Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 161–181 | Cite as

Comparing student and expert-based tagging of recorded lectures

Article

Abstract

In this paper we analyse the way students tag recorded lectures. We compare their tagging strategy and the tags that they create with tagging done by an expert. We look at the quality of the tags students add, and we introduce a method of measuring how similar the tags are, using vector space modelling and cosine similarity. We show that the quality of tagging by students is high enough to be useful. We also show that there is no generic vocabulary gap between the expert and the students. Our study shows no statistically significant correlation between the tag similarity and the indicated interest in the course, the perceived importance of the course, the number of lectures attended, the indicated difficulty of the course, the number of recorded lectures viewed, the indicated ease of finding the needed parts of a recorded lecture, or the number of tags used by the student.

Keywords

Tagging Recorded lectures Cosine similarity Vector space modelling 

References

  1. Abowd, G., Atkeson, C., Brotherton, J., Enqvist, T., Gulley, P., & LeMon, J. (1998). Investigating the capture, integration and access problem of ubiquitous computing in an educational setting. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Los Angeles, California, United States.Google Scholar
  2. Abowd, G., Brotherton, J., & Bhalodia, J. (1998). Classroom 2000: a system for capturing and accessing multimedia classroom experiences. Paper presented at the CHI 98 conference on Human factors in computing systems, Los Angeles, California, United States.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. Proc. of ACM WWW, 3(4).Google Scholar
  4. Bligh, D. (1998). What is the use of lectures? (5th ed.). Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 19, 56.Google Scholar
  6. Brotherton, J., & Abowd, G. (2004). Lessons learned from eClass: assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 11(2), 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Backer, G. (2012). PHP Dutch Stemmer Retrieved 10-12-2012, from http://code.google.com/p/php-dutch-stemmer/ Delicious. Retrieved 21-1-2013, from https://delicious.com/.
  8. Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2004). Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching. New York: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  9. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2005). The structure of collaborative tagging systems: HP.com.Google Scholar
  10. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorissen, P., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. (2012a). Analysing students' use of recorded lectures through methodological triangulation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (LTEC'12), Salamanca, Spain.Google Scholar
  12. Gorissen, P., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. (2012b). Students and recorded lectures: survey on current use and demands for higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), 297–311.Google Scholar
  13. Guy, M., & Tonkin, E. (2006). Tidying up tags. D-Lib Magazine, 12(1), 1082–9873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. John, A., & Seligmann, D. (2006). Collaborative tagging and expertise in the enterprise. Paper presented at the Collab. Web Tagging Workshop in conj. with WWW2006.Google Scholar
  15. Kraaij, W., & Pohlmann, R. (1994). Porter’s stemming algorithm for Dutch. Informatiewetenschap, 167–180.Google Scholar
  16. Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning objects. Learning Circuits, 1(3).Google Scholar
  17. Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT press.Google Scholar
  18. Markines, B., Cattuto, C., Menczer, F., Benz, D., Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2009). Evaluating similarity measures for emergent semantics of social tagging.Google Scholar
  19. Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M. (2006). Position paper, tagging, taxonomy, flickr, article, toread. In: Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, 31-41, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  20. Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Computer Mediated Communication, 47(10).Google Scholar
  21. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, (65), 17.Google Scholar
  22. Porter, M. F. (1997). An algorithm for suffix stripping. In K. Sparck Jones & P. Willett (Eds.), Readings in information retrieval (pp. 313–316). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, M. F. (2001). Snowball: A language for stemming algorithms Retrieved 10-12-2012, from http://snowball.tartarus.org/texts/introduction.html.
  24. Srinivas, G., Tandon, N., & Varma, V. (2010). A weighted tag similarity measure based on a collaborative weight model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Search and mining user-generated contents.Google Scholar
  25. Vander Wal, T. (2007). Folksonomy Retrieved 21-1-2013, from http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html.
  26. Velsen, L., & Melenhorst, M. (2008). User Motives for Tagging Video Content.Google Scholar
  27. Verburg, J. (2010). Live & social tagging van weblectures [live and social tagging of weblectures]. Utrecht: Hogeschool Utrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Voss, J. (2007). Tagging, Folksonomy & Co-Renaissance of Manual Indexing? Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium for Information Science, Cologne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Gorissen
    • 1
  • Jan van Bruggen
    • 2
  • Wim Jochems
    • 3
  1. 1.Fontys University of Applied SciencesEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations