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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ig lack of tools that would enable content authors to connect and search the existing learning content repositories directly from within the authoring suites. Besides semantic annotation and search, there are approaches (Dodero et al., 2005) that try to make use of ontologies and the semantic web protocols into collaborative authoring of learning content. Finally, there are approaches (Jovanović et al., 2006; Henze, 2005) that apply semantic web technologies to support dynamic assembly and personalization of learning content. The use of social networking in e-learning has also started to attract a lot of attention recently. Terry Anderson has introduced the concept of 'educational social software', which he defines as networked tools that support and encourage individuals to learn together while retaining individual control over their time, space, presence, activity, identity and relationship (Anderson, 2005). The social networking tools have started to be applied to different aspects of the e-learning process. They are used to support a social constructivist approach to e-learning (Friensen et al., 2004), or more specifically, to support self-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities (Gillet et al., 2008). Moreover, the social networking has found its place in forming “opimal” student groups (Ounnas et al., 2008), thus helping teachers allocate students to groups based on a set of constraints. The use of social networking in e-learning has also initiated discussion about the extent to which social tools should be separated or integrated in learning management systems (LMS) (Gillet et al., 2005) Recent trends have showed moving e-learning beyond centralized and integrated LMS towards a variety of separate tools, which are used and managed by the students in relation to their self-governed work (Klamma et al., 2006). In spite of the fact that semantic web technologies and social networking have already been applied to many aspects of e-learning, a full synergy of these two initiatives in the context of e-learning still needs to happen. To what extent e-learning and the learning content authoring can benefit from this synergy has to be answered through appropriate empirical studies. We believe that the empirical study that we conducted with SDArch represents a step in the right direction. Conclusions Although the use of semantic web technologies and social networking in the authoring of learning content has been studied extensively over recent years, the real benefit they brought to the authoring process is still unclear. Up to what extent these innovative technologies can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of authors in carrying out authoring tasks is a question that still seeks an answer. In our opinion, the right answer to this question can be obtained through an empirical study conducted with an authoring system that is featured by these technologies. In this paper, we presented the results of one such empirical study that we conducted to investigate the benefits of the novel, semantic document architecture (SDArch) with respect to the authoring of the course material. Since semantic web technologies and social networking are two pillars of SDArch, the benefits of SDArch naturally extend to them. Based on objective, quantitative measures of user effectiveness and efficiency, and the users’ subjective feedback, we found that the use of semantic web technologies and social networking results in improvements of the authoring of the course material compared to the conventional authoring approach. In the future work, we plan to perform a new, long-term evaluation study with more participants and a larger document collection. We also plan to consider the application of some other evaluation metrics, in addition to those applied in this study, as well as to provide more comprehensive statistical analysis of collected data. Acknowledgements The research leading to the results presented in this paper has been partially funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement Number 247893 (TaToo – Tagging Tool based on a Semantic Discovery Framework project). References Anderson, T. (2005). Distance learning – social software's killer app? Paper presented at the Open Distance Learning Association of Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 47
Bastili, V.R., Gianluigi, C., & Rombach, D. (1994). The Goal Question Metrics Approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 1, 528-532. Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J.A., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., & Weitzner, D.J. (2006). A Framework for Web Science. Foundation and Trends in Web Science, 1(1), 1-130. Betty, C., & Allard, S. (2004). Technology and Human Issues in Reusing Learning Objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 4(1), 1-25. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Dodero, J.M., Diaz, P., Aedo, I., & Sarasa, A. (2005). Integrating Ontologies into the Collaborative Authoring of Learning Objects, Int’l J. of Universal Computer Science, 11(9), 1568-1576. Duval, E., Forte, E., Cardinaels, K., Verhoeven, B., Durm, R., Hendrikx, K., Forte, M., Ebel, N., Macowicz, M., Warkentyne, K., & Haenni, F. (2001). The ARIADNE Knowledge Pool System. In Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 73-78. Friesen, N. & Anderson, T. (2004). Interaction for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 679-687. Gediga, G., & Hamborg, K.C. (1999). Isometric: A usability inventory supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 1018-1022. Gillet, D., Sandy, E. H., Man, Y. C, & Christophe, S. (2008). Turning Web 2.0 Social Software into Versatile Collaborative Learning Solutions. In ACHI '08 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction, 170-176. Gillet, D., Nguyen, A., & Rekik, Y. (2005). Collaborative Web-based Experimentation in Flexible Engineering Education,” IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 696-704. Henze, N. (2005). Personal Readers: Personalized Learning Object Readers for the Semantic Web. In Proc. of the12th Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 274-281. Jovanović, J., Gašević, D., & Devedzić, V. (2006). Ontology-based Automatic Annotation of Learning Content. Int’l J. on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 2(2), 91-119. Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Fiedler, S., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, T., Kaibel, A., Kieslinger, B., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Scott, .P, Specht, M., Tattersall, C., & Vuorikari, R. (2006). Social Software for Professional Learning: Examples and Research Issues. In Proceedings of ICALT, 912-915. Nešić, S. (2009). Semantic Document Model to Enhance Data and Knowledge Interoperability. Annals of Information Systems, 6, 135-162. Nešić, S., Lelli, F., Jazyeri, M. & Gašević, D. (2009). Towards Efficient Document Content Sharing in Social Networks, Proc. of the 2 nd SoSEA workshop co-located with ESEC/FSE, 1-8. Nešić, S., Jazyeri, M. & Gašević, D. (2010). Semantic Document Architecture for Desktop Data Integration and Management. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE, 73–78. Nešić, S., Crestani, F., Jazyeri, M., & Gašević, D. (2010). Search and Navigation in Semantically Integrated Document Collections. In Proceedings of the 4 th International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, SEMAPRO. 55-66. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Academic Press. Nielsen, J., Bevan, N., Barnum, C., Cockton, G., Spool, M., & Wixon, D. (2003). The "magic number 5": is it enough for web testing? In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 698–699. Ounnas, A., Davis. H., & Millard, D. (2008). A Framework for Semantic Group Formation. In Proceedings of ICALT, 34 – 38. Uren, V., Cimiano, P., Iria, J., Handschuh, S., Vargasvera, M., Motta, E., & Ciravegna, F. (2006). Semantic annotation for knowledge management: Requirements and survey of the state of the art. Journal of Web Semantics, 4(1), 14–28. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., & Nardi, B.A. (2000). Let’s stop pushing the envelope and start addressing it: A reference task agenda for HCI. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 75-106. Zimmerman, D. (1997). Teachers Corner: A Note on Interpretation of the Paired Samples T-Test. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 22(3), 349–360. 48
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 and 42: to the above-discussed issues of th
Page 43 and 44: The annotation part of the SDM onto
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: participants performed less mouse c
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?