Defining Ontology Specification for Personal Learning Environment Forming

Defining Ontology Specification for Personal Learning Environment Forming

Malinka Ivanova, Technical University – SofiaMohamed Amine Chatti, RWTH Aachen University

September 15 -17, 2010 Hasselt, Belgium

Aim

• Creation of a tool for conceptual understanding of Personal Learning Environment before its bulding, based on exsting experience and exploration of the students‘ opinions, aspects and viewpoints

Outline

• existing PLE approaches• needs analysis• ontology presentation• PLEF specification• conclusion

PLE approaches

• The vision of PLE is still formingAim: • supporting deep and meaningful engagement of

students in a learning process and• attempting to enhance self-organized learning

several solutions exist, especially created for educational purposes

PLEFRWTH Aachen University

Conceptual view

PLEFRWTH Aachen University

Prototype

GraaspEPFL Lausanne

Conceptual view

GraaspEPFL Lausanne

Prototype

Microblog cirip.euTimsoft, Romania

Microblog cirip.euTimsoft, Romania

Prototype

Graz University of Technology

• PLE integration

Graz University of Technology

Prototype

PLExusNorwegian University of Science and

Technology

Conceptual model• is built around the use of

topic maps• topic maps are suitable as the

core of a powerful PLE with information administration, search and navigation

PLExusNorwegian University of Science and

TechnologyPrototype

Ontology presentation

• The concepts related to the logical and technical functionality of PLE building can be presented through ontologies

• Such presentation of information is chosen because it proposes a powerful method for organizing, retrieving and interacting with the included data

a model for conceptual understanding of PLE and conceptual self-understanding of students’ needs using ontology apparatus is proposed

Related work

• ontology usage for modelling of personalization in an eLearning environment: – for modelling of learner profile in support of

course structure design, for monitoring and evaluating of learner behaviour

Hadj M'tir, R.; Jeribi, L.; Rumpler, B.: Ontology-based Modeling for Personalized E-Learning, 2007

Related work• for describing the knowledge about student learning styles, student performance,

and student data in context of the personalization in eLearning system

Pramitasari, Hidayanto, Aminah, Krisnadhi, Ramadhani, 2009

Related work

• for describing the features of domains, users, and observations in support of dynamically generating personalized hypertext relations

Henze, Dolog ,Nejdl, 2004

Personal reader

Phases of PLE Creation

there is no approach reflecting on exploration and analysis of students’ preferences, learning styles and needs in the point of view of their preliminary preparation and conceptually understanding of technical and pedagogical aspects of PLE building

Students ask?

• Why do I have to possess a Personal Learning space?

• What does PLE mean?• Which technologies are

suitable?• How to organize available

tools? • How will it support my

interests and learning?

Why is the phase “PLE conceptual understanding” important when PLE is examined as “bottom up approach”?

PLE conceptual understanding

Self-cognition• Self-answering of questions about– learning needs and goals– preferred media content format for

learning– preferred communication channels

lead to clearing of methods for information and knowledge absorbing and remembering


Self-organization• increased individual control over

learning and self-management through a process that involves– choice of scenario– learning recourses selection– recording thoughts– reflecting on thoughts– engaging in learning conversations

with others about one's own learning


Self-planning of personal development

• personal change , progress personal development

• a self improvement plan (strategy) based on understanding about the current and future professional positions, readiness for actions and awareness of potentials for realization successful personal development


Self-competence realization• Self-competence - sense

of a student to be capable, effective and in self-control

• It is result from successful management of the learning environment and from achievement of needs and goals


• a tool for modeling the understanding of PLE is useful: – for students who for first time will be

introduced with the PLE concept– for self-organized learners and life-long

learners who wish to improve their competences

• it is designed via ontology apparatus and used to support the PLE conceptual specification understanding of a student group during one semester

Ontologies overview

• ontology in the field of computer science– is defined as a model for describing the world

that consists of a set of classes, properties, and relationship types

• ontology as an explicit specification of a conceptualization– a conceptualization is an abstract and simplified

view of the concepts and their relationships

Ontologies overview

• may vary in their content, structure and implementation• can be more complex including distinguished properties or

properties that can define new concepts• differ in respect to the scope and purpose of their content• consist of a terminological component (XML document) and

an assertional component• can be realized in a number of languages - DAML+OIL (DARPA

Agent Markup Language), OWL (Web Ontology Language)

the PLE ontology specification has been developed using the software platform of AltovaSemanticWorks

Methodology

• Steps for PLE modeling based on ontologies:

(1) Domain knowledge building – collecting of suitable information to define the terms used formally to describe the PLE

(2) Design the ontologies’ structure – identifying the concepts, instances and their properties in OWL language

(3) Further detailization - adding the concepts, relations, and instances to the level of detail clearing the ontology

(4) Checking of ontology correctness - ensuring syntactic, logical, and semantic inconsistencies among the ontology elements

(5) Verification of the ontology

Domain Knowledge Building

In this step:• the information gathered by students via

surveys is analyzed with aim to forming the terminology for PLE ontology specification


• How do you self-rate the level of your computer literacy?

Result : (1) The majority of male and female students say that their ICT knowledge and skills are good (75% female, 62,5% male); (2) There is no students’ self-rating with average and poor computer literacy level

Domain Knowledge Building• How often do you use applications for document processing, media files processing,

emails composing, news reading, information searching, participation in social networks?

Result: (1)100% male students

several times/day use search engines

(2) the more used applications by 87,5% male students (several times/day) are for reading/sending emails, files sharing and news reading and

(3) a small percentage of students have never participated in social networks

Documen

t pro

cessin

g

Reading/S

ending e

mails

Socia

l netw

ork parti

cipati

on

Searc

h engin

e usag

e

Media

files sh

aring

Media

files cr

eating/e

diting

News r

eading

Other0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NeverSeveral times/month1 time/weekSeveral times/week1 time/daySeveral times/day

The frequency of computer and Internet applications usage by male students


The frequency of computer and Internet applications usage by female students

Documen

t pro

cessin

g

Reading/S

ending e

mails

Socia

l netw

ork parti

cipati

on

Searc

h engin

e usag

e

Media

files sh

aring

Media

files cr

eating/e

diting

News r

eading

Other0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NeverSeveral times/month1 time/weekSeveral times/week1 time/daySeveral times/day

Result: (1) 50% female students

several times/day use search engines

(2) 50% female students several times/day utilize applications for document processing, reading/sending emails, news reading, participation in social networks

(3) a small percentage of students have never participated in social networks

• How often do you use applications for document processing, media files processing, emails composing, news reading, information searching, participation in social networks?

Domain Knowledge BuildingWhat motivates you to use information and computer

technologies?Result:1) The main reason for self

motivation of 62,5% males is “to understand the new technology and to study it”

2) For 50% of female students, the main driving forces are: “to understand the new technology and to study it” and “want to advance my ICT skills and knowledge”

3) 50% male students are motivated to use ICT technologies when they have to “improve their ICT skills and knowledge and when they “can produce their own artifact”

To u

nder

stan

d th

e ne

w te

chno

logy

and

to s

tudy

Wan

t to

adva

nce

my

ICT

skill

s an

d kn

owle

dge

Wan

t to

expe

rim

ent w

ith te

chno

logy

that

som

ebod

y re

com

men

ds

me

I am

pro

ud w

hen

I pro

duce

my

own

artif

act

I am

pro

ud w

hen

smeb

ody

can

use

my

artif

act

Oth

er

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

FemaleMale

Domain Knowledge BuildingHow do you sort by frequent usage the communication tools?

Result:(1) GSM, email, social

networks, skype, web forums, messengers

(2) the search engines are the main applications for information gathering of 100% male, after this the free accessed web sites, created by users (Wikipedia, online dictionaries) are used by 50% male students

(3) The 12,5% males male students rated themselves at using social bookmarking sites

1 2 3 4 5 60%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Messengers (Yahoo, MSN)Web forumsSocial networksSKYPEEmailGSM

Order of communication tools by male students


• Order of communication tools by female students

Result:(1) GSM, email, skype, social

networks, web forums, and messengers

(2) the search engines are the main applications for information gathering of 75% female students, after this the free accessed web sites, created by users are used by 50% female

(3) The 50% female students rated themselves much better using social bookmarking sites putting them on the third position

How do you sort by frequent usage the communication tools?

1 2 3 4 5 60%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Messengers (Yahoo, MSN)Web forumsSocial networksSKYPEEmailGSM


• Order of information gathering tools by male students

10%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Social networksRSS ReadersSocial bookmarking sitesFree accessed web sites, created by users (Wikipedia, online dictionaries)Search engines


• Order of information gathering tools by female students

1 2 3 4 50%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Social networksRSS ReadersSocial bookmarking sitesFree accessed web sites, created by users (Wikipedia, online dictionar-ies)Search engines


• Ways for better understanding the new information

When

it is p

art of in

teracti

ve ac

tivities

When

someb

ody exp

lains m

e

When

I list

en it

When

it is p

resen

ted w

ith gr

aphics

When

text

is well

form

atted

When

it is p

resen

ted w

ith vi

deo

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

FemaleMale

Result:(1) 75% male students understand

information better “when it is supported with graphs and pictures” and 62,5% male students prefer “information presented with video and animations”, “interactive activities” and when “somebody explains it”

(2) 50% females like “information with pictures and graphics” and when “the text is well formatted”

(3) The 75% male students learn better when “the text includes many pictures” and 50% of them point that combination of: “text with many images”, “lessons’ listening” “explain and discuss”, interactive activities performing” is a good solution for better learning


• Activities performance at interesting information found

I think a

bout this

I commen

t with

frien

ds and co

lleag

ues offline o

r onlin

e

I share

in so

cial n

etworks

I send te

link s

omebody

I add to

my b

ookmark

s

I writ

e about th

is in blog

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

FemaleMale

Result:(1) 87,5% male students and

50% female students “comment with friends and colleagues offline and online” the interesting information they found out;

(2) 37,5% male students think about this interesting information, send the link to somebody and add it in favorite bookmarks;

(3) 25% female students think about this interesting information and send the link to somebody


• Preferable functions of a personal learning environmentIn

form

ation

gat

herin

g

Info

rmati

on co

llecti

on fo

r my

own

activ

ities

Show

info

rmati

on in

diff

eren

t med

ia fo

rmat

advi

ce m

e in

tere

sting

info

rmati

on re

late

d to

my

lear

ning

goa

ls

auth

orin

g te

xt a

nd m

edia

mas

hup

info

rmati

on a

nd se

rvice

s

publ

ishin

g in

Inte

rnet

plan

an

man

age

my

own

lear

ning

rece

ivin

g fe

edba

ck a

bout

my

achi

evem

ents

to ca

n le

arn

from

oth

ers

to ca

n de

ssim

inat

e m

y kn

owle

dge

to o

ther

s

to ca

n co

ntac

t and

socia

lize

rece

ivin

g fe

edba

ck fr

om o

ther

s

to h

elp

sele

ct th

e su

itabl

e fo

r me

lear

ning

reso

urce

s

to te

st a

nd e

valu

ate

my

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

to sa

ve re

sour

ces,

activ

ities

, con

ract

s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FemaleMale


• Other functions of a personal learning environment

Easy

naviga

tion and g

raphica

l user

inter

face

Easy

custo

mization of lo

ok and fe

el

Possibilit

y for c

hoosing s

uitable

tools

Interacti

vity

Possibilit

y for s

toring a

nd updating C

V

for enco

uraging m

y pers

onal dev

elopmen

t

for supporti

ng my c

areer

develo

pment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FemaleMale

Survey - conclusion

• the male/female students possess good computer knowledge and skills

• they have affinity to new technologies• they are self-motivated to advance skills and knowledge • they are striving and working for personal development• many of them perceive information in a visual way and

others prefer a combination of methods for a better understanding of the new information

Before starting PLE building the students formed a conceptual vision about functionally and technologies

PLEF Ontology Specification

• Personal Learning Environment Framework is originally designed and developed in RWTH Aachen, Germany

• consists of – back-end office, containing available for learners

components – front-end office giving access to PLEF and interface

for creation of virtual learning space


• Back-End Office• OpenID authorization• the PLE might have a title• Each PLE consists of one or more pages

– each page might consist of zero or more elements• The elements can be specialized into feed, OPML, text,

image, linklist and widget– Every element can have zero or more tags while one tag might

appear on one or more elements– Each element can also have zero or more comments

• A comment has an author, content and date of creation

PLEF Ontology SpecificationFront-End OfficeInterface: • consists of north, west, east and center panels

– north - login/logout, add new PLE pages, and show the element insertion panel in the west panel

– west panel - insert new elements into a PLE – east panel - viewing and searching of PLE elements– center panel shows the elements either organized in pages or grouped based on tags


Drag-and-drop action – supported in both center and east panels– in the center panel, it enables the learner to change

the position of elements within pages– east panel - it enables to move elements between

pages and to change the order of the pages within a PLE


Authentication: – OpenID for authentication to access/create a PLE

or comment on a specific PLE element


Social Tagging, Commenting and Sharing: • Each element in PLEF can be associated with

different tags– The learners are able to give comments to each element,

they can login as anonymous or via their OpenIDs• PLE pages and elements can be shared via email


Views: • traditional page view• tag view of all elements

in a PLE


• Access Control: • PLEF enables access control at both PLE page

and element levels– Newly inserted elements or pages are

automatically set as private and can then be made as public


Pages and Elements: • a learner organizes the learning resources

into pages• a page panel consists of three parts: tab,

toolbar and body• a page encompasses several elements:

feed, OPML, text, image, linklist, and widget.

• an element panel consists of three parts: header, body and footer


Search: • PLEF enables full-text and tag-based search of all elements in a PLE• Search is performed in the page/tag view of the east panel• If a sequence of characters is detected by the search field’s listener,

deep first search will be performed on the tree in the page/tag view to find all pages and elements which contains the exact string

Experimentation with PLEF• If the panels/components PLEF’ structure is a good strategy for

learning spaces building?

YesNo

It depends

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FemaleMale

Result: (1) 75% of male and female students are categorical that panels/components structure is a good solution to satisfy their learning interests(2) 25% of them answered “it depends” that means their conceptual view is a little bit different than this

Experimentation with PLEF

• If the proposed functionality is enough for self-learning organizing?– Both male/female students are agree that possibilities for links, RSS feeds,

text, images, media files adding, and also hml/JavaScript embedding give huge opportunities for the PLE organization based on different learning styles

Experimentation with PLEF• The PLE has to consist of how panels and how components

on each panel to satisfy an effective information perception?

3 panels

/2 co

mponents

on each

panel

3 panels

/6 an

d more

componen

ts on ea

ch pan

el

4-7 panels

/2 co

mponents

on each

panel

4-7 panels

/6 an

d more

componen

ts on ea

ch pan

el

more than

8 panels

/2 co

mponents

on each

panel

more than

8 panels

/6 an

d more

componen

ts on ea

ch pan

el

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

FemaleMale

Results: (1) 50% female students and 75%

male students prefer 4-7 panels/6 and more components on each panel to effectively organize their learning space

(2) 12,5% male students said that “3 panels/2 components on each panel” and other 12,5% male students prefer more than “8 panels/6 and more components on each panel”

(3) 25% female students rate for “3 panels/6 and more components on each panel” and other 25% for “8 panels/6 and more components on each panel”

Ontologies Design

• the classes, instances, properties are identifies • the relationships are defined• three main classes are created: Affinity to

technology, Information understanding and PLE functions in three different namespaces: tech, info and ple

• several instances for each class are formed, the properties related to different instances are designed

Further detailization

• All needed class’ instances and properties are created to form the vision about the PLE building according to students’ answers and opinion

The class tech: Affinity to technology


The class info:Information understanding


• The class PLE functions

Checking of ontology correctness and ontology verification

• the syntax and semantics of the ontology is checked• the relationships between properties and instances,

and instances and classes is performed are checked• in text view of AltovaSemanticWorks the documents

in their RDF/XML notation are displayed and edited – when it is necessity

• the verification is especially important when connecting the proposed ontology structure with other ones that may enhance the PLE ontology specification

Conclusion• The comparison

between students’ expectations and PLEF specification is done

• Students have formed understanding about PLE technical and functional aspects

• Several of them possess a little bit different view comparing with PLEF

Criteria Conceptual PLE View

PLEF Specification

Operational OpenID authorization yessocial tagging yesauthoring yescommenting yes yessharing yes yesinterface customization

yes yes

searching yes yesnetworking yes

Functional add page yes yesadd components yes yesadd learning objects yes yesadd metadata yesdrag and drop yes yesadd widgets yes yes

Management elements yes yesfolders yesviews yes

Conclusion• The created PLE model could be applied to any functional and

technical solution of PLE, because it gives possibilities for:– self-cognition of preferred learning style, learning objectives, needs

from competence development by students and for understanding the conceptual base of PLE

• Future work will be focused on: – verification and updating of the PLE specification model working

with new students’ groups– applying the PLE specification to help students build their PLEs,

using different PLE development tools – using the PLE specification for the development of new PLE

solutions

Thank you for your attention!

For contacts:[email protected]@cs.rwth-aachen.de

Education

Defining Ontology Specification for Personal Learning Environment Forming