and equipped with the concept and text indexes. The RDF repository stores RDF instances of semantic documents. A binary content of semantic document units is kept separately from RDF document representations and stored in the binary data repository. SDArch maintains the single concept index that enables the semantic document search over RDF data and the single text index that enables the full-text search over document binary data. Both indexes are updated every time a new document is added to or removed from the repository. In addition, the repository exposes remotely accessible SPARQL endpoint, so that SPARQL queries can also be sent from remote machines over HTTP. The service-oriented middleware provides the service registry and establishes the communication protocol among the SDArch services and between the SDArch services and the user interface. In the actual design, the SDArch (Nešić et al., SEKE 2010) functionalities are encapsulated into five services: 1) the semantic document authoring, 2) the semantic document search and navigation, 3) the user profile management, 4) the social network management, and 5) the ontology management services. Among other functionalities, the SDArch services provide most of the functionalities intended for the realization of the motivational authoring scenario. Potential new functionalities can be added to SDArch by registering new services into the SDArch middleware. The presentation layer is the top layer of SDArch, which provides the user interface for the SDArch services. According to the service-oriented nature of SDArch, the presentation layer is technology- and platform-independent. 38
Page 1 and 2: October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4
Page 3 and 4: Supporting Organizations Centre for
Page 5 and 6: Time-Quality Tradeoff of Waiting St
Page 7 and 8: Ibáñez, M. B., García, J. J., Ga
Page 9 and 10: Situated learning. It states that k
Page 11 and 12: executed in the client, the server
Page 13 and 14: The participants were twelve non-na
Page 15 and 16: Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.
Page 17 and 18: Theoretical background Feedback, is
Page 19 and 20: There are already a number of tools
Page 21 and 22: output used were blogs, written by
Page 23 and 24: Question Table 2: Perceived Relevan
Page 25 and 26: Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Dev
Page 27 and 28: detection, and analysis of affectiv
Page 29 and 30: experience is a suitable method of
Page 31 and 32: Collins, 1998). The appraisal theor
Page 33 and 34: encompasses the finer shades of an
Page 35 and 36: and can also track faces with glass
Page 37 and 38: Acknowledgements This research was
Page 39 and 40: Merill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Traft
Page 41: to the above-discussed issues of th
Page 45 and 46: that enables the office users to ac
Page 47 and 48: Figure 4. Semantic document browser
Page 49 and 50: to the group’s shared semantic do
Page 51 and 52: participants performed less mouse c
Page 53 and 54: Bastili, V.R., Gianluigi, C., & Rom
Page 55 and 56: esource contribution, enabling conv
Page 57 and 58: Semantic Search In contrast to the
Page 59 and 60: Participation: P i i i NiVadd Vde
Page 61 and 62: and comment on each page as well. T
Page 63 and 64: Table 1. Questionnaire results (N=2
Page 65 and 66: propose for him, as well as calenda
Page 67 and 68: Discussion and Conclusion Collabora
Page 69 and 70: Sampson, D. G., & Zervas, P. (2011)
Page 71 and 72: Obtaining: the first step of the li
Page 73 and 74: process (Palmer & Richardson, 2004)
Page 75 and 76: and ratings (the use of star rating
Page 77 and 78: (K1) is the number of non-reusable
Page 79 and 80: Case 3: The process of reusing a se
Page 81 and 82: Washizaki, H., Yamamoto, Y. & Fukaz
Page 83 and 84: to examine determinants for pre-ser
Page 85 and 86: Overview of the model The first res
Page 87 and 88: significance of relationships. All
Page 89 and 90: Discussion This study represents a
Page 91 and 92: Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw,
Page 93 and 94:
Ko, C.-C., Chiang, C.-H., Lin, Y.-L
Page 95 and 96:
Interestingly, the Universal Design
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 1. Framework of the TriAcces
Page 99 and 100:
Experiment This experiment aimed to
Page 101 and 102:
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for
Page 103 and 104:
Foulds, R., & Camacho, C. (2003). T
Page 105 and 106:
answer. However, students can choos
Page 107 and 108:
Hartley & Collins-Brown, 1999; Morl
Page 109 and 110:
Subjects Figure 4. Partial misconce
Page 111 and 112:
correct for a four-option MC item i
Page 113 and 114:
from −3 to 3 for any four-option
Page 115 and 116:
Kansup, W. (1973). A comparison of
Page 117 and 118:
The theory of mental models explain
Page 119 and 120:
computer-mediated counter-arguments
Page 121 and 122:
Learning in this study refers to, w
Page 123 and 124:
the experiment process was anonymou
Page 125 and 126:
supported. However, significant dif
Page 127 and 128:
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., &
Page 129 and 130:
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.
Page 131 and 132:
Many researchers have conducted emp
Page 133 and 134:
Trialability Some studies have empi
Page 135 and 136:
Results Instrument validation Two c
Page 137 and 138:
In this study, Amos 6.0 was employe
Page 139 and 140:
Our results strongly supported the
Page 141 and 142:
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981
Page 143 and 144:
Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cres
Page 145 and 146:
What becomes clear from this short
Page 147 and 148:
Figure 1. Distribution of informati
Page 149 and 150:
Results In order to test the hypoth
Page 151 and 152:
esults of the present study with th
Page 153 and 154:
Kolbitsch, J., & Maurer, H. (2006).
Page 155 and 156:
A conceptual framework of this stud
Page 157 and 158:
eveal positive effects on students
Page 159 and 160:
learning resources; and able to acc
Page 161 and 162:
Discussion This study suggests that
Page 163 and 164:
146). Also, role of constructivist
Page 165 and 166:
eform strategy, namely, the MOE-Int
Page 167 and 168:
McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of m
Page 169 and 170:
Wu, T.-T., Sung, T.-W., Huang, Y.-M
Page 171 and 172:
Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning
Page 173 and 174:
include the number of times and ran
Page 175 and 176:
initial value for the predetermined
Page 177 and 178:
The following Eq. (18) expresses th
Page 179 and 180:
Limitations This experiment adopted
Page 181 and 182:
Table 3 shows the analysis of the p
Page 183 and 184:
enhance learning outcomes, it impor
Page 185 and 186:
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004a). Cont
Page 187 and 188:
Communication seems to be more effe
Page 189 and 190:
the audience only listened, one whe
Page 191 and 192:
Step 5) Writing the story On the ba
Page 193 and 194:
As indicated in Table 2, the differ
Page 195 and 196:
References Armstrong, S. (2003). Th
Page 197 and 198:
Goh, T.-T. (2011). Exploring Gender
Page 199 and 200:
OPAC has been transformed into AirP
Page 201 and 202:
Perceived Self-Efficacy Figure 3. H
Page 203 and 204:
were asked to rate their confidence
Page 205 and 206:
(2001). The correlation table begin
Page 207 and 208:
Discussion and Implications Note. S
Page 209 and 210:
will become important to identify i
Page 211 and 212:
Parker, A. (2007). SMS - Its use in
Page 213 and 214:
Find the perimeter of the rectangle
Page 215 and 216:
Wait Time Management Issues related
Page 217 and 218:
Precision Reduced_Precision ( T T0
Page 219 and 220:
learning concept. If the Specialty
Page 221 and 222:
Two criteria have been adopted to e
Page 223 and 224:
Reduced Recall 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
Page 225 and 226:
In this work, both recall-oriented
Page 227 and 228:
Tsai, C.-C., Chuang, S.-C., Liang,
Page 229 and 230:
confidence and self-belief in their
Page 231 and 232:
Peng et al. (2006) To explore ISE &
Page 233 and 234:
Torkzadeh, Chang, and Demirhan (200
Page 235 and 236:
educational level, locus of control
Page 237 and 238:
Internet-based learning self-effica
Page 239 and 240:
Though Lee and Lee (2008) did not d
Page 241 and 242:
Regarding the category of ISE resea
Page 243 and 244:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:
Page 245 and 246:
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V.
Page 247 and 248:
In formal learning, Safran, Helic,
Page 249 and 250:
that culture is essential when user
Page 251 and 252:
Table 3. Analysis of usage frequenc
Page 253 and 254:
7 1.16 137.73 0.25 0.29 0.25 Social
Page 255 and 256:
discussions freely. So Korean stude
Page 257 and 258:
Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R
Page 259 and 260:
Figure 1. The UE Faculty Web Portal
Page 261 and 262:
2006), and consistency (Sindhuja &
Page 263 and 264:
Independent Variables Dependent Var
Page 265 and 266:
Meanwhile, as shown in Table 4, Ava
Page 267 and 268:
design methods in the development o
Page 269 and 270:
Pearson, J. M., & Pearson, A. (2008
Page 271 and 272:
Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X.
Page 273 and 274:
As shown in this Table, Holists wil
Page 275 and 276:
satisfaction or dissatisfaction wit
Page 277 and 278:
8 I would prefer to learn from huma
Page 279 and 280:
the examples need to be more practi
Page 281 and 282:
Brotherton, J. A,. & Abowd, G. D. (
Page 283 and 284:
Cobos, D. L. (2011). Book review: T
show all

October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?