using ontological engineering to support the development of collaborative learning applications an...

Using ontological engineering to Support the development of collaborative learning applications

An Integrated Framework for Fine-Grained Analysis and

Design of Group Learning Activities

Seiji [email protected]

Riichiro [email protected]

The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka University, Japan

Agenda

1. The Problems: CSCL Design and Analysis

2. Ontological Approach

3. Background

- Interaction Patterns (Inaba et al., 2003a)

- Learner’s Growth Model (Inaba et al., 2003b)

- Limitations

4. GMIP – Growth Model Improved by Interaction Patterns

- Ontological Structure to Describe Learning Theories

- Benefits

- CHOCOLATO: Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool

5. Conclusions

Group

Teacher/Instructor

How to design the bestlearning activities?

Which Theory? Whatkind of benefits? How

to analyze? learning by observation

learning by guiding

learning by apprenticeship

Learner A Learner B

Learner C

Learner Supported theory Learning strategy Role for learner Proposed activities desired Benefit

Learner ACognitive

apprenticeshipLearning by guiding Master Guide learner B

Skill development

Learner BCognitive

apprenticeshipLearning by

apprenticeshipApprentice Imitate learner A

Skill development

Learner CObservational

learningLearning by observation

ObserverObserve the interactions

between A and BKnowledge acquisition

Selection of an appropriate set of learning theories

Cognitive Apprenticeship

Theory

Observational Learning Theory

The Problems: CSCL Design and Analysis

Each learning theory is “unfold” into a detailed pedagogical approach

Apprentice role

Master role

Observer role

Learning theorieshard to understand too complex & ambiguous There is not a common vocabulary to describe themDifferent point of views, levels of aggregation, perspective

and emphasis

How to “unfold” the theories into a set of activities for a group?

How to develop programs to help the design and analysis of group activities supported by learning theories?

The Problems

I -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goal

Behavior

W (A)-goal

Role

Y I -goal

Role

Y I -goal

W(L)-goal

Common goal

Primary focus (P)

Secondary f ocus (S )

S<=P-goal

P<=S-goal

I -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goal

Behavior

k./ cog. state

Goal stateI -goal

W(L)-goal

k./ cog. state (Group)Goal state

How does t he learner change his/ her state?

W hat activity does the group want to do?

How does t he group change its state?

G

G

G

G

W hy does the learner want to interact with other learner s?

S

S

G

I -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goal

Behavior

I -goalI -goalI -goalI -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goalY<=I -goal

Behavior

W (A)-goal

Role

Y I -goal

Role

Y I -goal

W(L)-goal

Common goal

Primary focus (P)


S<=P-goal

P<=S-goal

W (A)-goalW (A)-goal

RoleRoleRole

Y I -goalY I -goalY I -goalY I -goal

RoleRoleRole

Y I -goalY I -goalY I -goalY I -goal

W(L)-goal

Common goal

Primary focus (P)


S<=P-goal

P<=S-goal

I -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goal

Behavior

I -goalI -goalI -goalI -goal

BehaviorI -role

You-role

I -goal (I )

Y<=I -goalY<=I -goal

Behavior

k./ cog. statek./ cog. state

Goal stateI -goalI -goalI -goal

W(L)-goal

k./ cog. state (Group)Goal state

How does t he learner change his/ her state?

W hat activity does the group want to do?

How does t he group change its state?

G

G

G

G

W hy does the learner want to interact with other learner s?

S

S

G

learning theories

Use ontological engineeringto represent theories for CSCL

Ontology Model

Use the ontology model to support the development of ontology-aware systems

usersteacher/instructor/designer

The systems help users to: design group activities; estimate benefits; analyze, etc…

Our Approach

Some of learning theories that support advantages of CL

– Sociocultural theory [Vygotsky, 1930]– Observational learning [Bandura, 1971]– Peer tutoring [Endlsey,1980]– Cognitive Flexibility [Spiro et al., 1988] – Cognitive apprenticeship [Collins, 1991]– Legitimate Peripheral Participant [Lave & Wenger, 1991]– Anchored Instruction [CTGV, 1992]– Distributed cognition [Salomon, 1993]

Background

Interaction Pattern [Inaba et al., 2003a]

What is: patterns for expected interactions based on learning theories.

Main Benefit: offer a model and vocabulary to describe learner-to-learner interaction process

Usefulness: possibility to compare real interaction process with interaction patterns helping teacher to estimate educational benefits.

Background: Previous Models

FinalFinal

StartStart

Teaching the wayto solve a problem

Prompting

UnderstandingShowing the wayTo solve a probem

Prompting

Acceptance

Showing the wayto solve a problem

Showing problematic issues

Request to show the way to solve problem

Interaction expected to “master” role-player

Interaction expected to “apprentice” role-player

Necessary Transitions

DesiredTransitions


[Stages of Knowledge acquisition]

nothing (0)

tuning (2)

accretion (1)

Background: Previous ModelsLearner’s Growth Model [Inaba et al., 2003b]

What is: graph representation (in a simplified way) of learner’s knowledge acquisition process (Rumelhart et al, 1978) and skill development process (Anderson, 82).

Main Benefit: offer a way to represent the learner’s development (growth) and clarify the learning goals (stages).

Usefulness: guideline to select learning strategies appropriate for desired learning goal.S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2) S(1,0)

S(2,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(1,2) S(2,1)S(2,2)S(3,1)

S(3,2) S(4,1)S(4,2)

S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2) S(1,0)

S(2,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(1,2) S(2,1)S(2,2)S(3,1)

S(3,2) S(4,1)S(4,2)

S(4,2)S(3,3) S(4,3)

S(0,0)S(0,1)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2)

S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(1,3)

S(2,3)

[Stages of Skill development]

nothing (0)

rough cognitive stage (1)

explanatory cognitive stage (2)

associative stage (3)

autonomous stage (4)

restructuring (3)

Limitations of the Previous Models

1. We cannot identify clearly the relationship among interactions and learner’s development.

2. We cannot explain the learner’s development through a set of interactions (events).

3. It is difficult to facilitate the collaboration (interaction) while a session are taking place.

• For example, in a CSCL session if a learner, who plays the role of anchored instructor, has a misunderstanding he will transfer it to the other learners (anchor holders) from the beginning until the end of the session.

Unifying the Models

To overcome the difficulties addressed in the previous slide we aim to unify the previous models by:

1. Making tacit characteristics of learning theories explicit;

2. Identifying the relationships among interaction, learning strategies and learning goals;

3. Propose an ontological structure to describe learning theories for CL extending the Collaborative Learning Ontology (Inaba et al, 2000).

Collaborative Learning Ontology [inaba et al, 2000]

LA

LCI-goal(LC)

I-goal(LB)I-goal(LA)

W-goal({LA,LB})

W-goal({LA,LB,LC})

Y<=I -goal(LA<=LB)

Y<=I-goal (LB<=LA)

LB

Learning StrategiesLearning Goals

Knowledge Acquisition: (accretion, tuning, …)

Learning by GuidingLearning by

Apprenticeship

Cognitive Skill Development(cognitive, associative, …)

InteractionPatterns

HOW?

LA

I-goal(LB)I-goal(LA)

Y<=I -goal(LA<=LB)

LB

Interaction

Influential I_L Events

Instructor EventLearner Event

Interaction Patternsfor Learning Theories

Interaction Patternsfor Learning Theories

Anchored Instruction

Anchored Instruction

Peer TutoringPeer Tutoring

Distributed CognitionDistributed Cognition

LPPLPP

Cognitive Constructivism

Cognitive Constructivism

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

Sociocultural TheorySociocultural Theory

Observational Learning

Observational Learning



Analyzing and Remodeling Interaction Patterns

Interaction 3Interaction 2Interaction

Interaction 4

Pattern

Y<=I -goal(LB<=LA)

Learning Theory

Instructor’s action

Learner’s Action

Necessary Interaction

Desired Interaction

Role Role

Ontological Structure to Describe Learning Theory

Instructional event

Influential I_L event

I event

I-goal

Instructor

Benefits for the Instructor

Agent

ActionInstructional action

L event

LearnerAgent

ActionLearning action

Learning event

I-goalBenefits for the Learner

Interaction Pattern

Y<=I-goal

Learning Theory

Teaching-Learning Process

Learning Strategy

I-goal

I-role

I-goal

Agent

AgentYou-role

G

Necessary Interaction Activity

*

*

Influential I_L event

Desired Interaction ActivityInfluential I_L event

*

*

Example: Cognitive Apprenticeship

Instructor Event

Learner Event


3: Clarifying the problem*

4: Monitoring

5: Notifying howthe learner is

9: Affirmative reaction

2: Demonstration howto solve a problem

8: Showing a solution

1:Setting uplearning context

6: Instigating Thinking

7: Requesting problem's details

Interaction Pattern represented by Influential I_L Events

Learner’s development

(Apprentice)

S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)

S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2)

S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)

S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

GMIP - Growth Model Improved by Interaction PatternsCognitive Apprenticeship

Learning by Apprenticeship

x

y

Desired Interaction


The dashed ellipses means that the interaction on the top/left must be followed by another interaction bottom/right.

The ellipses means that theinteraction on the top/left will be followed by another interaction bottom/right and vice-versa (cycle) .

4

5 6

97

8

2

12 3

24

35

6

1

2 3

24

35

6

4

5 6

97

8 2

12 3

2 4

3 5

6

4

56

97

8

21

2 3

24

35

6 4

5 6

97 8

2


nothing (0)






nothing (0)

tuning (2)

restructuring (3)

accretion (1)

[Interactions]

1.Setting up the learning context

2.Demonstrate how to solve a problem

3.Clarify the problem

4.Monitoring

5.Notifying how the learner is

6.Instigating thinking

7.Requesting problem’s details

8.Showing a solution

9.Affirmative reaction

Benefits of GMIP


nothing (0)






nothing (0)

tuning (2)

restructuring (3)

accretion (1)

S(0,0)S(0,1)

S(0,2)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2) S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

S(0,2)

S(0,1)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1) S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2) S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

S(0,0)

Cognitive Apprenticeshiplearning by apprenticeship

Cognitive Apprenticeshiplearning by guiding

Legitimate Peripheral Participant (LPP)Learning by Discussion

S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2)S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

S(0,3)

S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)

S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2)

S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)

S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

Benefits of GMIP

Initial Stage

Final Stage

x

y

Desired Interaction





nothing (0)






nothing (0)

tuning (2)

restructuring (3)

accretion (1)

Benefits of GMIPAnchored Instruction

Learning by being Taught

x

y

Desired Interaction





nothing (0)






nothing (0)

tuning (2)

restructuring (3)

accretion (1)

S(0,0)

S(0,1)

S(0,2)

S(0,3)

S(2,0)

S(1,0)

S(3,0)

S(4,0)

S(1,1)

S(2,1)

S(3,1)

S(4,1)

S(1,2)

S(2,2)

S(3,2)

S(4,2)

S(1,3)

S(3,3)

S(2,3)

S(4,3)

2 4

1 3

5 6

3

56

78

9

4

6

Initial Stage

Final Stage

Checking

Database

Ontology Layer

Author

Learner’s StageIdentification System


Theory-basedActivities Designing

Support System


Support System

Learning ProcessAnalysis System


Theory-based Interaction

Support System


Support System

Learning Theory Ontology

Learning MaterialRecommendation

System


System

Learning Process Ontology

Learning Material

Authoring Interface

CL ontology

advice & recommendation

selection, reuse & customization

Learning Model

CL DesignManager

Ontology-aware Authoring System

CHOCOLATO – Concrete Helpful Ontology-aware Collaborative Learning Authoring Tool

MARI - Main Adaptive Representation Interface


MARIMain Adaptive Representation Interface

Search for any goal stage Search for final goal stage


In our research we have been using ontologies to establish a common understanding of what a learning theory is by representing it in terms of its explicitness, formalism, concepts and vocabulary.

This makes theories understandable and sharable, both by computers and humans.

We use two previous models to clarify how interactions can affect learner’s development to propose another model, called GMIP - Growth Model Improved by Interaction Patterns.

Explicitly identify the relationships among interaction patterns, learning strategies and learning goals.

For users the GMIP allows the graphical visualization and use of learning theories. Thus, users can quickly interpret the theories, their benefits and can propose sequence of activities in compliance with them.

For computers, it provides a formal structure which allows systems to reasoning about the theories and the features (actions, roles, etc …) prescribed by them.

Conclusions

Support Group Interactions (Learning Theory Ontology, Theory-based Interaction Support System, Theory-based Activities Designing Support System, Learning process Ontology)

Design Learning Environment (Learning Material Ontology, Learning Material Recommendation System, Learning Model)

Quality of Learning Process (Learning Model, Learner’s Stage Identification System, Learning Process Analysis System)

Database

Ontology Layer

Author




Support System


Support System




Support System


Support System

Learning Theory Ontology


System


System

Learning Process Ontology

Learning Material

Authoring Interface

CL ontology

advice & recommendation

selection, reuse & customization

Learning Model

CL DesignManager

16

Ontology-aware Authoring System

Our ultimate goal is develop a complete ontology-aware authoring system for CL based on well-grounded theoretical knowledge.

Conclusions

Special Thanks

Concluding

Riichiro Mizoguchi

Yusuke Hayashi

Daniele Allard

Thank you!

Concluding

Seiji [email protected]

Riichiro [email protected]

The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka University, Japan

using ontological engineering to support the development of collaborative learning applications an...

Documents

observation learning

learning theories benefits

learning theories hard

best learning activities

observational learning

apprenticeship learner

design group activities

background slide