Comparing student and expert-based tagging of recorded lectures

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Pierre Gorissen (1)
  Jan van Bruggen (2)
  Wim Jochems (3)
  
  1. Fontys University of Applied Sciences ; P.O. Box 347 ; 5600 AH ; Eindhoven ; The Netherlands
  2. Open University of the Netherlands ; P.O. Box 2960 ; 6401 DL ; Heerlen ; The Netherlands
  3. Eindhoven University of Technology ; P.O. Box 513 ; 5600 MB ; Eindhoven ; The Netherlands
  
• 关键词：Tagging ; Recorded lectures ; Cosine similarity ; Vector space modelling
• 刊名：Education and Information Technologies
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：March 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：20
• 期：1
• 页码：161-181
• 全文大小：675 KB
• 参考文献：1. Abowd, G., Atkeson, C., Brotherton, J., Enqvist, T., Gulley, P., & LeMon, J. (1998). / Investigating the capture, / integration and access problem of ubiquitous computing in an educational setting. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Los Angeles, California, United States.
  2. Abowd, G., Brotherton, J., & Bhalodia, J. (1998). / Classroom 2000: / a system for capturing and accessing multimedia classroom experiences. Paper presented at the CHI 98 conference on Human factors in computing systems, Los Angeles, California, United States.
  3. Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. / Proc. / of ACM WWW, / 3(4).
  4. Bligh, D. (1998). / What is the use of lectures? (5th ed.). Bristol: Intellect Books.
  5. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 19, 56.
  6. Brotherton, J., & Abowd, G. (2004). Lessons learned from eClass: assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. / ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 11(2), 121鈥?55. CrossRef
  7. De Backer, G. (2012). PHP Dutch Stemmer Retrieved 10-12-2012, from http://code.google.com/p/php-dutch-stemmer/ Delicious. Retrieved 21-1-2013, from https://delicious.com/.
  8. Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2004). / Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
  9. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2005). The structure of collaborative tagging systems: HP.com.
  10. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. / Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198鈥?08. CrossRef
  11. Gorissen, P., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. (2012a). Analysing students' use of recorded lectures through methodological triangulation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (LTEC'12), Salamanca, Spain.
  12. Gorissen, P., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. (2012b). Students and recorded lectures: survey on current use and demands for higher education. / Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), 297鈥?11.
  13. Guy, M., & Tonkin, E. (2006). Tidying up tags. / D-Lib Magazine, 12(1), 1082鈥?873. CrossRef
  14. John, A., & Seligmann, D. (2006). / Collaborative tagging and expertise in the enterprise. Paper presented at the Collab. Web Tagging Workshop in conj. with WWW2006.
  15. Kraaij, W., & Pohlmann, R. (1994). Porter鈥檚 stemming algorithm for Dutch. / Informatiewetenschap, 167鈥?80.
  16. Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning objects. / Learning Circuits, / 1(3).
  17. Manning, C. D., & Sch眉tze, H. (1999). / Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT press.
  18. Markines, B., Cattuto, C., Menczer, F., Benz, D., Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2009). Evaluating similarity measures for emergent semantics of social tagging.
  19. Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M. (2006). Position paper, tagging, taxonomy, flickr, article, toread. In: Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, 31-41, Edinburgh, Scotland.
  20. Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. / Computer Mediated Communication, / 47(10).
  21. O鈥橰eilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. / Communications & / Strategies, (65), 17.
  22. Porter, M. F. (1997). An algorithm for suffix stripping. In K. Sparck Jones & P. Willett (Eds.), / Readings in information retrieval (pp. 313鈥?16). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  23. Porter, M. F. (2001). Snowball: A language for stemming algorithms Retrieved 10-12-2012, from http://snowball.tartarus.org/texts/introduction.html.
  24. Srinivas, G., Tandon, N., & Varma, V. (2010). / A weighted tag similarity measure based on a collaborative weight model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Search and mining user-generated contents.
  25. Vander Wal, T. (2007). Folksonomy Retrieved 21-1-2013, from http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html.
  26. Velsen, L., & Melenhorst, M. (2008). User Motives for Tagging Video Content.
  27. Verburg, J. (2010). / Live & social tagging van weblectures [live and social tagging of weblectures]. Utrecht: Hogeschool Utrecht.
  28. Voss, J. (2007). / Tagging, / Folksonomy & / Co- / Renaissance of Manual Indexing? Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium for Information Science, Cologne.
  
• 刊物类别：Computer Science
• 刊物主题：Computers and Education
  Computer Science, general
  Education
  Educational Technology
  User Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction
  Computer Applications in Social and Behavioral Sciences
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-7608

文摘

In this paper we analyse the way students tag recorded lectures. We compare their tagging strategy and the tags that they create with tagging done by an expert. We look at the quality of the tags students add, and we introduce a method of measuring how similar the tags are, using vector space modelling and cosine similarity. We show that the quality of tagging by students is high enough to be useful. We also show that there is no generic vocabulary gap between the expert and the students. Our study shows no statistically significant correlation between the tag similarity and the indicated interest in the course, the perceived importance of the course, the number of lectures attended, the indicated difficulty of the course, the number of recorded lectures viewed, the indicated ease of finding the needed parts of a recorded lecture, or the number of tags used by the student.