Teaching-Material Design Center: An ontology-based system for customizing reusable e-materials
Introduction
With the flourishing development of the Internet, mass communication, and multimedia, different options exist for education materials. Computer-based teaching activities attract a lot of attention because learners can learn at any time and any place alone. Through the Learning Management System (LMS), students can use e-material to learn a topic according to their own needs.
Because of the prevalence of e-learning and the requirements of courseware, educational resources from different providers become more diverse. The development of courseware is being influenced by the development of information technology. Third-generation teaching material in LMS, applied in most current systems, is hypermedia courseware (Aroyo, Dicheva, & Cristea, 2002). The novelty is the lack of constraints on viewing the material in a certain order. These days, the content of teaching material is no longer limited to local access. e-Material can be obtained from different Web sites and authors, which changes the activity of courseware authoring. These changes can benefit both producers and consumers. One of the major benefits is avoiding repeatedly designing similar materials (Bohl, Schellhase, Sengler, & Winand, 2002). Thus, can select portions of e-materials from different providers and assemble them, which can provide more abundant teaching content for learners.
This selectivity feature sounds attractive. However, under the current conditions, this feature is not easily achieved. First, there is no unified standard to describe e-material. Many organizations have proposed metadata to describe digital learning resources to deal with inconsistent formats. Among them is the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), defined by the US Department of National Defense (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2001). SCORM allows for a standardized flow to find, retrieve and reuse useful resources (Silva, Lucena, & Fuks, 2001). Besides the standardization issue, course sequencing has become another important research issue (Fischer, 2001). A noteworthy question is how to provide an environment for finding and integrating suitable e-material (Paulsson & Naeve, 2003).
Our proposal for reusing e-material from different providers and integrating them for a particular course involves dividing e-material into teaching templates and learning objects. We provide a suggested workflow for reusing the material and designing a “packet”. Semantic metadata, following the SCORM Content Aggregation Model, had also been used to describe e-material. Two ontologies, course ontology and content ontology, are designed to support retrieval. Our system, the Teaching-Material Design Center (TMDC), not only supports teaching template reuse and design but also integrates and sequences learning objects. We discuss the implementation and evaluation of TMDC for a proposed course. Our system can help the courseware author search for design and adapt e-material using a recommended workflow.
Section snippets
Learning objects
Teaching materials are developed according to the needs of teaching. Currently, many studies on authoring teaching material focus on designing learning objects. In this paper, we use the term “learning object” for lack of unanimous definition (Paulsson and Naeve, 2003, Spalter and Dam, 2003). A learning object in the educational field is considered as any kind of material that can be reused in teaching, such as a lesson plan, video, or section of a program code (Spalter & Dam, 2003), or it can
The architecture of TMDC
In designing TMDC, we adopt the concepts of learning content (Fischer, 2001), integration of Agent-based Information Management System (AIMS) authoring architecture (Aroyo et al., 2002), and the process model of course authoring architecture (Klein, Ateyeh, Konig-Ries, & Mulle, 2003) to achieve the goal of reusing teaching template and learning objects. The architecture of TMDC contains four modules (shown in Fig. 1): teaching material repository, ontology, course database, and course authoring.
Methodology
We evaluated TMDC from a functionality and usability perspective. Evaluating the system involves completion of the following tasks: (1) ontology designers set up the ontology model, by Protégé 2000; (2) system designers implement a TMDC prototype system for evaluation; (3) participants use the TMDC to design a course; and (4) analysts assess the experimental results.
Participants
We invited 30 postgraduate students who had been section tutors of the “Network Management” course. They had participated in
Experiment 1
Time to develop a new course by use of TMDC and a traditional method. The effects of the procedure of course authoring is also verified.
Table 3 shows the time spent to develop a new course with use of the TMDC and a traditional system. Almost half of the participants (43.33%) spent 15–20 min generating their teaching material with use of TMDC. TMDC required a substantially shorter time for course development than the traditional system. Table 4 shows the degree of acceptance of TMDC. Most
Conclusion
e-Learning is a trend in education. Learners can benefit because the technology has no restriction in time and distance. However, building an e-learning environment means not only building a system but also generating high-quality teaching materials. Different teachers may not need the content of a whole package of e-material from a single author. Many prefer to design teaching material by combining several learning objects. Authors spend a lot of time designing similar teaching materials
References (16)
- et al.
A smart web query method for semantic retrieval of web data
Data & Knowledge Engineering
(2001) SCORM version 1.2 – the SCORM content aggregation model
- et al.
Ontological support for web courseware authoring
Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(2002) - et al.
The Semantic Web
Scientific American
(2001) - Bohl, O., Schellhase, J., Sengler, R., & Winand, U. (2002). The sharable content object reference model (SCORM) – a...
- Brantner, S., Enzi, T., Guth, S., Neumann, G., & Simon, B. (2001). Universal-design and implementation of a highly...
- et al.
The Semantic Web: the role of XML and RDF
IEEE Internet Computing
(2000) Course and exercise sequencing using metadata in adaptive hypermedia learning systems
Journal on Educational Resources in Computing
(2001)
Cited by (48)
Ontology-based e-assessment for accounting: Outcomes of a pilot study and future prospects
2013, Journal of Accounting EducationSemantic Web technologies for generating feedback in online assessment environments
2012, Knowledge-Based SystemsCitation Excerpt :Some ontologies have been built for eLearning domains: learning contents of technical documents [22], learning objects and group work [20], semantic extensions of SCORM [13], etc. On the other hand, ontologies and semantic annotations have been mainly used for the design, preparation, and classification of course materials (see for instance [36,11,24]). Regarding assessment and feedback, some related approaches can be described.
A semantic platform for the management of the educative curriculum
2012, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :Semantic eLearning facilitates obtaining easy-to-exchange learning contents, allowing for customizable learning. In this sense, semantic web technologies have been mainly used for the design, preparation, and classification of course materials (see for instance, Devedzic, 2006; Lee, Tsai, & Wang, 2008; Lytras, Pouloudi, & Korfiatis, 2003; Guangzuo & Fei, 2004; Wang & Hsu, 2006). This will not be a direct goal of the work presented in this paper, although the resulting system could be connected with semantic repositories without much additional effort.
Studying teacher selection of resources in an ultra-large scale interactive system: Does metadata guide the way?
2012, Computers and EducationCitation Excerpt :Recker et al. (2005) conducted educator workshops and found gaps in metadata that otherwise would have helped educators discover appropriate resources. Wang and Hsu (2006) designed a demonstration system for how different types of searches of metadata can result in good resource selection. Others have explored the design of systems in which accurate metadata could also help teachers find resources that minimize the need for adaption for instruction (Recker, Dorward, & Nelson, 2004; Suthers, 2001).
New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence
2011, Computers and EducationCitation Excerpt :Another technology whose use was forecasted in this report and for the same horizon was collective intelligence, which is based on knowledge generated by large groups of users, such as on Wikipedia or through passive search patterns. The Semantic Web is based on three key trends: knowledge representation (mainly through some kind of metadata or structural language), knowledge generation through collaboration (Wang & Hsu, 2006), and the personalization of the gathered knowledge (Huang & Yang, 2009). Fig. 3 shows groups of technologies that were analyzed, including the knowledge web, collaboration, learning objects, and semantic applications.
Semantic Web Technologies for supporting learning assessment
2011, Information SciencesCitation Excerpt :In [7], an ontology is used as the metamodel for representing the basic concepts related to collaborative learning and the relations and dependencies among collaborative scenarios. More recently, Semantic Web Technologies such as ontologies and semantic annotations have been mainly used in eLearning for the design, preparation, and classification of course materials (see for instance [37,28,57,17,36]). In this work, we will use ontologies to model the course knowledge and semantic annotations to classify the exams’ questions and answers regarding that ontology.