Semantic Social Sensing for Improving Simulation Environments for Learning
The rapidly growing learning simulations market calls urgently for innovative ways to facilitate the simulation design process ,. Social spaces can provide an extensive source of reports on individuals’ experiences and their real-world contexts that may be exploited for the purpose of identifying relevant content and evaluating the quality of a simulation. To realise this potential, appropriate ways to make sense of user generated content (UGC) are needed. This work presents a novel approach, called semantic social sensing (SSS), which exploits ontologies and semantic augmentation combined with discourse analysis uncovering intentions behind the user comments. We have developed two SSS instruments enabling analysis of UGC – (a) a framework for automatic semantic analysis for capturing viewpoints (ViewS), which utilises ontologies and semantic tagging and enrichment and enables visual exploration of the conceptual spaces associated with UGC ; and (b) a schema for discourse analysis to identify intentions useful for simulator design  and inspired by research analysing communicative functions of user contributions in collaborative settings .
- 1.Swartout, W.: Lessons learned from virtual humans. AI Magazine 31, 9–20 (2010)Google Scholar
- 2.Hetzner, S., Steiner, C., Dimitrova, V., Brna, P., Conlan, O.: Adult self-regulated learning through linking experience in simulated and real world: A holistic approach. In: Proc. of EC-TEL 2011, pp. 166–180 (2011)Google Scholar
- 3.Despotakis, D., Dimitrova, V., Lau, L., Thakker, D., Ascolese, A., Pannese, L.: ViewS in user generated content for enriching learning environments: A semantic sensing approach. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 121–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Arvaja, M., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J.: Tracing discursive processes of shared knowledge construction in a technology-enhanced higher education setting. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17 (2011)Google Scholar