Advertisement

The ELEKTRA Ontology Model: A Learner-Centered Approach to Resource Description

  • Michael D. Kickmeier-Rust
  • Dietrich Albert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4823)

Abstract

There is little doubt that intelligent and adaptive educational technologies are capable of providing personalized learning experiences and improving learning success. Current challenges for research and development in this field concern, for example, the design of comprehensive data models for adaptive systems as well as the interoperability of systems and the re-usability of learning material across different systems. In the present work we introduce an ontology model, basically developed in the context of immersive digital games, which attempts to provide a solution to existing problems in resource description. On the one hand, comprehensive data models for adaptive systems are supported by separating static information from adaptive systems as far as possible. On the other hand, the ontology model offers a potential solution to precise and, above all, learner-centered resource description by separating latent competencies from observable performance (in learning objects or test items).

Keywords

Adaptive Tutoring Game-based Learning Resource Description Ontology Model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pressey, S.L.: A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches. School and Society 23, 373–376 (1926)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B.S.: The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as affective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher 13(6), 4–16 (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brusilovsky, P.: Intelligent tutoring systems for World-Wide-Web. In: 3rd International WWW Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brusilovsky, P.: Adaptive and intelligent technologies for web-based education. In: Rollinger, C., Peylo, C. (eds.) Special Issue on Intelligent Systems and Teleteaching, Künstliche Intelligenz, vol. 4, pp. 19–25 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Peirce, N., Conlan, O., Schwarz, D., Verpoorten, D., Albert, D.: Immersive digital games: The interfaces for next-generation e-learning? In: Aykin, N. (ed.) HCII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4560, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Branko Neto, W.C., Gauthier, F.A.: Sharing and reusing information on web-based learning. In: Workshop on Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for e-Learning (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizoguchi, R., Bourdeau, J.: Using ontological engineering to overcome common AI-ED problems. International Journal of AI in Education 11, 107–121 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sampson, D., Karagiannidis, C., Cardinali, F.: An architecture for web-based e-learning promoting re-usable adaptive educational e-content. Educational Technology & Society 5(4), 27–37 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bra, P., Aroyo, L., Chepegin, V.: The next big thing: Adaptive web-based systems. Journal of Digital Information 5 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Schwarz, D., Albert, D., Verpoorten, D., Castaigne, J.-L., Bopp, M.: The ELEKTRA project: towards a new learning experience. In: Pohl, M., et al. (eds.) M3 – Interdisciplinary aspects on digital media & education, pp. 19–48 Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft, Vienna (2006) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steinkuehler, C.A.: Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity 13(1), 38–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chomsky, N.: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doignon, J.-P., Falmagne, J.-C.: Knowledge spaces. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albert, D., Lukas, J.: Knowledge spaces: Theories, empirical research, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korossy, K.: Modelling knowledge as competence and performance. In: Albert, D., Lukas, J. (eds.) Knowledge Spaces: Theories, Empirical Research Applications, pp. 103–132. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruber, T.A.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17, 54–60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heller, J., Steiner, C.M., Hockemeyer, C., Albert, D.: Competence-based knowledge structures for personalized learning. International Journal of E-Learning 5, 75–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., et al.: A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, Longman (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leclerq, D., Poumay, M.: The 8 Learning events model and its principles, http://www.labset.net/media/prod/8LEM.pdf
  21. 21.
    Mayer, B., Steiner, C.M., Heller, J., Albert, D.: Activity- and taxonomy-based knowledge representation framework. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning (in press) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ding, Z., Peng, Y.: A probabilistic extension to ontology language OWL. In: 37th International Conference on System Sciences (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Kickmeier-Rust
    • 1
  • Dietrich Albert
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Science Section, Department of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations