Ontology-Based Design of the Learner’s Knowledge Domain in Electrical Engineering

Abstract

This research addresses some personalization aspects of education in electrical engineering. Its goal is to help students and educators evaluate the complexity of the disciplines they have chosen for studying and optimize the order of the learned courses and topics. A new instrument, namely, an educational thesaurus, is presented and its assembling procedure is shown. The offered educational thesauri implemented in the labs and integrated in the exercises have become smart platforms suitable for design and management of the students’ individual knowledge domains. The ontology-based Web manuals in Electronics and Power Electronics for the Bachelor study cycle have been introduced. An example of ontology graph to be applied within the Master study cycle has been developed and explained in the paper. According to the authors’ investigation, the decrease of stress caused by the new educational environment and achievement of success in learning were observed thanks to the individual knowledge domain organization proposed in this study.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] A. A. Economides and M. A. Perifanou, “MOOC affordances model,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2018, pp. 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363285

  • [2] Z. Raud and V. Vodovozov, “Remote training with self-assessment in Electrical Engineering,” International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, 2016, pp. 46–51.

  • [3] V. Reda and R. Kerr, “The MOOC BA, a New Frontier for Internationalization,” Conf. Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS), Madrid, Spain, 2018, pp. 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS.2018.8534651

  • [4] F. Dalipi, A. S. Imran and Z. Kastrati, “MOOC dropout prediction using machine learning techniques: Review and research challenges,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2018, pp. 1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363340

  • [5] S. Assami, N. Daoudi and R. Ajhoun, “Personalization criteria for enhancing learner engagement in MOOC platforms,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2018, pp. 1271–1278. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363375

  • [6] C. M. Stracke, E. Tan, A. M. Texeira, M. do C. T. Pinto, B. Vassiliadis, A. Kameas and C. Sgouropoulou, “Gap between MOOC designers’ and MOOC learners’ perspectives on interaction and experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey,” 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Mumbai, India, 2018, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00007

  • [7] D. Chen, Y. Feng, Z. Zhao, J. Jiang and J. Yu, “Does MOOC really work effectively,” International Conference on MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), Patiala, India, 2014, pp. 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2014.7020287

  • [8] W. Wu and Q. Bai, “Why do the MOOC learners drop out of the school? – Based on the investigation of MOOC learners on some Chinese MOOC platforms,” 1st International Cognitive Cities Conference (IC3), Okinawa, Japan, 2018, pp. 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3.2018.00039

  • [9] A. Sachdeva, P. K. Singh and A. Sharma, “MOOCs: A comprehensive study to highlight its strengths and weaknesses,” 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), Amritsar, Pakistan, 2015, pp. 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2015.7375346

  • [10] H. Khalil and M. Ebner, “MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention: A literature review,” World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA), Chesapeake, VA, USA, 2014, pp. 1236–1244.

  • [11] K. Hone and G. Said, “Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study,” Computers and Education, vol. 98, 2016, pp. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016

  • [12] P. Adamopoulos, “What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses,” 34th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Cavtat/Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1–21.

  • [13] K. Moscinska and J. Rutkowski, “Effective computer-assisted assessment: Challenges and solutions,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2018, pp. 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363335

  • [14] V. Thurner and S. Hammer, “Fostering questions in class,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2018, pp. 208–213.

  • [15] S. Staab and R. Studer, Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, 2009, p. 811. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3

  • [16] C. Kay, et al. (eds), Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary: With Additional Material from a Thesaurus of Old English. Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 3952.

  • [17] P. Velardi, S. Faralli and R. Navigli, “OntoLearn reloaded: A graph-based algorithm for taxonomy induction,” Computational Linguistics, vol. 39, no. 3, MIT Press, 2013, pp. 665–707. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00146

  • [18] R. Navigli and P. Velardi, “Learning word-class lattices for definition and hypernym extraction,” The 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Uppsala, Sweden, 2010, pp. 1318–1327.

  • [19] J. Aitchison and A. Gilchrist, Thesaurus Construction and Use: A Practical Manual. London: Aslib, 1997, p. 212.

  • [20] N. Wirth, Algorithms and Data Structures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986, 288 p.

  • [21] D. Knuth, The Art of Programming. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1997, 650 p.

  • [22] E. W. Dijkstra, Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982, 362 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5695-3

Journal + Issues

Search