Evaluation Of The Use Of Semantic Web Technology

View more presentations from David Wicks.

Video Capture of Sloan-C session

http://hosted.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=ad1248c9374e4bb6861e3fd8f31dd60e

Content Capture session from Sloan-C

Lecture Capture Technology: One size does not fit all. David Wicks & Andrew Lumpe, Seattle Pacific University. A presentation at the Sloan-C Symposium on Emerging Technology Applications in Online Learning. San Francisco, CA, June 17, 2009.

Lecture Capture – One size does not fit all

Content Capture Comparison Handout

Learners, Teachers, and Technology: The Semantic Web and Education

As I discussed in previous blogs, the overall goal of education is to develop expertise (Bransford et al, 1999). Opposed to novice learners, experts have more access to and easily retrieve content, can adapt and change, and recognize when to apply knowledge. Textbooks and static web sites do not necessarily foster this type of learner expertise for novices.

Semantic web technologies, which have been called web 3.0 technologies, have the potential to help develop learner expertise. While I am not a computer scientist or an expert in artificial intelligence, I can detect connections between semantic web technologies and cognitive learning theory. This provides the rationale for applying such technologies to formal education environments including K-12 schools and higher education.

Semantic technologies operate through the use of Resource Description Framework language (RDF). Information from websites or databases is collected and connections amongst ideas are linked. Of course, information in and of itself is only useful if structure and meaning can be derived from it. Most semantic applications also employ OWL (Web Ontology Language) in order to specify logical connections amongst data. A nice description of this process is given at http://www.twine.com/technology. There is debate about how to specify or even whether to use ontologies. But in formal educational environments, teachers and/or experts in any given content area should be involved in helping create connections in order to help build learner expertise. This leads to the critical nature of collaborative relationships between learners, teachers (experts), and web-based information.

Collaborative learning environments (CLEs) between learners and teachers can be cultivated using existing web 2.0 technologies such as social networks, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, etc. But the power of the semantic web is that the technology can be incorporated into the mix thereby increasing the potential for building expertise. One such readily available semantic web tool is Twine. According to their website, “Twine is an application that helps people organize, share and discover information around their interests.”

Within Twine, learners can compile research findings related to their given domain, including open source documents, in their twines. Each item within a twine includes discussion threads. As resources are connected, tagged, and discussed, Twine’s technology will suggest other connections (information and people) thereby enriching the available content. This process has the potential to help build expertise within a collaborative learning environment. It is my hope that semantic web tools such as Twine can be applied to educational settings in order to test the notion that they can help build learner expertise. If you are interested in this topic, join our Twine. http://www.twine.com/twine/1298bg8c5-r1/semantic-web-and-education

How People Learn: Principle 2 and the Semantic Web

In 1999, John Bransford, et. al, published an oft cited treatise called How People Learn.  Referring to years of cognitive science research, Bransford’s group formulated three principles about what is currently known about how people actually learn.

While Anderson outlined how online learning environments can support learning frameworks as described in How People Learn, I want to back up to the three key findings and attempt to align those findings with current online learning technologies. I started with the 3^rd Key Finding, metacognition, and am now working backwards to Key Finding 2.

Key Finding 2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application. (How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, 1999, p. 12).

In describing the cognitive science research behind this key finding, Bransford and his colleagues focused on how knowledge is organized and used by learners. Cognitive science researchers noticed differences between how experts and novices solve problems and connect concepts. Experts have more access to knowledge, know how to easily retrieve knowledge that is directly associated with their work, can adapt and change knowledge structures when needed, and recognize when to apply knowledge to specific contexts – “conditionalized” as Bransford calls it.

The overall goal of education is develop a level of expertise in learners. This is achieved through using a variety of instructional strategies (Marzano, 2001) and curriculum materials that are content laden. But most curriculum materials currently available to educators and learners are static in nature. Traditional textbooks are outdated by the time they are in print. And it is true that the internet made a wider variety of more up-to-date content available to learners. But textbooks and static web sites do not allow a free exchange of information, fail to conditionalize content for learners, prevent easy retrieval of knowledge, and do not foster adaptations by learners. This may spell the end of traditional textbooks!

In addition to excellent instruction, newer technologies may provide a mechanism to help address the challenges raised in Key Finding 2. Web 2.0 technologies, or the Read/Write web, move beyond static display of content. Folksonomies, tagging, social networks, blogging, RSS feeds, wikis, and podcasts represent widely available web 2.0 technologies. Freedman and D’Souza documented various educational applications of web 2.0 technologies. They provide dynamic sources of easy-to-retrieve conditionalized content, foster interactivity, and help learners adapt. In effect, they help address Bransford’s Key Principle 2.  While innovative in their own right, these web 2.0 technologies don’t utilize one of the most promising developments, the semantic web, or web 3.0.

The semantic web uses technologies that help discern patterns and create meaning (see this excellent video description). Semantic web applications are making more interactive and intelligent systems available for users so they can analyze “…all the raw data stored in online databases as well as all of the data about the text, images, video and communications the Web contained.” (p. 90, Feigenbuam, et al., 2007). In citing future educational applications of the semantic web, the 2008 Horizon Report (New Media Consortium/EDUCAUSE), indicated that collective intelligence systems and data mashups are key emerging technologies poised to have an impact on teaching and learning in the next few years. Such systems create new ways for users to contribute to, examine, and organize information in a semantic fashion. Two popular and easy to use semantic applications cited in the Horizon report include http://del.icio.us/ and http://www.flickr.com/.

Semantic wikis are one method to create interactive environments (Völkel, et. al, 2006). Regular wikis, including Wikipedia, are excellent for static data display and ease of access. Semantic wikis move beyond the limitations of regular wikis and provide a means for users to utilize metadata and relationships between data categories. An example of an educational semantic wiki is JurisPedia. But setting up such an educational wiki requires sophisticated knowledge and using them is not much easier. They don’t seem to be intuitive for learners and aren’t designed to move learners from novices to experts.

I recently joined a semantic web community called Twine. According to their website, “It’s powered by semantic understanding, which means Twine gets to know you. It automatically learns about your interests and makes connections and recommendations tailored to you. The best part: The more you use Twine, the more useful it becomes.” In addition to other sources, the development of this blog was aided by Twine.

In non-static, semantic environments, deep factual knowledge bases can be developed, knowledge can easily be retrieved and shared, and conceptual frameworks can be built, all leading to increased learner expertise. The potential for education is intriguing. But most semantic web development is focused on business and industry – researchers/developers follow the money! As Bradford (2008) points out, there has been scant application to the realm of K-12 and higher education where it could be of great benefit to learners.

I remain perplexed and frustrated that these powerful technologies, based on learning theory and possessing the potential to help learners be successful, are not being developed and applied to educational settings. I can think of no better way to transform schools and better prepare students for their futures.

Relating the Key Findings of How People Learn to Online Learning

In 1999, John Bransford, et. al, published an excellent treatise on How People Learn.  Citing years of cognitive science research, Bransford’s group formulated three principles about what we currently know about how people learn.

While Anderson outlined how online learning environments can support learning frameworks as described in How People Learn, I want to back up to the three key findings in How People Learn and attempt to align those findings with current online learning technologies. I will start with the 3^rd Key Finding and work backwards to the other principles over the next few blogs.

Key Finding 3. A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them (How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, 1999, p. 13).

Bransford calls this having an “internal conversation”. Others, like Novak, call it learning how to learn. While this may sound like a form of mental illness, it’s actually a powerful learning tool – a form of self-regulation where the learner controls their own learning.

Metacognition can be taught. Teachers scaffold metacognition by providing scaffolds and prompts. But the scaffolds/prompts should be able to be eventually pulled away and the learner still practices metacognition on their own. The goal is independent learning.

Experts in a given area routinely monitor their learning by attempting to align new information with their prior knowledge. They realize when additional information is needed. Seeking help at the right time enhances depth of knowledge. With the vast amounts of information available in the Web 2.0 world, learners need assistance aligning their ideas with discipline standards. Online libraries, repositories, data mash-ups, and wikis can help learners focus their learning.

Verbalizing learning is one powerful metacognitive tool. Having learners explain thoughts about what they understand or don’t understand positively impacts their growth. Students can journal about their learning through the use of blogging. This not only creates a log of learning and development over time but allows for feedback and connecting of ideas.

Mind maps, as a form of graphic organizer, can be used as a metacognitive tool where learners organize their learning and logically connect concepts. Many software programs are available for learners to create mind maps. MindMeister even acts as a wiki mind map allowing collaborative input.

With the copious amounts of information available in the read/write Web 2.0 world, learners need to know how to think about the processing of this information. Categories and tagging (as seen in this WordPress blog) allows learners to organize and visualize information.

Current interactive technologies have the potential to serve as powerful metacognitive tools for learning.

Coming next…Key Finding #1. Preconceptions

Don’t get left behind – Web 2.0

My foray into Web 2.0 technologies is leading into personal blogging, tagging, data mash-ups, RSS feeds and a whole host of other technologies I never dreamed of when I got my first email account in 1989 (on a CMS server!). The internet is constantly evolving and it is changing the way everyone relates and does business. If you don’t believe that change is rapidly coming, view this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY.

When I teach at the university (online or on campus), I routinely have students use blogs as a formative tool to reflect on their weekly learning. I also used wikis as a collaborative tool where groups of students can create and post documents online (akin to Wikipedia). I also see promise for semantic wikis for where the software is able find logical links amongst posts. The implications and applications of web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning are breathtaking (I promise to write more about this in the future).

Facebook, as a social networking utility, is one of the most popular Web 2.0 programs. (Funny thing…the spellchecker on WordPress on which I’m composing this blog doesn’t even recognize the term facebook…wonder how long it will before that changes!) It’s interesting to watch the evolution of Facebook over the past year. It once was inhabited by mostly twenty- something single folk and I felt like the old man/odd man. But that is quickly changing. I’m finding it a wonderful experience to reconnect with people I’ve known from various stops along the path of my life. The newsfeed gives a quick glimpse into what’s going on with my friends and in some ways I feel like I know them just a little better. Technology-based social networking can’t take the place to real face-to-face interaction, but it has a place in relationship building if kept in perspective. I think God wants us to keep our relationships real and I see the hiding behind avatars in some online systems (e.g., Second Life) as potentially detrimental.

I predict that by this time next year, we’ll see many more join this world.  If they don’t, the whole world will rapidly pass them by!

Blessings, Andrew