The aim of the paper is to describe a domain model for "way finding". By the term "way finding" is meant "selecting and sequencing learning activities". The raison d'etre is:
Learners' problems in way finding will decrease the efficiency of education provision (the ration of output to input) and increase the cost. The local context for this paper is Dutch Open University student who lacks adequate information on study possibilities at an early stage of study, and problems in getting a good overview of the number and best sequence to study modules.
The paper describes a personalised recommender system (PRS) model that combines social-based (i.e. completion data from other learners) and information-based (i.e. metadata from learner profiles and learning activities) data to recommend the best next learning activity. The system is currently under development, a limited implementation is running using learner profile metadata.
Note about learning activities; OUNL has been very active in developing IMS Learning Design. They (Tattersall et al. (in press)) have previously proposed IMS-LD as a candidate to model learning paths. Moreover, they argues that its selection and sequencing constructs appear suitable for learning activities (units-of-learning) as well as for higher levels of granularity (e.g. competence development programmes). Interesting. At one point of time one could look how IMS-LD information could be generated in attention metadata (CAM).
So, the idea of PRS approach is a hybrid recommender that uses
- a) information from other learners and their completion of tasks (completion is understood like rating) in a collaborative filtering manner (in text called social-based approach), and
- b) information from students profile and c) metadata about the resource in the spirit of a content-based system (in text called information based approach).
Authors also argue that it is not enough to find the most efficient learning paths (like the shortest route in GPS), but to explore which paths are most attractive or suitable (like routes suited for biking), thus personalisation needed (individualised needs, interest, preferences or circumstances).
Other key concepts are:
- learner's start position in a given domain (prior learning history)
- aimed competence profile for that domain
- learning path towards that competence
- uniform and meaningful description of formal and informal learning paths
- learning activities that are addressable and meaningfully described
- uniform learner profiles that define needs and preferences
- uniform competence description that defines proficiency levels
- a learning path processing engine
- an engine recording completion of activities
- information matching techniques to enable personalised recommendation
Related work
I will later post on my blog some excerpts from my own literature review in the field of learning to show other recommender ideas based on the same hybrid approach, as in this paper they mention that this approach has hardly been applied in learning. There was only a reference to Herlocker et al. (2004).
In the related work section it is mentioned that education field imposes some specific demands for recommender. Main differences sited between recommenders for books are the degree of voluntariness (learning is many times required to obtain some goals) and the possibility to establish an explicit completion (as most learning activities are to be assessed for successful completion). Hmm..I do agree with the statement, but had come up with different reasons myself. Goes to show, I guess, how the initial requirements for a recommender system differ from what I'm working on.
An interesting outcome is cited from Janssen et al. (in press): learners were offered a recommendation "most successful learner continued with Y after having completed X". I call this an "Amazon-like" recommendation (other people interested in this book also bought x, y, z) based on clustering behaviour. There were no personal characteristics taken into account in this study. They found out that this type of recommendation enhanced effectiveness in completion of the set of learning activities, but did not increase efficiency, the time it took to complete them.
Authors also acknowledge the problem of insufficient data that can be derived from existing log files, the same that my colleagues are working on with the view on capturing attention metadata (CAM).
Discussion
Authors state:
"From a self-organising point of view it would be ideal if way finding would emerge as a result of (in)direct interactions between members of the learning network, without being dependent of formalised descriptions in domain and user models."
I so agree: instead of investing time in describing all the information regarding the learner, his/hers existing and required competences; the resource; and the curriculum with goals and skills required, would be more interesting to tap onto existing knowledge from the masses and their previous experiences, the decisions they took to find the next suitable step, etc.
The authors also discuss the complimentary approach of controlled vocabularies or ontologies combined with annotations such as social tagging and rating, just in the same direction as we are doing in MELT (we talk about adding metadata a priori and a posterior) and what I'm interested in looking into.
Related to my work
The difference in what I'm looking into now and what this paper describes is, first of all, the context. I'm interested in a repository that is used mostly by K-12 teachers and learners (sometimes). The repository is not linked to formal learning requirements related to a curriculum, because it is used on the European level, where there are many curricula depending on a country or a local policy. However, each teacher who comes to that repository has his/hers own information seeking tasks, that I've talked about previously. Sometimes those tasks are related to covering a piece of a local curriculum, whereas some other times it is to find a piece of resource to support some generic learning goal, or find inspirational material, or something else.
Secondly, in my context of work sequencing learning resources is not the goal, rather just finding resources that fit to the search criteria and the task at hand. So I'm not so into this sequencing, however, I like the idea of playlists and using this type of expert knowledge of putting items together for learning purposes (the use of Case-based Reasoning like Claudio explore here).
Imagine if teachers could generate playlists of LOs as easily as I do playlists in iTunes (I'm NOT talking about automatically generating them, but hands-on deejaying). Then, those lists could be used as rules for generating new ones. In that case, we would not need LOM to know which item in a repository is described as "introductory item" or "motivational item" to start the lesson, or which one is good for "explaining a rule", but we could detect that information form playlists generated by teachers who knows through her domain knowledge that after this piece I put x,y and x. Let's see.
To check out from the paper:
- Koper (2005)
- Janssen et al. (in press) about the test
- Sicilia (2005) about ontologies to express competencies
- Van Setten, 2005 social-based approaches
- McCalla (2004), pragmatics-based paradigm of tagging learning activities with learner information
No comments:
Post a Comment