LAK13 linkedup tutorial_evaluation_framework

2,805 views
2,809 views

Published on

Tutorial given at LAK13 conference, Leuven, April, 9th, 2013. The presentation is informed by WP2 of the LinkedUp-project.eu that develops an Evaluation Framework for Open Web Data (Linked Data) Applications for Education purposes.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,035
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LAK13 linkedup tutorial_evaluation_framework

  1. 1.   Using Linked Data in Learning Analytics LAK 2013 tutorialEvaluaHon  of  Linked  Data  tools  for  Learning  AnalyHcs   Hendrik  Drachsler  (@hdrachsler,  drachsler.de)   (CELSTEC,  Open  Universiteit  Nederland,  NL)   Eelco  Herder   (L3S  Research  Center,  DE)   Mathieu  d’Aquin  (@mdaquin,  mdaquin.net)   (Knowledge  Media  InsHtute,  The  Open  University,  UK)   Stefan  Dietze     (L3S  Research  Center,  DE)  
  2. 2.  Example of scientific competitionsWhat are the evaluation criteria of Robot Wars? Criteria: •  Damage •  Aggression probabilistic combination of – Item-based method •  Control – User-based method – Matrix Factorization •  Applause – (May be) content-based method 2
  3. 3. RecSysTEL Evaluation criteria 1. Accuracy 1. Accuracy 2. Coverage 2. Coverage 3. Precision 4. Recall 3. Precision 4. Recall1. Effectiveness of learning 1. Reaction of learner2. Efficiency of learning 2. Learning improved3. Drop out rate 3. Behaviour4. Satisfaction 4. ResultsCombine approach by Kirkpatrick model by Drachsler et al. 2008 Manouselis et al. 2010 3
  4. 4.   TEL RecSys::Review study Conclusions: Half of the systems (11/20) still at design or prototyping stage only 9 systems evaluated through trials with human users.Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Vuorikari, R., Hummel, H. G. K., & Koper, R. (2011).Recommender Systems in Technology Enhanced Learning. In P. B. Kantor, F. Ricci,L. Rokach, & B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook (pp. 387-415).Berlin: Springer. 4
  5. 5.  The TEL recommenderresearch is a bit like this...We need to design for each domain an appropriate recommender system that fits the goals and tasks" 5
  6. 6.  TEL recommenderexperiments lack results“The performancetransparency andof different researchstandardization.efforts in recommenderThey need tohardlysystems are berepeatable to test:comparable.”•  Validity(Manouselis et al., 2010)•  Verification Kaptain Kobold
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/•  Compare results kaptainkobold/3203311346/ 6
  7. 7.  Data-driven Research and Learning Analytics" EATEL-Hendrik Drachsler (a), Katrien Verbert (b)""(a) CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands"(b) Dept. Computer Science, K.U.Leuven, Belgium"" 7 7
  8. 8.  
  9. 9.  TEL RecSys::Evaluation/datasets"Drachsler, H., Bogers, T., Vuorikari, R., Verbert, K., Duval, E., Manouselis, N., Beham, G.,Lindstaedt, S., Stern, H., Friedrich, M., & Wolpers, M. (2010). Issues and Considerationsregarding Sharable Data Sets for Recommender Systems in Technology Enhanced Learning.Presentation at the 1st Workshop Recommnder Systems in Technology Enhanced Learning(RecSysTEL) in conjunction with 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning(EC-TEL 2010): Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice. September, 28,2010, Barcelona, Spain." 9"
  10. 10. 5. Dataset Framework dataTEL evaluation model DatasetsFormal Informal Data A Data B Data CAlgorithms: Algorithms: Algorithms:Algoritmen A Algoritmen D Algoritmen BAlgoritmen B Algoritmen E Algoritmen DAlgoritmen CModels: Models: Models:Learner Model A Learner Model C Learner Model ALearner Model B Learner Model E Learner Model CMeasured attributes: Measured attributes: Measured attributes:Attribute A Attribute A Attribute AAttribute B Attribute B Attribute BAttribute C Attribute C Attribute C 17 42 10
  11. 11. 5. Dataset Framework dataTEL evaluation model DatasetsFormal InformalIn Data A LinkedUp we have Data B opportunity to apply a the Data C structured approach to develop acommunity accepted evaluation framework. Algorithms: Algorithms: Algorithms:Algoritmen A Algoritmen D Algoritmen BAlgoritmen B Algoritmen E Algoritmen D 1.  Top-Down by a literature studyAlgoritmen C2.  Bottom-up by Models: with experts in the fieldModels: GCM Models:Learner Model A Learner Model C Learner Model ALearner Model B Learner Model E Learner Model CMeasured attributes: Measured attributes: Measured attributes:Attribute A Attribute A Attribute AAttribute B Attribute B Attribute BAttribute C Attribute C Attribute C 17 42 11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13.   Development  of  the  Evalua=on  Framework     P1: Initialisation P2: Establishment P3: Exit and and Evaluation Sustainability M0-M6: Preparation M7-M18: Competition cycle M18-M24: Finalising Comp etition Revie Final Expert 3x Draft w of EF proposal EF release validation of EF New Refin versio ement n of EFLiterature review Group Concept DocumentationCognitive Mapping Mapping Dissemination Practical experiences and refinement Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 13
  14. 14.  Group  Concept  Mapping    •  Group Concept Mapping resembles the Post-it notes problem solving technique and Delphi method•  GCM involves participants in a few simple activities (generating, sorting and rating of ideas) that most people are used to.GCM is different in two substantial ways:1. Robust analysis (MDS and HCA)GCM takes up the original participants contribution and then quantitativelyaggregate it to show their collective view (as thematic clusters)2. VisualisationGCM presents the results from the analysis as conceptual maps and other graphicalrepresentations (pattern matching and go-zones). Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 14
  15. 15.  Group  Concept  Mapping     brainstorm •  innovations in way network is delivered •  (investigate) corporate/structural alignment •  assist in the development of non-traditional partnerships (Rehab with the Medicine Community) sort •  expand investigation and knowledge of PSNS/PSOs •  continue STHCS sponsored forums on public health issues (medicine managed care forum) •  inventory assets of all participating agencies (providers, Venn Diagrams) •  access additional funds for telemedicine expansion •  better utilization of current technological bridge •  continued support by STHCS to member facilities •  expand and encourage utilization of interface programs to strengthen the viability and to improve the health care delivery system (ie teleconference) •  discussion with CCHN Decide how to manage multiple tasks. 20 Manage resources effectively. 4 Work quickly and effectively under pressure 49 Organize the work when directions are not specific. 39 e t ive ly ly. he eff e ct tive gS ime eff ec tin g et rc es Ra a ou ic. an n s. M res atio a sk ecif 1 na ge rm t. info tan le t t sp Ma no of por ultip ...organize the 5 e a re 4 2 ud is im age m ns ultit hat an ctio 3 5 am ew om ire an id wt nd 2 4 Sc dec ho he 1 d e r kw 3 5 3 an cid wo nd De he ely na 2 4 et 1 4 niz ctiv atio 3 ga ffe orm issues... 5 Or 2 ee inf nt. 4 5 tim of ta 1 ge de r 3 5 na itu impo 2 4 Ma ult 1 1 a m at is 3 5 an e wh 2 Sc cid 4 de 1 3 3 5 2 4 1 3 2 1 rate Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 15
  16. 16.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 16
  17. 17.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 17
  18. 18.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 18
  19. 19.  Group  Concept  Mapping     •  innovations in way network is delivered •  (investigate) corporate/structural alignment •  assist in the development of non-traditional partnerships (Rehab with the Medicine Community) •  expand investigation and knowledge of PSNS/PSOs •  continue STHCS sponsored forums on public health issues (medicine managed care forum) •  inventory assets of all participating agencies (providers, Venn Diagrams) •  access additional funds for telemedicine expansion •  better utilization of current technological bridge •  continued support by STHCS to member facilities •  expand and encourage utilization of interface programs to strengthen the …”map” the issues... viability and to improve the health care delivery system (ie teleconference) •  discussion with CCHN organize sort Decide how to manage multiple tasks. 20 Manage resources effectively. 4 Work quickly and effectively under pressure 49 Organize the work when directions are not specific. 39 et he effectiv effectively ely . g S time tin Manage resource s d an Ra ation . ks. ecific Technology 1 na ge inform le tas t sp 5 Ma e of rtant. ltip no 4 2 ltitudimpo ge mu ns are 3 a muat is na ectio 5 an ma dir 2 Sc e wh w to en 4 cid wh 1 3 de e ho rk 3 5 cid wo De d Information Services 2 4 e the ely n an 4 1 3 5 ga niz ectiv ma tio Or e eff or 2 4 5 tim inf 1 3 5 na ge e of rtant. 2 Ma ltitudimpo 4 1 1 a muat is 3 5 an wh 2 Sc cide 4 3 de 1 3 5 2 4 1 3 2 1 rate Community & Consumer Views Regionalization Management STHCS as model Financing Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 19
  20. 20.  Group  Concept  Mapping     •  innovations in way network is delivered •  (investigate) corporate/structural alignment •  assist in the development of non-traditional partnerships (Rehab with the Medicine Community) •  expand investigation and knowledge of PSNS/PSOs •  continue STHCS sponsored forums on public health issues (medicine managed care forum) •  inventory assets of all participating agencies (providers, Venn Diagrams) •  access additional funds for telemedicine expansion •  better utilization of current technological bridge •  continued support by STHCS to member facilities •  expand and encourage utilization of interface programs to strengthen the viability and to improve the health care delivery system (ie teleconference) •  discussion with CCHN Information Services Technology organize sort Community & Consumer Views Decide how to manage multiple tasks. 20 Manage resources effectively. 4 Work quickly and effectively under pressure 49 Organize the work when directions are not specific. 39 et he effectiv effectively ely . g S time tin Manage resource s d an Ra ation . ks. ecific 1 na ge inform le tas t sp 5 Ma e of rtant. ltip no 4 2 ltitudimpo ge mu ns are 3 a muat is na ectio 5 an ma dir 2 Sc e wh w to en 4 cid wh 1 3 de e ho rk 3 5 cid wo De d 2 4 e the ely n an 4 1 3 5 ga niz ectiv ma tio Or e eff or 2 4 5 tim inf 1 3 5 na ge e of rtant. 2 Ma ltitudimpo 4 1 1 a muat is 3 5 an wh 2 Sc cide 4 3 de 1 3 5 2 4 1 3 2 Regionalization 1 rate map Information Services Technology Community & Consumer Views Regionalization Financing Management Mission & Ideology Management STHCS as model Financing ...prioritize the issues... Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 20
  21. 21.  Group  Concept  Mapping    D2.1 Evaluation Criteria and Methods•  Invited 122 external experts•  56 experts contributed 212 indicators for the evaluation framework•  After cleaning -> 108 indicators remained•  26 experts sorted on similarity in meaning•  26 experts rated on priority and applicability Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 21
  22. 22.  Plus Minus Interesting ratingLook at and listen to the presentationof the Evaluation FrameworkMeanwhile…create notes onP: PlusM: MinusI: InterestingWrite down everything that comes to your mind, generateas many ideas as possible, do not filter your ideas.
  23. 23.  Group  Concept  Mapping     A point map Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 23
  24. 24.  Group  Concept  Mapping     A cluster map 15 Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 24
  25. 25.  Group  Concept  Mapping     A cluster map 6 Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 25
  26. 26.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Clusters’ labels Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 26
  27. 27.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Rating Map Priority Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 27
  28. 28.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Rating Map Applicability Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 28
  29. 29.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 29
  30. 30.  Group  Concept  Mapping     Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 30
  31. 31.  WP2: Literature review
  32. 32.  WP2: Literature review1. Literature review of suitable evaluation approaches and criteria2. Review of comprising initiatives such as LinkedEducation, MULCE, E3FPLE andthe SIG dataTEL  
  33. 33.  WP2: Literature review
  34. 34.  Many thanks for your attention!This silde is available at:http://www.slideshare.com/DrachslerEmail: hendrik.drachsler@ou.nlSkype: celstec-hendrik.drachslerBlogging at: http://www.drachsler.deTwittering at: http://twitter.com/HDrachsler Hendrik Drachsler 25 February 2013 34

×