||Exploring the Effects of the In-flip Classroom and Considering Social Information in Constructing Learning Topic Maps
||Department of Industrial and Information Management
College and University Classroom Environment Inventory
隨著資訊科技的發達，教學科技媒體運用愈來愈普遍，數位學習也愈來愈興盛。如何藉由資訊科技的便利性和其不受時空限制的特色，改進教師教學和增進學生學習，已經成為當今教育發展的重要議題。翻轉教室(flipped classroom)是一種特定類型的混合學習環境，允許學習者在課堂外藉助於資訊科技的學習，並於上課時間與老師和同學們互相交流學習上的問題。雖然翻轉教室有許多的優點，但仍有一些問題有待改進。因此，本研究設計出一個新穎的教學方式(In-flipped Learning)，以克服現有翻轉教室中所產生的問題，並在碩士課程中的資料庫之課程中使用大學教室環境量表(College and University Classroom Environment Inventory, CUCEI)來評估學習者們的學習成效。
此外，如何應用多元的線上資訊來幫助學生補充及完備所需要的課程相關知識並幫助學習是為教學領域中重要的研究議題之一。因此，本研究將進一步地應用研討會資訊 (視為線上資訊中的一種) 作為課程的教學輔助資源，並結合於In-flipped Learning教學環境中。然而，線上非結構化的資訊會隨著時間持續快速地增加，要在混雜且大量的資訊中有效地找到學生所需要的學習內容並連結問題間複雜概念的關係是相當困難的。因此，本研究應用知識管理之概念對線上資訊進行進一步的分析。藉由設計一套自動分析線上與教學知識有關內容的主題地圖，並結合文字探勘技術將研討會資訊進行分類，並以本研究所提出之主題地圖建構方法找出資料集中的主題間的關聯性，視覺化後供學習者查詢與瀏覽並完成建構主題地圖之知識本體。期望藉此主題地圖提供學生在in-flipped learning的環境中獲得更完整的學習資源與參考資料，並提高其學習成效與表現。
Information technology (IT) has led to changes in teaching methods. How to improve teaching effectiveness and enhance students’ learning using IT has become an important issue. A “flipped” classroom is a blended learning environment that allows learners to study outside the classroom using IT and then interact with the teacher inside the classroom. Although flipped classrooms have many advantages, some issues, such as low motivation prior to lectures, remain and should be improved. This study proposes an in-flipped classroom to overcome the problems found in flipped classrooms and evaluates this type of classroom using a Database Engineering course in a master’s program. This study uses the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to investigate the learning performance of the proposed in-flipped teaching environment.
Moreover, how to apply diverse online information to help students acquire knowledge relevant to course work is an important research issue. This study adopts conference information, a kind of online information, as a teaching assistant resource for in-flipped classrooms. However, as the amount of unstructured and messy conference information expands rapidly, it becomes increasingly difficult for students to find the content they need and understand the relationships between complex areas of knowledge. Therefore, it would be helpful to design topic maps that can automatically analyze conference knowledge information and relevant content. This study classifies course topics using text mining technology and then extracts the relationships between topics using the proposed method. Finally, topic maps are visualized to help students easily query and browse information. The proposed method is expected to provide students with more complete learning resources and improve their learning performance.
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research background and motivation 1
1.2 Research purposes 6
1.3 Research scope and limitations 8
1.4 Research procedure 9
Chapter 2. Literature Review 11
2.1Traditional Education 11
2.2 Problem-Based Learning 12
2.3 Collaborative Learning 12
2.4 E-learning 13
2.5 Blended Learning and flipped learning 14
2.6 Ontology and Topic Maps 15
2.6.1 The Topic Maps model 15
2.6.2 Construction methods of Topic Maps 16
2.6.2 Classification resource - Open Directory Project (ODP) 17
2.6.3 Evaluation of Topic Maps 18
2.7 Social Information 19
2.8 Summary 20
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 21
3.1 Research Framework 21
3.2 Academic Context and In-flipped Setting of Database Engineering 22
3.3 Data Collection and Design in In-flipped Classroom 22
3.4 Research Architecture of Topic Maps 24
3.5 Data Collection Module 27
3.6 Topic Maps Element Extraction Module 29
3.6.1 Topic Extraction 29
3.6.2 Association Extraction 31
3.6.3 Occurrence Extraction 35
3.7 Social Information Analysis Module 35
3.8 Topic Map Visualization Module 36
3.9 Summary of Topic Maps 37
Chapter 4. Implementation and Verification 38
4.1 Analysis Results for In-flipped Classroom 38
4.2 Implementation and Evaluation of Topic Maps 42
4.2.1 Source and Experimental Methods 42
4.2.2 Analysis of weights and coverage rates 47
4.2.3 Analysis of subjective evaluation 48
4.2.4 Performance of All Associations 50
4.2.5 Example of System Interface 50
Chapter 5. Discussion and Conclusion 52
5.1 Conclusions of In-flipped Classroom 52
5.2 Conclusions for topic maps 53
Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co‐authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261.
Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. New directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(74), 5-16.
Baumann, J. F. (1984). The Effectiveness of a Direct Instruction Paradigm for Teaching Main Idea Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
Berrett, D. (2012). How'flipping'the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Education Digest, 78(1), 36.
Beyth-Marom, R., Chajut, E., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2003). Internet-assisted versus traditional distance learning environments: factors affecting students’ preferences. Computers & Education, 41(1), 65-76.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brank, J., Grobelnik, M., & Mladenic, D. (2005). A survey of ontology evaluation techniques. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the conference on data mining and data warehouses (SiKDD 2005).
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33-43.
Chang, C. S., Liu, E. Z. F., Sung, H. Y., Lin, C. H., Chen, N. S., & Cheng, S. S. (2014). Effects of online college student’s Internet self-efficacy on learning motivation and performance. Innovations in education and teaching international, 51(4), 366-377.
Chiu, D. Y., & Pan, Y. C. (2014). Topic knowledge map and knowledge structure constructions with genetic algorithm, information retrieval, and multi-dimension scaling method. Knowledge-Based Systems, 67, 412-428.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning: John Wiley & Sons.
Cugmas, M., Ferligoj, A., & Kronegger, L. (2016). The stability of co-authorship structures. Scientometrics, 106(1), 163-186.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Du, T. C., Li, F., & King, I. (2009). Managing knowledge on the Web–Extracting ontology from HTML Web. Decision Support Systems, 47(4), 319-331.
Ellouze, N., Ahmed, M. B., & Métais, E. (2008). Overview of Topic Map Construction Approaches. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications - Workshops, La Manouba,France.
Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43-54.
Galway, L. P., Corbett, K. K., Takaro, T. K., Tairyan, K., & Frank, E. (2014). A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC medical education, 14(1), 181.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice: Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 322(7277), 40.
Hamasaki, M., Matsuo, Y., Nisimura, T., & Takeda, H. (2007). Ontology extraction using social network. Paper presented at the International workshop on semantic web for collaborative knowledge acquisition.
Hoic-Bozic, N., Mornar, V., & Boticki, I. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design and implementation. IEEE transactions on education, 52(1), 19-30.
Hu, C., & Racherla, P. (2008). Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 302-312.
Hughes, H. (2013). International students using online information resources to learn: complex experience and learning needs. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(1), 126-146.
Humanante-Ramos, P. R., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Conde-González, M. Á. (2015). Personal learning environments and online classrooms: An experience with university students. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana De Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 10(1), 26-32.
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.
Hwang, S. Y., Wei, C. P., & Liao, Y. F. (2010). Coauthorship networks and academic literature recommendation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(4), 323-334.
Jiang, S. Q., Du, J., Huang, Q. M., Huang, T. J., & Gao, W. (2005). Visual ontology construction for digitized art image retrieval. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 20(6), 855-860.
Jinlei, Z., Ying, W., & Baohui, Z. (2012). Introducing a New Teaching Model: Flipped Classroom. Journal of Distance Education, 4, 46-51.
Johnson, K. (2015). Behavioral education in the 21st Century. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(1-2), 135-150.
Ke, F. F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43-51.
Kim, J. M., Shin, H., & Kim, H. J. (2007). Schema and constraints-based matching and merging of Topic Maps. Information Processing & Management, 43(4), 930-945.
Kim, W., Jeong, O. R., & Lee, S. W. (2010). On social Web sites. Information systems, 35(2), 215-236.
Lau, H., & Mak, K. (2005). A configurable e-learning system for industrial engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 262-276.
Lee, C. S., Kao, Y. F., Kuo, Y. H., & Wang, M. H. (2007). Automated ontology construction for unstructured text documents. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 60(3), 547-566.
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462-1480.
Lucke, T., Dunn, P. K., & Christie, M. (2017). Activating learning in engineering education using ICT and the concept of ‘Flipping the classroom’. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 45-57.
Ma, J. (1994). Problem-based learning with database systems. Computers & Education, 22(3), 257-263.
Macià, M., & García, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a source of teacher professional development: A review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 291-307.
Martin, C., Urpi, T., Jose Casany, M., Burgues, X., Quer, C., Elena Rodriguez, M., & Abello, A. (2013). Improving learning in a database course using collaborative learning techniques. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 986-997.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The Learner-Centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. The Jossey-Bass Education Series: ERIC.
Miller, A. (2012). Five best practices for the flipped classroom. Edutopia. Posted online, 24, 02-12.
Muthaiyah, S., & Kerschberg, L. (2008). A hybrid ontology mediation approach for the semantic web. International Journal of E-Business Research, 4(4), 79.
O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
Oliva, J., Serrano, J. I., del Castillo, M. D., & Iglesias, Á. (2011). SyMSS: A syntax-based measure for short-text semantic similarity. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 70(4), 390-405.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
Palmer, C. L. (2013). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Springer Science & Business Media.
Pavlis-Korres, M. (2012). The role of the communication tools in the development of the learning group in an online environment. The International journal of engineering education, 28(6), 1360-1365.
Pepper, S., & Moore, G. (2010). Topic maps. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 1-19.
Quinn, D., Amer, Y., Lonie, A., Blackmore, K., Thompson, L., & Pettigrove, M. (2012). Leading change: Applying change management approaches to engage students in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 16-29.
Rennie, F., & Morrison, T. (2013). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education: Routledge.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44.
Sánchez, D., & Moreno, A. (2008). Learning non-taxonomic relationships from web documents for domain ontology construction. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 64(3), 600-623.
Santoso, H. A., Haw, S. C., & Abdul-Mehdi, Z. T. (2011). Ontology extraction from relational database: Concept hierarchy as background knowledge. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 457-464.
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 5-15.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
Simonson, M. R., Smaldino, S. E., & Albright, M. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Slawsky, D. (2007). Building a keyword library for description of visual assets: Thesaurus basics. Journal of Digital Asset Management, 3(3), 130-138.
Springen, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom: A revolutionary approach to learning presents some pros and cons. School Library Journal, 59(4), 23.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Wu, Y. T. (2016). Analysis of Learning Achievement and Teacher–Student Interactions in Flipped and Conventional Classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 103-110 .
Taylor, A. (2015). Flipping Great or Flipping Useless? A review of the flipped classroom experiment at Coventry University London Campus. Journal of pedagogic development, 5(3), 57-65.
Toto, R., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE.
Tseng, S. C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Students' self-regulated learning, online information evaluative standards and online academic searching strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 106-121.
Van Vliet, E., Winnips, J., & Brouwer, N. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education but effect does not persist. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1-10.
Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Education Research and Perspectives (Online), 41, 25-41.
Venkatesh, V., Shaw, S., Dicks, D., & Lowerison, G. (2007). Topic maps: Adopting user-centred indexing technologies in course management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3), 429-450.
Vrandečić, D. (2009). Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Wang, J. F., Doll, W. J., Deng, X. D., Park, K., & Yang, M. G. (2013). The impact of faculty perceived reconfigurability of learning management systems on effective teaching practices. Computers & Education, 61, 146-157.
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E‐learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. international Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245-258.
Wiessner, C. A., Hatcher, T., Chapman, D., & Storberg-Walker, J. (2008). Creating new learning at professional conferences: An innovative approach to conference learning, knowledge construction and programme evaluation. Human Resource Development International, 11(4), 367-383.
Won, S., & Oh, S. G. (2008). The Effects of Topic Map Components on Serendipitous Information Retrieval. Paper presented at the Subject-centric Computing. Fourth International Conference on Topic Maps Research and Applications, TMRA.
Wu, Y., Lehman, A. R., & Dunaway, D. J. (2015). Evaluations of a Large Topic Map as a Knowledge Organization Tool for Supporting Self-Regulated Learning. Knowledge Organization, 42(6), 386-398.
Xia, L., Xia, L., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Chen, C., Chen, C., & Zhai, S. (2016). Research on feature-based opinion mining using topic maps. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 435-456.
Yao, Y., Lin, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2013). Multi-perspective modeling: managing heterogeneous manufacturing knowledge based on ontologies and topic maps. International Journal of Production Research, 51(11), 3252-3269.
Yi, M. (2008). Information organization and retrieval using a topic maps‐based ontology: Results of a task‐based evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1898-1911.
Zhai, C., & Massung, S. (2016). Text Data Management and Analysis: A Practical Introduction to Information Retrieval and Text Mining: Morgan & Claypool.
Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75-79.