On the representation of change according to different ontologies of learning

Abstract

Recent work has reintroduced ontology as a research topic in learning theories, as a mean to make explicit the differences and links between existing approaches to the design of learning programs. In the context of technology-supported information systems, ontologies can be represented in machine-understandable form to serve as a basis for automation and assessment. The notion of change is in some form part of any ontology of learning, but the interpretations attributed to the term differ between them both in scope and characterization. Since change is central to the evolving behaviour of learning organizations, it is worth the effort of specifying it, especially for the sake of objective measurement and automation. This paper describes ontological structures for generic constructivist and socio-cultural learning frameworks, stating the differences in their overall concepts of change, and their implications for practice and assessment. The ontological definitions provided are intended to motivate further work in more specific approaches for learning technology-supported experiences.

E-Portfolios for Integrated Reflection

“…However, to effectively use learning objects to support teaching and learning for a specific field, domain knowledge must be applied to manage the learning objects (Harman & Koohang, 2005;Koohang, 2004;Mustaro & Silveira, 2006). This has lead to approaches to Semantic Web applications that model the relationships between learning objects using formal ontologies (Sicilia & Lytras, 2005).…”

Inquiry-Directed Organization of E-Portfolio Artifacts for Reflection

“…There have been metadata standards for learning objects, such as those proposed by Dublin Core (2009), IEEE LTSC (IEEE LTSC, 2009), and IMS Guide (IMS, 2006, that are similar to library catalogue systems. However, to effectively use learning objects to support teaching and learning for a specific field, additional techniques must be applied to manage the learning objects (Harman & Koohang, 2005;Koohang, 2004;Mustaro & Silveira, 2006;Namuth, Fritz, King, & Boren, 2005;Sicilia & Lytras, 2005;Smrz, 2004;Zouaq, Nkambou, & Frasson, 2007).…”

Organizational schemata of e-portfolios for fostering higher-order thinking

“…When a learning objects repository is huge and is distributed on the Internet, the use of meta-data and keywords only to search the needed learning objects is inefficient and ineffective since much potential associations with various learning aspects are bypassed (Mustaro and Silveira 2006). This has lead to approaches to semantic Web applications that model the relationships between learning objects using formal ontologies (Sicilia and Lytras 2005).…”