Evaluation Of The Use Of Semantic Web Technology

Andrew Lumpe
David Wicks
Seattle Pacific University
Evaluation of the Use of Semantic Web Technology in a Collaborative Learning Environment

OBJECTIVES
Describe the application of a semantic web application in a collaborative learning environment.
Report the results on student learning.
Provide recommendations for future research and applications of semantic web technologies in educational environments.

Overall Goal of Education
The overall goal of education is to develop expertise
Expert learners vs. Novice learners
Have greater access to content
Are more skilled at retrieving content
Are better at adapting, changing, and recognizing when to apply knowledge
Semantic technologies MAY be one way to help develop expertise
(Bransford et al, 1999)

dullhunk

Collaborative Learning Research
(Dillonbourg et al, 1996)

Personal Learning Networks
Holotescu&Grosseck, 2009

How is [Twine] different than other social bookmarking tools like Delicious?
“The difference between {the system} and most bookmarking services is that {the system} attempts to identify the resource the page is describing, rather than just recording the location of the page itself. “ (Clarke & Greig, 2009)

Context
Online graduate education course with weekly, interactive modules –Blackboard 9
N=60
Module 1
General overview of course topics
Data used as preTest
TWINE not used
Modules 2-6
Specific Topics = Advance Organizers, Collaborative Learning, Inquiry/Induction, Conceptual Understanding, Multiple Intelligences
TWINE used throughout
Data used at postTest

Methods
Quasi Experimental Design
Experimental group used TWINE
Data sources = All text posts - discussion posts, blog entries, research papers, TWINE comments
WordStat 5.1 – “a text mining tool for fast extraction of themes and trends”
Build Dictionaries
Related Words and Phrases
Word exclusion list
Key Word in Context (KWIC)
MANCOVA
IV = group assignment
DV = module posts by five categories
Covariate = pretest posts

Results
Incoming GPAs not different (F = .22, p = .64)
Students posted many resources and comments in their twines
These resources were regularly used in students’ posts
Others outside the course joined and contributed to the twines
356,322 total words used in posts
8,612 related words/phrases included in analyses
Equal variances on all DVs (Levene's Test)

COLLABORATION

a. R Squared = .331 (Adjusted R Squared = .060)
b. R Squared = .461 (Adjusted R Squared = .243)
c. R Squared = .461 (Adjusted R Squared = .243)
d. R Squared = .390 (Adjusted R Squared = .143)
e. R Squared = .718 (Adjusted R Squared = .604)

Conclusions
Use of a Personal Learning Network (TWINE) helped students develop richer, more coherent expertise in 3 out of 5 content categories.
TWINE served as a collaborative repository of resources, ideas, and connections.
The impact of the semantic nature of TWINE was not apparent.

Next Steps
Further explore the qualitative differences in the students’ postings (latent semantic analysis)
Extended use may be needed in order for semantic technologies to learn interests and provide recommendations
Continue to explore the use of collaborative, semantic technologies to enhance learning
Twine T2?
http://www.opencalais.com/
http://www.puffinwarellc.com/ (iMetaSearch)
http://www.stumpedia.com/
http://imindi.com/

Questions?

Evaluation Of The Use Of Semantic Web Technology

by David Wicks on Oct 29, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Evaluation Of The Use Of Semantic Web Technology — Presentation Transcript