The use of knowledge graphs in the educational environment for personalized learning
https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2021-36-10-33-42
Abstract
The article presents some methods for creating knowledge graphs – hierarchical structures used in the educational environment for course development. It is found that the educational environment requires subject-oriented knowledge graphs, for the creation of which the methods of creating general and open graphs are not suitable. The methods of constructing the system of notions of educational discipline on the basis of: analysis of educational texts; human activity in the studied subject area; analysis of the structure of the main sections of knowledge are considered. The central aspect of the study was the possibility of using the resulting tree of concepts to form the content of the training course and to build an individual educational trajectory. The results of the work demonstrate the possibility of applying the developed hierarchical structures to personalize learning. The practical significance of the obtained results lies in the fact that the proposed solutions are focused on computer implementation and are relevant for the management of the learner’s learning activities in the electronic environment. The proposed methodology involves the participation of professional and scientific communities, teachers and students in the development of the knowledge graph. This makes it possible to develop subsequently, on the basis of these graphs, training programs, taking into account the demands of the labor market, the capabilities of the training organization, as well as the goals of trainees. One important indicator of the quality of knowledge graphs is their relevance to a dynamically changing environment. The ability to build up knowledge graphs allows to maintain the relevance of training courses and individual educational trajectories created on their basis.
Keywords
About the Author
M. A. AnikievaRussian Federation
Marina A. Anikieva, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Space and Information Technologies
Krasnoyarsk
References
1. Bellomarini L., Sallinger E., Vahdati S. Chapter 2 Knowledge graphs: The layered perspective. Knowledge graphs and big data processing. Ed. V. Janev [and all]. Cham, Springer; 2020:20–34. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-53199-7_2
2. Paulheim H. Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semantic Web. 2016;8(3):489–508. DOI: 10.3233/SW-160218
3. Abu-Salih B. Domain-specific knowledge graphs: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 2021;(185):103076. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103076
4. Grigoriev S. G., Mishota I. Yu. Digital University: An actual paradigm of the education informatization. Modern management trends and the digital economy: From regional development to global economic growth. Proc. 1st Int. Scien- tific Conf. Ekaterinburg, Atlantis Press; 2019;634–637. DOI: 10.2991/mtde-19.2019.128
5. Al-Moslmi T., Gallofre Ocana M., L. Opdahl A., Veres C. Named entity extraction for knowledge graphs: A literature overview. IEEE Access. 2020;8:32862–32881. DOI: 10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.2973928
6. Allemang D., Hendler J. Semantic Web for the working ontologist: Effective modeling for linked data, RDFS, and OWL. Morgan & Claypool; Elsevier; 2008. 322 p. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123735560/semantic-web-for-the-working-ontologist#book-info
7. Kejriwal M., Sequeda J., Lopez V. Knowledge graphs: Construction, management and querying. Semantic Web. 2019;10(6):961–962. DOI: 10.3233/SW-190370
8. Valaski J., Malucelli A., Reinehr S. Ontologies application in organizational learning: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012;39(8):7555–7561. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.075
9. Aliyu I., Kana A. F. D., Aliyu S. Development of knowledge graph for university courses management. International Journal of Education and Management Engineering. 2020;10(2):1–10. DOI: 10.5815/ijeme.2020.02.01
10. Wang J. Knowledge graph analysis of internal control field in colleges. Tehnicki vjesnik — Technical Gazette. 2020;27(1):67–72. DOI: 10.17559/TV-20191004092659
11. Chi Y., Qin Y., Song R., Xu H. Knowledge graph in smart education: A case study of entrepreneurship scientific publication management. Sustainability. 2018;10(4):1–21. DOI: 10.3390/su10040995
12. Gayathri R., Uma V. Ontology based knowledge representation technique, domain modeling languages and planners for robotic path planning: A survey. ICT Express. 2018;4(2):69–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.icte.2018.04.008
13. Hogan A., Blomqvist E., Cochez M., D’amato C., Melo G. de, Gutierrez C., Kirrane S., Gayo J. E. L., Navigli R., Neumaier S., Ngomo A.-C. N., Polleres A., Rashid S. M., Rula A., Schmelzeisen L., Sequeda J., Staab S., Zimmermann A. Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys. 2021;54(4):1–37. DOI: 10.1145/3447772
14. Konys A. Knowledge systematization for on- tology learning methods. Procedia Computer Science. 2018;126:2194–2207. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.229
15. Penghe Chen, Yu Lu, Vincent W. Zheng, Xiyang Chen, Boda Yang. KnowEdu: A System to Construct Knowledge Graph for Education. IEEE Access. 2018;6:31553–31563. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2839607
16. Jinta Weng, Ying Gao, Jing Qiu, Guozhu Ding, Huanqin Zheng. Construction and application of teaching system based on crowdsourcing knowledge graph. Knowledge graph and semantic computing. Singapore, Springer; 2019:25–37. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-1956-7_3
17. Anikieva M. A. The choice of customisation strategies in training: An overview of parameters and their systematization. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2021;37(3):170–186. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.6185
18. Li Yancong, Shao Zengzhen, Wang Xiao, Zhao Xuechen, Guo Yanhui. A concept map-based learning paths automatic generation algorithm for adaptive learning systems. IEEE Access. 2019;7:245–255. DOI: 10.1109/AC-CESS.2018.2885339
19. Yu-Lin Jenga, Yong-Ming Huang. Dynamic learning paths framework based on collective intelligence from learners. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019;100:242–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.012
20. Jihong Yan, Chengyu Wang, Wenliang Cheng, Ming Gao. A retrospective of knowledge graphs. Frontiers of Computer Science. 2018;12(1):55–74. DOI: 10.1007/s11704-016-5228-9
21. Filipov A. V. Methods of automatic compilation of the list of terms on the basis of ready-made lesson outline. Informatics and Education. 2021;36(5):46–51. DOI: 10.32517/0234-0453-2021-36-5-46-51
22. Anikieva M. A. Structuring the concepts of the subject area in the discipline “Prepress processes. Proc. I Int. Scientific Conf. “Informatization of education and methods of e-learning”, within the framework of the IV Int. Scientific and Edu. Forum “Man, Family and Society: history and prospects of development”. Krasnoyarsk, 2016:162–166. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26857921
23. Novikov A. I. Semantics of the text and its formalization. Moscow, Nauka; 1983. 216 p.
24. Informatics. Wikipedia. Available at: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Informatika&oldid=117582771
25. Ford R., Meyer R. Competency-based education 101. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015;3:1473–1480. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.325
26. Tuning of educational structures: Russia. Available at: http://tuningrussia.org
27. ISO/IEC TR 19759:2015: Software Engineering — Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/stan-dard/67604.html
28. Prins G. T., Bulte A. M. W., Pilot A. An activity-based instructional framework for transforming authentic modeling practices into meaningful contexts for learning in science education. Science Education. 2016;100(6):1092–1123. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21247
29. Atanov G. A. Activity-based approach in learning. Donetsk, EAI-press; 2001. 160 p.
30. Shadrikov V. D. Basic competencies formation on the basis of the activity approach (on the teaching activity example). World of Psychology. 2014;(3):105–119. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22023188
31. Jonassen D. H., Rohrer-Murphy L. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1999;47:61–79. DOI: 10.1007/BF02299477
32. Grigoriev S. G., Podbolotova M. I., Fedoseeva Z. R. In-depth model of professionally oriented practice undergraduates in the conditions of network interaction in the direction of preparation “Pedagogical education” (Teacher secondary education). Psychological Science and Education. 2015;20(5):130–141. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2015200512
33. Voyshvillo E. K. The concept as a form of thinking: A logico-gnoseological analysis. Moscow, Publishing house of Moscow State University; 1989. 239 p.
34. Tsibulskiy G. M., Vaynshteyn Yu. V., Esin R. V. Designing Adaptive Electronic Teaching Courses in the LMS MOODLE Environment. Krasnoyarsk, Siberian Federal University; 2018. 168 p. Available at: http://Lib3.sfu-kras.ru/ft/LIB2/ELIB/u004/i-222439.pdf
35. Anikieva M. A. Development of a module for calculating an individual schedule for mastering the materials of an academic discipline. Informatics and Education. 2021;36(5):35–45. DOI: 10.32517/0234-0453-2021-36-5-35-45
Review
For citations:
Anikieva M.A. The use of knowledge graphs in the educational environment for personalized learning. Informatics and education. 2021;(10):33-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2021-36-10-33-42