=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2182/paper_7
|storemode=property
|title=Towards
an Open Data Vocabulary for Canvas Driven Innovation Ethics
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2182/paper_7.pdf
|volume=Vol-2182
|authors=Dave Lewis,Harshvardhan
J. Pandit,Hannah Devinney,Wessel Reijers
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/LewisPDR18
}}
==Towards
an Open Data Vocabulary for Canvas Driven Innovation Ethics==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2182/paper_7.pdf
Creating and Using an Education Standards
Ontology to Improve Education
Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA
Abstract. We present an education standards ontology that has the
potential for simplifying lesson planning for teachers, providing support
for students by linking relevant resources, and providing a potential ter-
minology for use in a lingua-franca for communicating with multiple
communities about education components. We address the United Na-
tions sustainable development goals concerned with education, with the
support of semantic technologies. The goals of ensuring that all chil-
dren graduate from primary and secondary schools and ensuring literacy
and numeracy are our targets. We have created an education standards
ontology along with a methodology for automatically generating this
ontology. In this submission, we review literature related to educational
applications that use semantic technologies and describe a web scraping
method that we designed and used to automatically generate an edu-
cation standards ontology. We also describe some potential uses of this
ontology to assist in the UN education goals and reflect on next steps
on uses of these existing educational resources to aide in improving lit-
eracy and numeracy in students and enabling future potential services
and impact for an Educational Semantic Web.
Keywords: Educational Semantic Web · education · semantic web ·
ontology generation · education standards ontology · Common Core
Copyright © 2018 for this paper is held by its authors. Copying permitted for
private and academic purposes.
1 Introduction
Shortly after the 2001 article presenting the vision of the Semantic Web [5], a
discussion on the future of education on the Educational Semantic Web arose
with the 2004 special issue of the Journal of Interactive Media in Education [3].
The authors presented visions of the effect of Semantic Web technologies on the
coming decade of education, discussing possible advancements in information
storage and retrieval, agents, and communication. Educational practitioners, in
turn, provided reactions and rebuttals, voicing concerns with practicality and
implementation.
Since the Semantic Web 3.0 has more features than its hypertext-based Web
2.0 predecessor, educators may not be versed in the added functionality, or they
2 Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
may not have enough motivation and time to perform manual annotations of
resources that may be needed to effectively enable use of some of the advanced
Web 3.0 resources. For humans, education is traditionally an interactive, per-
sonal experience, or as one educator describes, “an artistic, social interchange
rather than one waiting for enhancement and possible substitution by a human-
machine interaction [3].” Nevertheless, advances toward an Educational Semantic
Web have the potential to reduce workload on instructors, create useful learning
opportunities, improve content accessibility for society as a whole, and provide
a well defined vocabulary for discussions about learning objectives and skills,
thereby enhancing intercommunication across communities.
The Common Core standards for mathematics [14] and English Language
Arts (which includes reading, writing, history, and the sciences) [13] are a set
of guidelines designed to outline learning objectives for students at each given
grade, from primary to secondary education (Kindergarten through 12th grade).
They define the essential knowledge foundation and skills each student must
acquire by the end of each school year in “core” subjects. While the benefits of
standards in education have been the topic of ongoing debate [9], forty-one US
states, the District of Columbia, and four territories have adopted the Common
Core1 .
In order to assess one’s knowledge, students often take examinations through-
out the academic year to determine if educational standards are being met. Prob-
lems frequently arise when students prepare for these tests, as students often find
themselves frustrated as to which methods to use to approach certain problems
[7]. As education systems evolve, parents may have difficulties helping when they
have been taught differently how to approach a problem, or are unfamiliar with
the concepts being taught. A Common Core standards-based ontology can aid
with the design of online tutoring systems and can reduce ambiguity of termi-
nology by encoding explicit computer and human understandable definitions.
Making such platforms publicly accessible can provide benefit to the “Social
Good” by contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals related to
quality education2 , helping to ensure literacy, numeracy, and that all students
are able to graduate from primary and secondary schools. A standards-based
ontology can support parents, educators, and students in communication using
a common vocabulary. The precise definitions and encodings of the standard can
also be used by those unfamiliar with specific common core methods to create
their own methods of meeting the standard. We further reflect in Section 4.1,
where we describe personalized learning environments tailored toward individual
students.
Our contributions include a literature review on the Educational Semantic
Web domain, an automatic extraction method to generate an education stan-
dards ontology from web content, and the resulting open source ontology. The
Python-based extraction code is available on GitHub3 . We also have published
1
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
2
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4
3
See https://github.com/tetherless-world/education-standards-ontology
Creating and Using an Education Standards Ontology to Improve Education 3
the generated education standards ontology in order to aid with the linking of
education standards in semantic education applications4 . Finally, we describe a
vision of a semantically-enabled education of the future.
2 Literature Review
Semantic Web for education may leverage work from a wide range of areas.
We identify some foundations in the areas of learning objects, semantic grid
frameworks, content modeling, mobile learning, data science-driven learning, and
open scholarship.
2.1 Learning Object
Building on earlier notions of a Learning Object (LO), in the context of technol-
ogy aided e-learning [12], refines the definition to be “any digital, reproducible
and addressable resource used to perform learning or support activities, made
available for others to use.” While the XML based Education Modeling Lan-
guage (EML), developed to describe learning objects, was not quite RDF, this
definition could be used to describe many resources on the Semantic Web to-
day. EML provides the basis for IMS Learning Design (LD) specification [4], a
metadata based language that distinguishes between learning objects and activ-
ities in order to describe both content and processes from varying perspectives.
The authors consider both the importance of individual, personalized learning
as well as collaborative, competence-based, or problem based learning. EML in-
cludes Learner (Student) and Staff (Teacher) roles, nested activity structures,
Learning Object environments and services. This allows for conditions to inform
flow of activity, producing outcomes and notifications for the learner, resulting
in an interactive learning environment.
2.2 Semantic Grid Frameworks
Other e-learning systems in the 2000s began to leverage both education grid
systems as well as ontologies. The Semantic Grid-based E-Learning Framework
(SELF) [1] uses the idea that Grid computing (distributed open service-oriented
network architecture) can leverage semantics to create a Semantic Grid for e-
learning. As well as Grid components, the SELF architecture supports the idea
of open learning by considering collaborative tools, personalization and inference
services, and software agents.
OntoEdu [11] addresses the need for new technologies to be used to make
e-learning more mobile. The OntoEdu platform architecture for e-learning in-
cludes user adaptation service and content models, and an education ontology.
The value provided by the ontology includes reasoning to produce activity de-
scriptions for the user to plan a sequence of actions. For example, the inferred
4
Available at https://archive.org/services/purl/purl/ontology/edu/
4 Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
activity description can be used by a teacher to restrict a sequence of actions
such that a student must select a lesson before selecting a homework set. Re-
cent work in the e-learning direction includes an OWL ontology for metadata of
Interactive Learning Objects (ILO), created using the ILO Standard to permit
user interaction in eTutor applications [16]. In the context of semantic network
architectures, the JuxtaLearn project uses content analysis along with domain
ontologies to check the understanding of science concepts [8]. Science concepts
are acquired through video creation and sharing, performing network text anal-
ysis, and constructing a multimodal network of categorized concepts. This work
reflects on the role of videos as a media for learning, which may be aided by the
categorization of pedagogical, domain, and general concepts, as well as tools and
actors.
2.3 Ontologies for Education Content Modeling
In order to consider the impacts of the Semantic Web (Web 3.0) on education,
it is fruitful to reflect on the impacts of the hypertext-based web (Web 2.0).
Almost all levels of education today use at least Web 2.0 with support ranging
from managing course websites to discovering research articles on the Internet,
and much more. The Semantic Web implies a change in web architecture to go
beyond static HTML. As people have learned to use the hypertext model of Web
2.0, they can similarly learn how to use Semantic Web RDF model as they see
the value proposition, eventually resulting in a potential improvement on future
education [6].
Educator Greg Kearsley argues however that busy teachers will not have
time to become ‘hyperkrep (hypertextual knowledge representation) hackers’
and adoption of technologies will require simplicity from the end user perspec-
tive [3]. We agree both that given a clear value proposition, teachers and other
relevant users will adopt more semantic web methodologies, and simultaneously
agree with a version of Kearsley’s position, that simplified tools and services are
needed.
Even before the aforementioned journal discussion, ontologies were beginning
to be used to model hypermedia content, such as with Ontoportal, a framework
for building web-based educational portals [24]. Ontoportal aims to address the
concern that educational materials on the web are usually weakly interlinked.
Interlinking of web-based educational resources can be achieved by combining
ontological and hypermedia research principles. The authors of Ontoportal de-
scribe two use cases where concepts can be designed to help educators gather
resources or populate course information for students.
The teacher TPortal includes concepts aimed at experts and institutions,
including concepts related to teaching, assessment, and support materials. The
student XPortal additionally includes tutorials, courses, evaluation materials,
and standards. Similarly, a recent educational domain ontology designed for a
case study for the University of Palestine [18] includes concepts such as course,
schedule, employee, student, and organization.
Creating and Using an Education Standards Ontology to Improve Education 5
2.4 Mobile Learning
With the rise in popularity of mobile phones and the development of hand-held
technology for education, the idea of Mobile- or M-Learning naturally emerges
[21]. However, despite digital applications improving education, they are not
readily available in all countries or languages.
A recent M-Learning System aims to address this concern for the Arabic lan-
guage by designing a mobile story-telling application that links to related images
by using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques for Arabic text extrac-
tion [15]. The system performs segmentation, tagging, and grammar linking,
while also using Semantic Web constructs to aid in semantic query construc-
tion for question answering and semantic extraction, where ontology instances
are generated. Combining Semantic Web and NLP techniques for M-learning
can improve query navigation, the speed of information retrieval, and instance
consistency.
2.5 Data Science-driven Education Initiatives
The Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) initiative to facilitate both in-person and
online learning has resulted in the Educational Resource Discovery Index (ERu-
DIte). ERuDIte has been applied in the context of general data science [2] as well
as domain specific biomedical data science [22]. Also, knowledge resources are
imported from many sources, including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC),
videos of tutorials or research conference talks, textbooks, blog posts, and web
pages. In this effort many metadata resources are integrated, including the
Dublin Core, Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI), IEEE’s Learn-
ing Object Metadata (LOM), eXchanging Course Related Information (XCRI),
Metadata for Learning Opportunities (MLO), and Schema.org vocabularies.
The Data Science Education Ontology (DSEO) uses data science methods
to teach data science, and includes an ontology of learning domains. We plan to
build a tutoring system that connects concepts from the DSEO with concepts
from our ontology. By connecting mathematics standards to statistical terms,
we can determine practice problems for the student to solve.
2.6 Open Scholarship
As the Semantic Web is decreasing ambiguity by supporting explicit term def-
initions for use by both humans and machines, and a major goal of Web 3.0 is
related to data integration and interoperability, the implications on education
are plentiful [19]. Possible impact areas include knowledge construction, person-
alized learning network maintenance, personal educational administration, and
collaborative education tools. It is important for researchers and educators to
collaborate in the creation of content, as there are inherent biases associated
with the design of content.
6 Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
An open scholarship environment, which includes sharing articles, code, data,
and education resources, can improve research and education [17]. Sharing of re-
sources can result in positive contributions to society, as it improves the dissem-
ination of knowledge. Further interconnected education tools that “understand”
each other’s usage of terminology have the potential to build community learning
environments.
3 Methodology
Fig. 1. Subsection of hierarchy generated from the English Language Arts Common
Core speaking and listening standards
While there are numerous resources on the web related to education, many
were designed under the hypertext paradigm of Web 2.0. For example, the Com-
mon Core Standards website5 is written in Javascript and HTML and does not
leverage the more expressive RDF representation, resulting in difficulties and/or
limitations in machine understanding. Even though these websites are typically
not encoded in a Semantic Web language (that would encourage more structure
and links), we still observe some hierarchy and structure often including sets of
organized links. By observing the HTML structure of a web page, it is possible
to extract information in a structured way by leveraging web scraping libraries
such as BeautifulSoup [20]. We take this approach to automatically construct
an education standards ontology from the Common Core Standards in less than
100 lines of Python code.
5
www.corestandards.org
Creating and Using an Education Standards Ontology to Improve Education 7
The Common Core website is divided into two main portals, one for math-
ematics topics6 and another for English Language Arts7 . Each of these pages
contains a well-structured HTML sidebar, which links to each set of standards
for given grade levels and topics. By selecting specific HTML tags and list items
from the sidebars, we are able to traverse each link and extract relevant infor-
mation that is used to generate ontology classes with labels, comments, and the
subsumption hierarchy. We also capture provenance by connecting the URL of
each link to the corresponding concept using prov:wasQuotedFrom. Using this
methodology, we are able to generate 1906 ontology classes. A subset of the con-
cepts from the English Language Arts standards associated with speaking and
listening is shown in Figure 1.
4 Discussion
An oft-quoted proverb states, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Analogously, we believe
students will benefit from learning how to learn. We expect open access learn-
ing resources will aide in self-learning. The Education Standards Ontology can
be used to help students align the knowledge they gain with standards in the
Common Core. Self-guided learning will not only support learning required in
standard education systems but will also provide a foundation that will sup-
port “continuous learning” beyond primary or secondary education. Further,
in today’s interdisciplinary world where many people often become self-taught
experts or near-experts in new areas, we expect increased need for evaluating
expertise and communicating that evaluation. Open ontologies and ontology-
enabled environments that use well defined terms and that are aligned with
published standards can provide a foundation for communication and compari-
son.
4.1 Personalized Learning
In today’s teaching approaches, we often find that lessons are taught in a stan-
dardized way, despite a multitude of students with varying learning rates and
interests. This results in difficulties for students who learn at a slower pace and
disengagement (or boredom) for higher performing students. Furthermore, indi-
viduals may have different learning styles (auditory, kinesthetic, or visual), often
based on the way their brain processes information. We foresee an increase in
personalized learning environments, where the approaches to conveying knowl-
edge are targeted towards individual students’ needs, sometimes in response to
special needs students.
In order for precision systems such as personalized learning environments
to be successful, it is important to evaluate how well a student is receiving the
6
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
7
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
8 Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
material being taught. Unfortunately, representative measurements of student
progress are difficult to obtain, as much is left out in the examination process
and complicating factors such as test anxiety sometimes skew results. A wide
range of additional learning assessment technologies, including for example bio-
metric measures of physiological indicators, to evaluate information reception
may be included. Semantic annotations can provide support for connecting and
integrating new assessment modalities.
4.2 Question Answering
In order for teachers to adopt new technologies, the value of the system has to
outweigh the learning barriers or ease of use issues. One such example includes
reliable automatic grading systems, as we are already beginning to see today.
Such platforms have been adopted because they are not overly complicated to
use, and are beneficial as they reduce the manual teacher workload. Question
answering capabilities of intelligent systems are continuously improving, from
search engines like Google to virtual assistants like Cortana [23] and Siri [10].
We are likely to see further improvements in machine dialog capabilities with
advances in text to query syntax conversion, such as derivations of SPARQL
queries from natural language sentences. Ontology-enabled environments can
help improve query formation and result integration.
4.3 Learning Resources
Current day access to learning resources, including teaching materials, literature,
and lesson plans, are often limited to students who are part of an academic
institution. We predict expansion and improvement of remote access to learning
resources. Physical class materials may be replaced by interactive materials, such
as web-based learning resources.
Open access learning resources can benefit institutions, teachers, students,
and parents by decreasing subscription fees, supporting customized lesson plan-
ning, and improving opportunities for learners globally. Also open-source re-
sources help allow for collaborative learning and communication across commu-
nities.
We already see significant strides in terms of cloud-based education, where
teachers (and sometimes parents) have direct access to student homework, grades,
and projects. Students have direct access to course and library resources, and can
remotely attend lectures or watch video recordings. We are likely to see intelli-
gent classroom environments leverage sensor networks, as the Internet of Things
(IoT) [25] holds promising opportunities. By mapping these devices to ontology
concepts, semantic and social networks may be used to aid sensor networks.
4.4 Virtual Classrooms
Augmented reality techniques may be applied to learning environments, where
virtual reality headsets can be used to add visual demonstrations to augment
Creating and Using an Education Standards Ontology to Improve Education 9
the physical classroom. Future augmented reality virtual classrooms may allow
students and/or teachers to connect to a virtual reality environment where an
educational lesson can take place. Of course, this does not have to be a classroom
in the traditional sense, as virtual field-trips may provide methods for learners
to witness world wonders, the outer reaches of space, or interactions at the
molecular level. With virtual applications, learning can be fun rather than a
chore; game-like simulations can provide enriching, interactive, and enjoyable
environments. The effects of a virtual classroom are likely to have a huge impact
in terms of social networking, in a sense the Facebook of the future. Ontologies
will be used to semi-automatically create and connect virtual environments.
5 Future Work
We introduce an approach for automatically generating an education standards
ontology from the Common Core website. It should be noted that the extrac-
tion code is specific to the Common Core website, as we observe the HTML
structure of the relevant web pages in order to know from where to extract con-
cepts and descriptions. Despite minimal generality in the Common Core-specific
script, the described approach of observing the HTML web structure of a page
to automatically generate an ontology can be applied to other web pages. Future
work includes exploring methods of automatic web scraping techniques that are
robust or adaptable to the structure of the web page. More importantly, we
believe a useful, relatively simply-generated ontology is produced.
In order to evaluate the value of our ontology, we plan to develop a smart
tutoring framework that takes advantage of earlier education ontologies and uses
the education standards ontology to link course concepts and questions to Com-
mon Core standards. This will help provide useful lessons to students who are in
school districts that have adopted the Common Core, thereby potentially greatly
simplifying lesson planning for teachers and providing much more support for
students in the form of additional relevant resources. Such work has potential to
improve literacy, numeracy, and graduation rates for students.
6 Conclusion
We reviewed literature related to Semantic Web and education applications. We
identified active research for at least the last 15 years, with researchers publish-
ing methods related to the use of learning objects, semantic grid frameworks,
content modeling, mobile learning, and open scholarship. We describe the auto-
matic extraction method we used to generate an education standards ontology.
We have made both the extraction script and generated ontology publicly avail-
able in order to encourage collaboration and reuse. We also discuss some ways
in which the education ontology and an ontology-enabled infrastructure can ad-
vance realizing the vision of the Educational Semantic Web.
10 Sabbir M. Rashid and Deborah L. McGuinness
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the RPI Tetherless World Constellation.
We thank the members of the Constellation for their suggestions, in particular
Rebecca Cowan.
References
1. Abbas, Z., Umer, M., Odeh, M., McClatchey, R., Ali, A., and Farooq,
A. A semantic grid-based e-learning framework (self). In Cluster Computing and
the Grid, 2005. CCGrid 2005. IEEE International Symposium on (2005), vol. 1,
IEEE, pp. 11–18.
2. Ambite, J. L., Fierro, L., Geigl, F., Gordon, J., Burns, G. A., Lerman, K.,
and Van Horn, J. D. Bd2k erudite: The educational resource discovery index for
data science. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide
Web Companion (Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2017), WWW
’17 Companion, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee,
pp. 1203–1211.
3. Anderson, T., and Whitelock, D. The educational semantic web: Visioning
and practicing the future of education. Journal of interactive Media in Education
2004, 1 (2004).
4. Berlanga, A., and García, F. Ims ld reusable elements for adaptive learning
designs. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2005, 1 (2005).
5. Berners-Lee, T., and Hendler, J. Publishing on the semantic web. Nature
410, 6832 (2001), 1023.
6. Clark, K., Parsia, B., and Hendler, J. Will the semantic web change educa-
tion? Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2004, 1 (2004).
7. Cooney, T. J. A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for research
in mathematics education (1985), 324–336.
8. Daems, O., Erkens, M., Malzahn, N., and Hoppe, H. U. Using content analysis
and domain ontologies to check learners’ understanding of science concepts. journal
of computers in education 1, 2-3 (2014), 113–131.
9. Delandshere, G., and Arens, S. A. Representations of teaching and standards-
based reform: are we closing the debate about teacher education? Teaching and
Teacher Education 17, 5 (2001), 547–566.
10. Gruber, T. R. Siri, a virtual personal assistant—bringing intelligence to the
interface, 2009.
11. Guangzuo, C., Fei, C., Hu, C., and Shufang, L. Ontoedu: a case study of
ontology-based education grid system for e-learning. In GCCCE2004 International
conference, Hong Kong (2004), pp. 1–9.
12. Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tattersall, C., and Koper, R. Educa-
tional modelling language and learning design: new challenges for instructional
re-usability and personalized learning.
13. Initiative, C. C. S., et al. Common core state standards for english language
arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Wash-
ington, DC: National Governors Association (2012).
14. Initiative, C. C. S. S., et al. Common core state standards for mathematics.
washington, dc: National governors association center for best practices and the
council of chief state school officers, 2010.
Creating and Using an Education Standards Ontology to Improve Education 11
15. Karkar, A., and Al Ja’am, J. An educational ontology-based m-learning system.
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 10, 4 (2016), 48–
56.
16. Luz, B. N., Santos, R., Alves, B., Areão, A. S., Yokoyama, M. H., and
Guimarães, M. P. An owl ontology for metadata of interactive learning objects.
International Association for Development of the Information Society (2015).
17. McKiernan, E. C. Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to im-
prove research and education. PLoS biology 15, 10 (2017), e1002614.
18. Naser, S. S. A., Atallah, R. R., and Hamo, S. Building an ontology in
educational domain case study for the university of palestine. International Journal
of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES) 3, 1 (2015), 15–21.
19. Ohler, J. The semantic web in education. EDUCAUSE quarterly 31, 4 (2008),
7–9.
20. Richardson, L. Beautiful soup. Crummy: The Site (2013).
21. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., and Vavoula, G. A theory of learning for the mobile
age. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen. Springer, 2010, pp. 87–99.
22. Van Horn, J. D., Fierro, L., Kamdar, J., Gordon, J., Stewart, C., Bhat-
trai, A., Abe, S., Lei, X., O’Driscoll, C., Sinha, A., et al. Democratizing
data science through data science training.
23. Warren, T. The story of cortana, microsoft’s siri killer. Published on: Apr 2
(2014).
24. Woukeu, A., Wills, G., Conole, G., Carr, L., Kampa, S., and Hall, W.
Ontological hypermedia in education: A framework for building web-based educa-
tional portals.
25. Xia, F., Yang, L. T., Wang, L., and Vinel, A. Internet of things. International
Journal of Communication Systems 25, 9 (2012), 1101.