learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
References Jonathan Barkand Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2010), Class differences: online education in the United States, Sloan Consortium, Needham, MA, [Online], http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/ pdf/class_differences.pdf [10 February 2011] Kim, K-J, & Bonk, C. J. (2006), The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: the survey says..., Educause Quarterly, [Online], http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/ Research%20Groups/Online%20Learning/Bonk%20%282006%29.pdf[12 February 2011] National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008), Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions, [Online], http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/ NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf [8 January 2011] National Education Association (n.d), Guide to Teaching Online Courses, [Online], www.nea.org/assets/docs/onlineteachguide.pdf [8 February 2011] North American Council for Online Learning (2008), National Standards for Quality Online Teaching, [Online], www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Quality%20Online%20Teaching.pdf [8 February 2011] Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009), K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators, Sloan Consortium, Needham, MA, [Online], http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/k- 12_online_learning_2008.pdf [10 February 2011] Rebell, M.A.(1991), Teacher Performance Assessment: The Changing State of the Law, [Online], http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/NES_Publications/1993_04Rebell_584_1.pdf [15 February, 2011] Smith, R., Clark, T., and Blomeyer, R. L. (2005), A synthesis of new research on K–12 online learning, Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, 2005. Southern Regional Education Board (2006), Standards for Quality Online courses, Educational Technology Cooperative, [Online], http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf [8 February 2011] U.S. Department of Education (2009), Facts and Terms Every Parents Should Know About NCLB, [Online], http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/parents/parentfacts.pdf [15 February, 2011] 40
When Agents Make Suggestions About Readings Orlando Belo Algoritmi R&D Centre, University of Minho, Portugal obelo@di.uminho.pt Abstract: Significant efforts have been made during the last few years in the design and implementation of pedagogical agents for a wide range of application domains. One of the most common target area is the assistance to students in cases of regular subject studying, promoting means that help them to improve their performance and expertise in some specific subject areas. Frequently students ask their teachers about the “best” and more effective bibliographic resources that they could use to study and validate knowledge for some working topics. In this paper we will discuss the basic characteristics of pedagogical agents, approaching their typical functional architecture, and services, reinforcing the discussion on a specific class of pedagogical agents that are responsible to support students during their studying sessions, helping them in the validation of their knowledge, suggesting bibliographic resources information whenever requested. Keywords: eLearning platforms, agent based computing, intelligent tutoring systems, software agents, artificial intelligent tutors, bibliographic resources suggestion 1. Introduction Agent based applications are very appellative. Software agents have been used to support a lot of tasks in real world applications (Van der Hoek & Wooldridge 2008). Ranging from telecommunications to retail, or doing monitoring services on hydroelectric power plants, agent based computing has been always a very good asset in a lot of problem solving arenas. eLearning is no exception to this attractive paradigm and to all of its characteristics and potentialities (Agarwal et al. 2004) (Leung & Li 2001). One of the most relevant agent applications on this field was in the design and development of pedagogical agents, normally designed by artificial tutors or intelligent assistants. Basically, these entities are conceived to ensure more effective tutoring services, in some very specialized areas of studying, having clearly pedagogical purposes, giving assistance to students in cases of regular subject studying or even doing evaluation tasks. Additionally, they are also able to perform administrative and optimization services inside eLearning platforms, supervising what users are doing and suggesting better ways to do it or recommending particular resources that can help them in current tasks. The use of software agents as sophisticated autonomous means helping students on bibliographic resource selection seems to be very useful and appellative. The ability that agents have to adapt to new scenarios and to communicate with other means of learning makes possible a very dynamic eLearning environment, where students needs can be satisfied easily. An agent can also adapt in real time different plans of readings for current user needs, finding the best solution for a given studying plan, and personalizing processes and exploitation scenarios (Schiaffino et al. 2008). To do that, they simply need to act as search engines over their databases looking for a list of references that satisfies student current, his preferences, and a previous plan of readings prepared by his teachers. This means that any assistant agent (Okamoto et al. 2009) must establish usage profiles and accordingly prepare its plan of action an user satisfaction. It is very desirable that the processes of readings suggestion is versatile and proactive, providing the references that students require and, at the same time, giving viable alternatives that follow other suggestion indicators (e.g. readings usage ranking, recommended references, teacher’s preferences, or external sources identification). In this paper we will focus our attention on a specific class of pedagogical agents that are responsible to support students during their studying sessions, helping them in the validation of their knowledge in a particular domain, and (as their priority goal) suggesting bibliographic resources information whenever requested or inferred as necessary during an evaluation process, accordingly current studying status of the students. We will discuss the basic characteristics of these pedagogical agents (section 2), reinforcing the discussion presenting an application domain for bibliographic resource suggestion in a conventional eLearning scenario (section 3), and present the basic characteristics and functional architecture of a specific software agent for personalised assistance in bibliographic resource suggestion (section 4). Finally, in section 5, we will present some conclusions and future work. 41
- Page 15 and 16: Mini Track Chairs Dr Antonios Andre
- Page 17 and 18: Cornélia Castro is a PhD student i
- Page 19 and 20: Manuel Frutos-Perez is the Leader o
- Page 21 and 22: David Mathew works at the Centre fo
- Page 23 and 24: Research interests include the inve
- Page 25: Novita Yulianti is a PhD student at
- Page 28 and 29: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. the develo
- Page 30 and 31: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. completion
- Page 32 and 33: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. interactio
- Page 34 and 35: Survey of Teachers’ use of Comput
- Page 36 and 37: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 38 and 39: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 40 and 41: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 42 and 43: Issues and Challenges in Implementi
- Page 44 and 45: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. 2000/2001
- Page 46 and 47: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. phase invo
- Page 48 and 49: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. Berthold,
- Page 50 and 51: Antonios Andreatos Figure 1: Estima
- Page 52 and 53: Antonios Andreatos exchange applied
- Page 54 and 55: Antonios Andreatos knowledge space,
- Page 56 and 57: Figure 5: Video metadata from YouTu
- Page 58 and 59: Antonios Andreatos The organisatio
- Page 60 and 61: Constructing a Survey Instrument fo
- Page 62 and 63: Jonathan Barkand The teacher demon
- Page 64 and 65: Jonathan Barkand Indicator 2.3: Has
- Page 68 and 69: 2. Pedagogical agents Orlando Belo
- Page 70 and 71: Orlando Belo Type (Tp), the refere
- Page 72 and 73: 3.3 The agent’s architecture Orla
- Page 74 and 75: Some Reflections on the Evaluation
- Page 76 and 77: Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
- Page 78 and 79: Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
- Page 80 and 81: Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
- Page 82 and 83: Designing A New Curriculum: Finding
- Page 84 and 85: Andrea Benn For this new course, it
- Page 86 and 87: Andrea Benn Technology is already i
- Page 88 and 89: Andrea Benn To bring about the co-o
- Page 90 and 91: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 92 and 93: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 94 and 95: Faculty development Online course
- Page 96 and 97: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 98 and 99: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 100 and 101: Alice Bird being reviewed under the
- Page 102 and 103: Alice Bird Developing the process m
- Page 104 and 105: Alice Bird Reflecting on the feasib
- Page 106 and 107: 3.3 Early stage implementation Alic
- Page 108 and 109: Enhancement of e-Testing Possibilit
- Page 110 and 111: Martin Cápay et al. of Likert scal
- Page 112 and 113: Martin Cápay et al. Figure 3 Proce
- Page 114 and 115: Martin Cápay et al. Figure 4: An e
References<br />
Jonathan Barkand<br />
Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2010), Class differences: online education in the United States, Sloan Consortium,<br />
Needham, MA, [Online], http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/ pdf/class_differences.pdf [10<br />
February 2011]<br />
Kim, K-J, & Bonk, C. J. (2006), The future of online teaching and <strong>learning</strong> in higher education: the survey says...,<br />
Educause Quarterly, [Online], http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/ Research%20Groups/Online%20Learning/Bonk%20%282006%29.pdf[12<br />
February 2011]<br />
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008), Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher<br />
Preparation Institutions, [Online], http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/<br />
NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf [8 January 2011]<br />
National Education Association (n.d), Guide to Teaching Online Courses, [Online],<br />
www.nea.org/assets/docs/onlineteachguide.pdf [8 February 2011]<br />
North American Council for Online Learning (2008), National Standards for Quality Online Teaching, [Online],<br />
www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Quality%20Online%20Teaching.pdf<br />
[8 February 2011]<br />
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009), K-12 online <strong>learning</strong>: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district<br />
administrators, Sloan Consortium, Needham, MA, [Online], http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/k-<br />
12_online_<strong>learning</strong>_2008.pdf [10 February 2011]<br />
Rebell, M.A.(1991), Teacher Performance Assessment: The Changing State of the Law, [Online],<br />
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/NES_Publications/1993_04Rebell_584_1.pdf [15<br />
February, 2011]<br />
Smith, R., Clark, T., and Blomeyer, R. L. (2005), A synthesis of new research on K–12 online <strong>learning</strong>, Naperville,<br />
IL: Learning Point Associates, 2005.<br />
Southern Regional Education Board (2006), Standards for Quality Online courses, Educational Technology<br />
Cooperative, [Online], http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf [8<br />
February 2011]<br />
U.S. Department of Education (2009), Facts and Terms Every Parents Should Know About NCLB, [Online],<br />
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/parents/parentfacts.pdf [15 February, 2011]<br />
40
Change language