You are here:

Semantic Relations in Open Learning Objects
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , Italian National Research Council - Institute for Educational Technologies, Italy

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-1-880094-65-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

In order to capture the semantic relations existing in learning objects, we propose the use of semantic web technologies coupled with an innovative model of Open Learning Object (OpenLO). The semantic web is presented as an extension of the existing web which aims to add a semantic layer to the information currently available; it encourages a multiplicity of analyses and dynamic organizations of the information through the reasoning about the concepts and relations which are related to the information. Through the OpenLO model, users edit educational resources created by different authors, and customize the them according to their own pedagogical needs. The concepts presented in the paper are based on the experience we have done in using a Learning Object Management System, called FreeLOms, that we have developed in the framework an the European funded project SLOOP (Sharing Learning Object in an Open Perspective).

Citation

Taibi, D., Gentile, M., Fulantelli, G. & Allegra, M. (2008). Semantic Relations in Open Learning Objects. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 6065-6072). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 4, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T., Whitelock, D. (2004).. “ The Educational Semantic Web: Visioning And Practicing The Future Of Education", Journal of Interactive Media in Education, vol. No. 1, pp. 1-15, available at
  2. Bouzeghoub, A., Defude, B., Ammour, S., Duitama, J.F., Lecocq, C. (2004). “ A RDF Description Model for Manipulating Learning Objects” , Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 81-85.
  3. Butson, R. (2003). “ Colloquium. Learning Objects: Weapons Of Mass Instruction”, British journal of educational technology, 34 (5), 667-669.
  4. Collis, B., Strijker, A. (2004). “ Technology And Human Issues In Reusing Learning Objects”, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004 (4), (pp. 1-32), Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web, available at
  5. Gentile, M., Taibi, D., Allegra, M., Fulantelli, G. (2006). “ A Collaborative“ Open Learning Objects” Managements System” , WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 3 (6), 586-592.
  6. Gruber, T.R. (1993). “ A Translation Approach To Portable Ontologies”, Knowledge Acquisition, 5 (2), 199-220.
  7. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (2002). “ IEEE LOM Working Draft 6.1 (IEEE 1484.12.1) ”.
  8. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (2002). “ Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) binding for Learning Object Metadata data model (IEEE P1484.12.4) ”. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc (2004). “ Content packaging specification”. Available at: http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/
  9. Jovanovi, J., Knight, C., Gaševi, D., Richards, G. (2006). “ Learning Object Context on the Semantic Web”, Proc. 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 669-673.
  10. Mason, J., Adcock, G. (2000). “ Modeling Information to Support Value Adding: EdNA Online”, WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications& Issues., 2 (3), 38-45.
  11. Masseroni, M., Ravotto, P. (2005). “ SLOOP: Un Progetto Europeo Per Un Archivio Condiviso Di Free Learning
  12. Neven, F., Duval, E. (2002). “ Reusable Learning Objects: A Survey Of LOMBased Repositories”, ACM Multimedia Conference, 291-294.
  13. Novak, J.D. (2002). “ Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor For Conceptual Change In Limited Or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading To Empowerment Of Learners”, Science Education, 84 (4), 548571.
  14. Nurmi, S., Jaakkola, T. (2006). “ Promises and pitfalls of learning objects”, Learning, Media and Technology, 31 (3), 269-285.
  15. Parrish, P.E. (2004). “ The trouble with learning objects”, Educational technology, research& Development, 52 (1), 49-67.
  16. Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I. (2003). “ OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics And Abstract Syntax”, W3C Working Draft, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/.
  17. Piaget, J. (1976). The Grasp Of Consciousness. Harvard University Press.
  18. Richards, G., McGreal, R., Hatala, M., Friesen, N. (2002). “ The Evolution of Learning Object Repository Technologies: Portals for On-line Objects for Learning”, Journal of Distance Education, 17 (3), 67-79.
  19. UNESCO (2006). International Institute for Educational Planning's Open Educational Resources, Report of the discussion on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for Open Educational ResourcesAvaiable at http://oerwiki.iiep-unesco.org/images/1/17/FOSS_for_OER_final_report.pdf.
  20. Wiley, D.A. (2002). "Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy", Wiley, D.A. (Eds),The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, Agency for Instructional Technology, Association for Educational Communications& Technology, 3-23.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References