using ontological engineering to support the development of collaborative learning applications an...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
Using ontological engineering to Support the development of collaborative learning applications
An Integrated Framework for Fine-Grained Analysis and
Design of Group Learning Activities
Seiji [email protected]
Riichiro [email protected]
The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka University, Japan
Agenda
1. The Problems: CSCL Design and Analysis
2. Ontological Approach
3. Background
- Interaction Patterns (Inaba et al., 2003a)
- Learner’s Growth Model (Inaba et al., 2003b)
- Limitations
4. GMIP – Growth Model Improved by Interaction Patterns
- Ontological Structure to Describe Learning Theories
- Benefits
- CHOCOLATO: Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool
5. Conclusions
Group
Teacher/Instructor
How to design the bestlearning activities?
Which Theory? Whatkind of benefits? How
to analyze? learning by observation
learning by guiding
learning by apprenticeship
Learner A Learner B
Learner C
Learner Supported theory Learning strategy Role for learner Proposed activities desired Benefit
Learner ACognitive
apprenticeshipLearning by guiding Master Guide learner B
Skill development
Learner BCognitive
apprenticeshipLearning by
apprenticeshipApprentice Imitate learner A
Skill development
Learner CObservational
learningLearning by observation
ObserverObserve the interactions
between A and BKnowledge acquisition
Selection of an appropriate set of learning theories
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Theory
Observational Learning Theory
The Problems: CSCL Design and Analysis
Each learning theory is “unfold” into a detailed pedagogical approach
Apprentice role
Master role
Observer role
Learning theorieshard to understand too complex & ambiguous There is not a common vocabulary to describe themDifferent point of views, levels of aggregation, perspective
and emphasis
How to “unfold” the theories into a set of activities for a group?
How to develop programs to help the design and analysis of group activities supported by learning theories?
The Problems
I -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goal
Behavior
W (A)-goal
Role
Y I -goal
Role
Y I -goal
W(L)-goal
Common goal
Primary focus (P)
Secondary f ocus (S )
S<=P-goal
P<=S-goal
I -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goal
Behavior
k./ cog. state
Goal stateI -goal
W(L)-goal
k./ cog. state (Group)Goal state
How does t he learner change his/ her state?
W hat activity does the group want to do?
How does t he group change its state?
G
G
G
G
W hy does the learner want to interact with other learner s?
S
S
G
I -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goal
Behavior
I -goalI -goalI -goalI -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goalY<=I -goal
Behavior
W (A)-goal
Role
Y I -goal
Role
Y I -goal
W(L)-goal
Common goal
Primary focus (P)
Secondary f ocus (S )
S<=P-goal
P<=S-goal
W (A)-goalW (A)-goal
RoleRoleRole
Y I -goalY I -goalY I -goalY I -goal
RoleRoleRole
Y I -goalY I -goalY I -goalY I -goal
W(L)-goal
Common goal
Primary focus (P)
Secondary f ocus (S )
S<=P-goal
P<=S-goal
I -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goal
Behavior
I -goalI -goalI -goalI -goal
BehaviorI -role
You-role
I -goal (I )
Y<=I -goalY<=I -goal
Behavior
k./ cog. statek./ cog. state
Goal stateI -goalI -goalI -goal
W(L)-goal
k./ cog. state (Group)Goal state
How does t he learner change his/ her state?
W hat activity does the group want to do?
How does t he group change its state?
G
G
G
G
W hy does the learner want to interact with other learner s?
S
S
G
learning theories
Use ontological engineeringto represent theories for CSCL
Ontology Model
Use the ontology model to support the development of ontology-aware systems
usersteacher/instructor/designer
The systems help users to: design group activities; estimate benefits; analyze, etc…
Our Approach
Some of learning theories that support advantages of CL
– Sociocultural theory [Vygotsky, 1930]– Observational learning [Bandura, 1971]– Peer tutoring [Endlsey,1980]– Cognitive Flexibility [Spiro et al., 1988] – Cognitive apprenticeship [Collins, 1991]– Legitimate Peripheral Participant [Lave & Wenger, 1991]– Anchored Instruction [CTGV, 1992]– Distributed cognition [Salomon, 1993]
Background
Interaction Pattern [Inaba et al., 2003a]
What is: patterns for expected interactions based on learning theories.
Main Benefit: offer a model and vocabulary to describe learner-to-learner interaction process
Usefulness: possibility to compare real interaction process with interaction patterns helping teacher to estimate educational benefits.
Background: Previous Models
FinalFinal
StartStart
Teaching the wayto solve a problem
Prompting
UnderstandingShowing the wayTo solve a probem
Prompting
Acceptance
Showing the wayto solve a problem
Showing problematic issues
Request to show the way to solve problem
Interaction expected to “master” role-player
Interaction expected to “apprentice” role-player
Necessary Transitions
DesiredTransitions
Cognitive Apprenticeship
[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]
nothing (0)
tuning (2)
accretion (1)
Background: Previous ModelsLearner’s Growth Model [Inaba et al., 2003b]
What is: graph representation (in a simplified way) of learner’s knowledge acquisition process (Rumelhart et al, 1978) and skill development process (Anderson, 82).
Main Benefit: offer a way to represent the learner’s development (growth) and clarify the learning goals (stages).
Usefulness: guideline to select learning strategies appropriate for desired learning goal.S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2) S(1,0)
S(2,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(1,2) S(2,1)S(2,2)S(3,1)
S(3,2) S(4,1)S(4,2)
S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2) S(1,0)
S(2,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(1,2) S(2,1)S(2,2)S(3,1)
S(3,2) S(4,1)S(4,2)
S(4,2)S(3,3) S(4,3)
S(0,0)S(0,1)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2)
S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(1,3)
S(2,3)
[Stages of Skill development]
nothing (0)
rough cognitive stage (1)
explanatory cognitive stage (2)
associative stage (3)
autonomous stage (4)
restructuring (3)
Limitations of the Previous Models
1. We cannot identify clearly the relationship among interactions and learner’s development.
2. We cannot explain the learner’s development through a set of interactions (events).
3. It is difficult to facilitate the collaboration (interaction) while a session are taking place.
• For example, in a CSCL session if a learner, who plays the role of anchored instructor, has a misunderstanding he will transfer it to the other learners (anchor holders) from the beginning until the end of the session.
Unifying the Models
To overcome the difficulties addressed in the previous slide we aim to unify the previous models by:
1. Making tacit characteristics of learning theories explicit;
2. Identifying the relationships among interaction, learning strategies and learning goals;
3. Propose an ontological structure to describe learning theories for CL extending the Collaborative Learning Ontology (Inaba et al, 2000).
Collaborative Learning Ontology [inaba et al, 2000]
LA
LCI-goal(LC)
I-goal(LB)I-goal(LA)
W-goal({LA,LB})
W-goal({LA,LB,LC})
Y<=I -goal(LA<=LB)
Y<=I-goal (LB<=LA)
LB
Learning StrategiesLearning Goals
Knowledge Acquisition: (accretion, tuning, …)
Learning by GuidingLearning by
Apprenticeship
Cognitive Skill Development(cognitive, associative, …)
InteractionPatterns
HOW?
LA
I-goal(LB)I-goal(LA)
Y<=I -goal(LA<=LB)
LB
Interaction
Influential I_L Events
Instructor EventLearner Event
Interaction Patternsfor Learning Theories
Interaction Patternsfor Learning Theories
Anchored Instruction
Anchored Instruction
Peer TutoringPeer Tutoring
Distributed CognitionDistributed Cognition
LPPLPP
Cognitive Constructivism
Cognitive Constructivism
Cognitive Flexibility Theory
Cognitive Flexibility Theory
Sociocultural TheorySociocultural Theory
Observational Learning
Observational Learning
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Analyzing and Remodeling Interaction Patterns
Interaction 3Interaction 2Interaction
Interaction 4
Pattern
Y<=I -goal(LB<=LA)
Learning Theory
Instructor’s action
Learner’s Action
Necessary Interaction
Desired Interaction
Role Role
Ontological Structure to Describe Learning Theory
Instructional event
Influential I_L event
I event
I-goal
Instructor
Benefits for the Instructor
Agent
ActionInstructional action
L event
LearnerAgent
ActionLearning action
Learning event
I-goalBenefits for the Learner
Interaction Pattern
Y<=I-goal
Learning Theory
Teaching-Learning Process
Learning Strategy
I-goal
I-role
I-goal
Agent
AgentYou-role
G
Necessary Interaction Activity
*
*
Influential I_L event
Desired Interaction ActivityInfluential I_L event
*
*
Cognitive Apprenticeship
3: Clarifying the problem*
4: Monitoring
5: Notifying howthe learner is
9: Affirmative reaction
2: Demonstration howto solve a problem
8: Showing a solution
1:Setting uplearning context
6: Instigating Thinking
7: Requesting problem's details
Interaction Pattern represented by Influential I_L Events
Learner’s development
(Apprentice)
S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)
S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2)
S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)
S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
GMIP - Growth Model Improved by Interaction PatternsCognitive Apprenticeship
Learning by Apprenticeship
x
y
Desired Interaction
Necessary Interaction
The dashed ellipses means that the interaction on the top/left must be followed by another interaction bottom/right.
The ellipses means that theinteraction on the top/left will be followed by another interaction bottom/right and vice-versa (cycle) .
4
5 6
97
8
2
12 3
24
35
6
1
2 3
24
35
6
4
5 6
97
8 2
12 3
2 4
3 5
6
4
56
97
8
21
2 3
24
35
6 4
5 6
97 8
2
[Stages of Skill development]
nothing (0)
rough cognitive stage (1)
explanatory cognitive stage (2)
associative stage (3)
autonomous stage (4)
[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]
nothing (0)
tuning (2)
restructuring (3)
accretion (1)
[Interactions]
1.Setting up the learning context
2.Demonstrate how to solve a problem
3.Clarify the problem
4.Monitoring
5.Notifying how the learner is
6.Instigating thinking
7.Requesting problem’s details
8.Showing a solution
9.Affirmative reaction
Benefits of GMIP
[Stages of Skill development]
nothing (0)
rough cognitive stage (1)
explanatory cognitive stage (2)
associative stage (3)
autonomous stage (4)
[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]
nothing (0)
tuning (2)
restructuring (3)
accretion (1)
S(0,0)S(0,1)
S(0,2)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2) S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
S(0,2)
S(0,1)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1) S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2) S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
S(0,0)
Cognitive Apprenticeshiplearning by apprenticeship
Cognitive Apprenticeshiplearning by guiding
Legitimate Peripheral Participant (LPP)Learning by Discussion
S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2)S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
S(0,3)
S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)
S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2)
S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)
S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
Benefits of GMIP
Initial Stage
Final Stage
x
y
Desired Interaction
Necessary Interaction
The dashed ellipses means that the interaction on the top/left must be followed by another interaction bottom/right.
The ellipses means that theinteraction on the top/left will be followed by another interaction bottom/right and vice-versa (cycle) .
[Stages of Skill development]
nothing (0)
rough cognitive stage (1)
explanatory cognitive stage (2)
associative stage (3)
autonomous stage (4)
[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]
nothing (0)
tuning (2)
restructuring (3)
accretion (1)
Benefits of GMIPAnchored Instruction
Learning by being Taught
x
y
Desired Interaction
Necessary Interaction
The dashed ellipses means that the interaction on the top/left must be followed by another interaction bottom/right.
The ellipses means that theinteraction on the top/left will be followed by another interaction bottom/right and vice-versa (cycle) .
[Stages of Skill development]
nothing (0)
rough cognitive stage (1)
explanatory cognitive stage (2)
associative stage (3)
autonomous stage (4)
[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]
nothing (0)
tuning (2)
restructuring (3)
accretion (1)
S(0,0)
S(0,1)
S(0,2)
S(0,3)
S(2,0)
S(1,0)
S(3,0)
S(4,0)
S(1,1)
S(2,1)
S(3,1)
S(4,1)
S(1,2)
S(2,2)
S(3,2)
S(4,2)
S(1,3)
S(3,3)
S(2,3)
S(4,3)
2 4
1 3
5 6
3
56
78
9
4
6
Initial Stage
Final Stage
Checking
Database
Ontology Layer
Author
Learner’s StageIdentification System
Learner’s StageIdentification System
Theory-basedActivities Designing
Support System
Theory-basedActivities Designing
Support System
Learning ProcessAnalysis System
Learning ProcessAnalysis System
Theory-based Interaction
Support System
Theory-based Interaction
Support System
Learning Theory Ontology
Learning MaterialRecommendation
System
Learning MaterialRecommendation
System
Learning Process Ontology
Learning Material
Authoring Interface
CL ontology
advice & recommendation
selection, reuse & customization
Learning Model
CL DesignManager
Ontology-aware Authoring System
CHOCOLATO – Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool
MARI - Main Adaptive Representation Interface
CHOCOLATO – Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool
MARIMain Adaptive Representation Interface
Search for any goal stage Search for final goal stage
CHOCOLATO – Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool
In our research we have been using ontologies to establish a common understanding of what a learning theory is by representing it in terms of its explicitness, formalism, concepts and vocabulary.
This makes theories understandable and sharable, both by computers and humans.
We use two previous models to clarify how interactions can affect learner’s development to propose another model, called GMIP - Growth Model Improved by Interaction Patterns.
Explicitly identify the relationships among interaction patterns, learning strategies and learning goals.
For users the GMIP allows the graphical visualization and use of learning theories. Thus, users can quickly interpret the theories, their benefits and can propose sequence of activities in compliance with them.
For computers, it provides a formal structure which allows systems to reasoning about the theories and the features (actions, roles, etc …) prescribed by them.
Conclusions
Support Group Interactions (Learning Theory Ontology, Theory-based Interaction Support System, Theory-based Activities Designing Support System, Learning process Ontology)
Design Learning Environment (Learning Material Ontology, Learning Material Recommendation System, Learning Model)
Quality of Learning Process (Learning Model, Learner’s Stage Identification System, Learning Process Analysis System)
Database
Ontology Layer
Author
Learner’s StageIdentification System
Learner’s StageIdentification System
Theory-basedActivities Designing
Support System
Theory-basedActivities Designing
Support System
Learning ProcessAnalysis System
Learning ProcessAnalysis System
Theory-based Interaction
Support System
Theory-based Interaction
Support System
Learning Theory Ontology
Learning MaterialRecommendation
System
Learning MaterialRecommendation
System
Learning Process Ontology
Learning Material
Authoring Interface
CL ontology
advice & recommendation
selection, reuse & customization
Learning Model
CL DesignManager
16
Ontology-aware Authoring System
Our ultimate goal is develop a complete ontology-aware authoring system for CL based on well-grounded theoretical knowledge.
Conclusions
Thank you!
Concluding
Seiji [email protected]
Riichiro [email protected]
The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka University, Japan