Semantic Analysis for Curricular Mapping, Gap Analysis & Remediation


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In the LMS or CMS environment, content management frequently translates into single-purpose allocation of content resources, with cataloging and meta tagging being a haphazard affair. This results in potential duplication of content and significant time loss associated with asset retrieval for incorporation into new curricula. Because content is created with the notion that all contributors have knowledge of the underlying taxonomies or common vernacular that information is based upon, it is difficult for organizations to survey their content universe for existing objects that can be incorporated into emerging workflows or to assess relationships between content across disciplines.
  • Issues – Objectives - NeedsA school within the University was looking for a way to:Survey: Existing Course Objects SmartlyExamine: Course Content across CurriculumsFulfill: Unfulfilled Course ObjectivesLocate & Modify: Course Content / Learning ObjectsAlign: Course Level Objectives, Programmatic outcomes, and Industry StandardsReport: Provide accrediting body with an analysis of courses & program content – Alignment Analysis Report.
  • Solution:Faculty/School Representative performs a Gap Analysis on a desired course to locate filled and unfulfilled objectives.Unfulfilled objectives can be fulfilled by utilizing the Gap Remediation ToolLocate resources within the Content LibraryAssociate the resources with the unfulfilled objectivesPerform a second Gap Analysis to point out newly fulfilled objectives. Improve instructional outcomes through ingestion of work productsDetermine content interrelationships to facilitate object reusability Map assets in the content universe as they relate to curricular goals and objectivesAutomate the gap analysis process & meta tagging through semantic analysisImplement content distillation and semantic analysis to increasing return on investment and time on taskSemantic analysis in the instructional design workflow
  • 1. Creation & Acquisition are facilitated by uncovering obvious and non-obvious relationships across dedicated and/or publicly available repositories.2.Interaction with objects (scope and sequence) is enabled through the learning environment (lightweight or robust) independent of modality.3. LCMS (federated or centralized) enables correlation to standards and outcomes, as well as collaboration between educators and content creators using multiplesources interspersed with original material.4.Prescriptive learning is enabled through the correlation of relevant assets to the learners meta-data, profile, and assessment history.
  • Granularity Model
  • Molecular Content Management™ extracts content assets and learning objects to a granular level, thus enabling asset tracking for rights and use management, as well as offering the larger community the ability to access content objects they might have not created locally and align them across established standards and frameworks. For example, a math object could be dynamically aligned across multiple state standards and identified as an element of remediation for assessment items that test specific benchmarks.By identifying associations between objects, Molecular Content Management helps to generate new paradigms of thought, products, or creative expression within the environment with continued use. Ultimately, its implementation allows dynamic meta-data systems to create new types of bonds that emerge as constructs of content become standardized and knowledge is invested within the organization and/or the contributing community.
  • 1. Objects on their own are not “smart”2. Systems can be built to infer or semantically correlate object bonds
  • 1. By mapping Critical, Important and Desirable outcomes we can link learning objects, to their related:- Concept Elements, Components - Course Concepts and Curriculum segments2. Mapping can be accomplished independent of the content source when digitized3. Learners can discover ancillary materials and even subject matter of interest that might not be on their identified curriculum
  • Lowest level of granularity & highest level of reuseEasily consumed or tagged can have additional downstream embed-ability.Engines such as Common Library, Open Calais, 2028 and other Platform As A Service (PAAS) components can extend existing content management strategies, approaches and systems.By adopting standards (IEEE, IEEE-LOM, SCORM, DCMI, DCMI-Extended) content creators, consumers and aggregators can rapidly extend, enhance or assemble materials in new and relevant ways.Enables future individualized and cohort learning profiles.
  • Enables collaboration through the integration of content development and social networkingUse tools in which network affects are default, collaborative links and recommendations should be dynamic (Facebook, LinkedIn, Common Library)Tools should not require a “Rip and Replace” approach and should operate within an existing technology portfolio (enabled by standards-based systems)Collaborative teams in traditional Instructional Design (ID) processes (ID, SME, Producer) can offer insights and additional meta-information that makes the system more self-awareAllows for future individualized and cohort learning profilesContent Management is an enabling set of tools that collaborative development requires once it moves beyond a small set of documents and participants
  • Institution-direct The Institution-direct model can be deployed in any K-12, higher education, or corporate environment . This implementation can be delivered in the SaaS model, or deployed as a local on-premise solution. The flexibility of an on-premise solution offers additional integration opportunities into the customer’s learning technology environment. This implementation supports repository federation—enabling a local repository of institution-controlled and maintained objects. This environment is best suited for institutions that have multiple local contributors, content relationships with publishers or Open Courseware content, have an extensive amount of items and require local business or organization governance and/or have additional integration requirements. What are the technologies used in Common Library?Common Library was developed using the following frameworks and technologies:Spring Framework – an open source application framework for the Java platformJCR – Java Content RepositoryApache Lucene – an open source text search engine library written in JavaAjax – a group of development techniques used for creating Rich Internet Applications (RIAs)ExtJS – JavaScript library used for RIA developmentJersey – Java API for RESTful Web ServicesDWR – Direct Web Remoting; used to call Java functions from JavaScript, and JavaScript functions from Java
  • Semantic Analysis for Curricular Mapping, Gap Analysis & Remediation

    1. 1. Semantic Analysis for Curricular Mapping, Gap Analysis & Remediation <br />Jennifer Staley, American Public University System<br />Phil Ice, American Public University System<br />Justin Beals, Roundbox Global<br />
    2. 2. According to the New Media Consortium’s / ELI 2010 Horizon report indicates semantically-aware applications are not likely to become mainstream for four to five years within the higher ed community, however a few cutting edge prototypes are currently being utilized.<br />
    3. 3. Agenda<br />Curricular Mapping Project<br />Project Outcomes Demos<br />Semantic Analysis Deep Dive<br />
    4. 4.
    5. 5. Needs<br />
    6. 6. Solution<br />
    7. 7. Gap Analysis & Remediation Tool Demo<br />
    8. 8.
    9. 9.
    10. 10.
    11. 11.
    12. 12.
    13. 13.
    14. 14. Common Library E-Reader & AIR Application Demo<br />
    15. 15.
    16. 16.
    17. 17.
    18. 18. Semantic Analysis: A Deep Dive<br />
    19. 19. Learning Object Lifecycle<br />
    20. 20.
    21. 21.
    22. 22. <ul><li> Objects on their own are not smart
    23. 23. Systems can be built to semantically correlate object bonds</li></ul>Smart Objects and Systems<br />
    24. 24. <ul><li>By mapping Critical, Important and Desirable outcomes we can link learning objects, to their related: </li></ul>+Concept Elements & Components<br />+Course Concepts & Curricular Segments<br /><ul><li>Mapping can be accomplished independent of the content source when digitized
    25. 25. Learners can discover ancillary materials and even subject matter of interest that might not be on their identified curriculum</li></li></ul><li>Semantic Aware Content Development<br /><ul><li>Granularity
    26. 26. Easily Consumed / Tagged
    27. 27. Common Library, Open Calais, 2028 and other Platform As A Service (PAAS) components
    28. 28. Adopt standards: IEEE, IEEE-LOM, SCORM, DCMI, DCMI-Extended
    29. 29. Enable future individualized cohort learning profiles</li></li></ul><li>Collaborative Content Development<br /><ul><li>Use tools in which network affects are default, collaborative links and recommendations are dynamic (Facebook, LinkedIn, Common Library)
    30. 30. Tools operate within an existing technology portfolio, enabled by standards-based systems
    31. 31. Enables future individualized and cohort learning profiles
    32. 32. Collaborative teams in traditional Instructional Design (ID) processes (SME, Producer) can make the system more self-aware.
    33. 33. Content Management as an enabling set of tools</li></li></ul><li>Collaborative Development<br />
    34. 34. Thank You!<br />
    35. 35. References & Supporting Materials<br />
    36. 36. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.<br />Ice, P. & Staley, J. (March, 2010) "Using Semantic Analysis for Content Alignment and Gap Analysis" Orlando, FL: ELearning Guild Learning Solutions Conference and Expo, 2010. <br />Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.<br />McKeachie, W. (Ed.) (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.<br />Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5).<br />Staley, J., Gibson, A., & Ice, P. (February, 2010) "Impacts on Student Satisfaction through Curricular Design: Factors of the Community of Inquiry Framework and Instructional Design Practices" New Orleans, LA: Southwest Educational Research Association, 32nd Annual Conference.<br />References<br />
    37. 37. APUS ID Process Model<br />
    38. 38. Common Library:<br />