SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage

658
-1

Published on

This presentation compares 3 educational tagging systems and their tags, and shows that tags from one system are of interest to users of the other, hence the idea of a cross-repository tag cloud. The papers are here: http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-382/

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
658
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage

  1. 1. <ul><li>Comparison of educational </li></ul><ul><li>tagging systems - </li></ul><ul><li>any chances of interplay? </li></ul><ul><li>Riina Vuorikari, Eun </li></ul><ul><li>Hans Pold õ ja, TU and MediaLab, Hki </li></ul>
  2. 2. What's for teachers?
  3. 3. What's for teachers? Replies based on 45 European primary and secondary teachers participating the MELT project
  4. 4. What’s for repositories <ul><li>Harvesting </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. in the </li></ul><ul><li>MELT </li></ul><ul><li>project </li></ul>
  5. 5. Federated search <ul><li>e.g. Globe or LRE </li></ul>
  6. 6. However In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 24(4), 333-347 (2008)
  7. 7. As for the user... <ul><li>Is federated search across repositories </li></ul><ul><li>and/or </li></ul><ul><li>harvested metadata from other repositories </li></ul><ul><li>enough? </li></ul>
  8. 11. Problem <ul><li>Most times the interplay between LORs is about changing standards compliant metadata </li></ul><ul><li>and that has nothing to do with the user generated metadata which keeps the depth of the data </li></ul><ul><li>the depth? </li></ul>
  9. 12. Learning resource Expert indexer added metadata (LOM)‏ Users interact with resources: LOM and other annotations - social tags - ratings - sharable bookmarks & collections But it is not the whole story...
  10. 13. Learning resource Expert indexer added metadata (LOM)‏ Users interact with resources: LOM and other annotations - social tags - ratings - sharable bookmarks & collections Connections!
  11. 14. <ul><li>to study LORs and communities as a single system, rather than as a loose set of instruments, subject, objects and outcomes. </li></ul><ul><li>Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008) use Activity Theory - offers a holistic framework </li></ul>A need
  12. 15. INVESTIGATION <ul><li>Does such interplay make sense? </li></ul><ul><li>We study 3 different resource platforms and their tags </li></ul>
  13. 16. Data set
  14. 17. Differences in Design
  15. 18. Differences in Philosophy
  16. 19. Semantic similarities!
  17. 20. Cross-repository tag cloud <ul><li>The cloud would use only information pair: resource-tag </li></ul><ul><li>Access to 968 most tagged resources in all 3 platforms </li></ul>
  18. 22. Cross-repository tag cloud <ul><li>Takes advantage of other user's experiences (social navigation) </li></ul><ul><li>Gives priority to user's participation in social interactions through a dialogue to co-construct knowledge </li></ul>
  19. 23. by Stiphy “ Social” makes trails visible..
  20. 24. and shows where to do go
  21. 25. Got issues? <ul><li>Interoperability of user-generated metadata (e.g. tags, ratings, annotations, …) </li></ul><ul><li>Data-portability </li></ul><ul><li>Attention Profile Markup Language </li></ul><ul><li>Create profiles of repository's “attention” </li></ul>
  22. 26. Profiling LOR based on users' interest <ul><li>This is my APML file. We could also have one for a LOR. </li></ul>
  23. 27. social bookmarks Metadata LOM tags folksonomy social tagging multi-linguality social classification thanks ! for your attention learning resources user communities discover resources and items questions ? teachers social navigation social traces paths , trails flock

×