University of Teesside School of Social Sciences and Law

Certificate and Postgraduate Certificate in Education (Post-Compulsory Education and Training) EDU2004-N (L5 Cert Ed) Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Web 3.0: The Semantic Web and the Future of Education

Darby Costello

Module Tutor: Submitted: Word Count:

Fiona Jennings 27-11-11 at 11:00pm 2000

(Title page, headers, references and direct quotations removed from word count)

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

The Internet has given rise to some of the greatest changes in education over the past fifty years, offering a host of benefits and resources for students and teachers alike. Whether through engaging e-learning courses, blendedapproach content delivery or student-centred online collaborations, the face of education has shifted to embrace technology, for reasons as diverse as financial solvency, (Freeman, 2010, p.1) to providing a revolutionary way of managing teaching and learning within specific sectors such as healthcare, (McLean, 2007, p.177). The next major change for the Internet will likely be the Semantic Web, which is set to revolutionise the way in which we live, work and learn. For several years now, institutions across the globe have been working to implement technologies and frameworks that will utilise semantic data, (Miller, 2003). This paper aims to examine the nature of the Semantic Web (SW), identifying its key benefits in addition to its greatest challenges and also to evaluate some of the sociocultural ramifications that are likely to arise from its integration, both sociologically and within the educational system. As a means of providing meaningful context, these implications will be viewed through the lens of a traditional learning framework, specifically through a contemporary adaptation of Vygotskian Constructivism. In its current and now well-established form, the World Wide Web is a system of interlinked documents, held digitally across a network of innumerable, interconnected computers across the globe, known as the Internet. The documents contain text, images and other media, spanning the breadth and scope of all human endeavour; in the words of its creator Tim Berners-Lee this mass of data serves by encompassing the decentralized, organic growth of ideas, technology and society. (2000, p.1). In keeping with this vision, one of the major developments in recent years has been that of the free online resource Wikipedia, which has now become the sixth most popular website in the world, (Alexa, 2011). This is in spite of being a non-profit venture and whilst not fully recognised by the academic community due to lingering verifiability issues, may well serve as the basis for the Semantic Web, (Fawzer, 2009). At present Wikipedia is made up, like all web pages of script known as Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). Within these scripts, human-readable information is held and marked with hypertext links connecting to other documents, creating a vast web of interconnected data. A user traverses this web of data by selecting linked text and then being directed to another document pointed to by the hyperlink. In this fashion, the sum of all electronically recorded information is accessible to the user. Therein also lies the greatest challenge facing the development of the Semantic Web. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is now aiming to engender a global information system that links human-readable web pages with machine-

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

understandable information, (Berners-Lee, 1998). This means that any page on the Web would not simply be searched for matching keywords, as exists in the current model, but would actually be able to be reasoned with by the software. This enables the development of automated intelligent systems, allowing machines to comprehend the semantics of documents and data. (Chakravarthy, 2005). The means by which this will be made possible lie in the integration and proliferation of a Resource Description Framework (RDF) that will provide a uniform way of linking metadata data about data as relational entities within web pages, allowing for semantic interoperability across different information systems. Proper interpretation then requires that transmitters and receivers of metadata follow the same standards. Those standards take the form of ontologies, which can be described as the basic structure or armature around which a knowledge base can be built (Swartout & Tate, 1999). To develop an ontology or class hierarchy that is rigid enough to yield useful relationships between data entities and yet flexible enough to be applied to all aspects of epistemology, is one of the greatest impediments to the Semantic Web. Even by the estimations of Riichiro Mizoguchi, a major proponent of SW, the development of a suitable ontology is very much in its infancy and can be regarded at present more as art rather than technology. (2004, p.2) That is not to say that existing methodologies fail to provide any kind of framework for a workable SW ontology. The W3C has long championed its Web Ontology Language (OWL), a simple ontology which can describe classes, properties, individuals and data values within a Resource Document Framework (RDF). The language itself is expressed using the long-standing eXtensible Markup Language (XML), allowing for very easy, rapid development of entity relationships scaffolding conventional knowledge representation onto the real world. (Mizoguchi, 2004, p.10). Now a successor language has been developed, innoxiously named OWL2 (W3C, 2011), which has become the basis of the DBPedia project. This project encompasses the application of semantic interoperability across all pages currently contained within Wikipedia and according to its recent statistics, has already classified 3.64 million entities, 1.86 million of which satisfy a consistent ontology, whether it be people, places or media, (Mendes, 2011). Whilst still just a fraction of the sum total of Wikipedia entries, this provides compelling evidence that the Semantic Web is not too far away in realising its first expectation: To create a universal library (Marshall & Shipman, 2003). Once complete, this project will serve to pave the way for further development in bringing the SW to the Web at large and to begin to fulfill its second and arguably most important expectation: To allow for artificially intelligent systems or agents to act on behalf of a human in locating, using and evaluating knowledge for a given problem, (Hendler, 2001).

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

As the integration of artificial intelligence builds within our culture, so too will it transform the ways in which we learn. For example, if one were to use this technology in the construction of knowledge, a probable upshot could be that one may spend less time searching and sifting and more time absorbing, thinking, and participating. (Ohler, 2008). This paradigm extends to the creation and upkeep of course content also. Through intelligent use of standardised, reusable Learning Object Models (LOMs) contained within self-organised learning networks, the Semantic Web can address real-world changes in teaching and learning needs, including changes in societal demands, changes within the classroom and also within the institutional organisation, (Koper, 2004, p.6). This would most likely take the form of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs), specifically tailored to learners preferences and thinking styles, (Collis & Strijker, 2004). However, such a model might only be successful if a considerable number of criteria are met. For example, user data must be accurate and complete including cognitive, affective, and social characteristics of the users and their goals in accessing the content. (McCalla, 2004). Another hurdle still might be that the user feedback from using a particular Learning Object (LO) must be interpretable by the system in order for it to be developed over time to become more suitable for subsequent learners. If one were to view the process occurring between the learner and the PLE in terms of Constructivism, it becomes clear that, despite the PLE not having any human attributes, a relationship of sorts is formed, at least in the cognitive domain, allowing for construction of new knowledge, (Bittencourt et al, 2008). The depth and accuracy of the customisation of what should be seen as a human-machine interaction rather than merely learning object delivery will be a function of the ontological sophistication employed. Following Vygotskys theories on sociocultural learning models, it would appear that this relationship has been ratified by one of his final legacies, a construct known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the zone in which an individual is able to achieve more with assistance than he or she can manage alone. (Wells, 2000). This latter-day and revelatory idea supersedes any notion of greater or lesser experience and even supports the possibility that a learner may still attain this zone in human-machine interaction, as much as they might in interpersonal interaction. However, it must be stressed that current thinking, just as in Vygotskys day is that in cognitive development, any such relationship must be as close to the real thing as possible in order to propagate successful outcomes. In his words, all the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. (1978, p.57) An all-too-clear reminder of the dangers in learners relationship with their technology arose during a recent teaching session whereby a student, upon being asked to provide an emotional response to a particular stimulus, typed

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

the word emotion into a search engine hoping for a usable answer. The question to be asked is not whether the learner had become underdeveloped in the affective domain as a result of technology over-reliance, but how the technology could have served better in the development of that affective domain in the first place. Whilst this may not seem to be a feasible notion at present, our indisputable marriage to information systems looks set to grow in this very direction and at least bears further examination. To obviate these apparent difficulties in human-machine interaction, it becomes clear that an intermediary ontology must exist between the intelligent Learning Objects of a Personal Learning Environment and the interaction between user and technology. A clue to how this will be achieved exists within our current Social Networking models which, propelled by commercial drive, now yield more useful information on individual users in terms of characteristics, psychological proclivities and interrelationships than any other method of digital information capture previously available. From this wealth of information, we can ostensibly build upon the humanmachine ZPD model, encouraging stronger relationships between human and artificial agent and thereby increasing the likelihood of knowledge construction and thus educational productivity. This of course would require some form of interoperability between social networking and the Semantic Web. It should be noted that some observers have derided this approach. Fisher (2008) warns that we can come to rely too heavily on artificial experts and that this approach to learning and constructing knowledge tends to encourage passivity and receptiveness rather than inventiveness and imagination. The works of Ziegler (2007) and Christensen et al (2008) both support the idea that bringing technology and social media into the learning environment has at best, been a futile waste of resources and at worst, a major disruption to the educational system at large. Others however have been quick to demonstrate the benefits of embracing what has essentially become an integral part of life for teachers and learners alike. In practice, many institutions are beginning to gravitate toward the building of online communities as a means of collaboration and learning. Facebook groups allow for an informal hub of discussion centred around individual courses and disciplines, which could be termed a Knowledge Neighbourhood (Motta & Stutt, 2004). One day, the data capture from these online communities will be regulated by custom schema, mediated by SW ontologies to provide a hybrid of social and learning environments: The Social Semantic Web. Just as the Social Web has undeniably changed our day-to-day interactions with one another, a Social Semantic Web (SSW) may provide the key to building on the modern learners natural proclivities, by merging the best features of Social Web and Semantic Web, through combining the common formats for defining and structuring information with the social mechanisms for creating and sharing the knowledge. (Gasevic et al, 2011)

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

In conclusion, it would appear that, despite the various pitfalls associated with integrating any new technology, the eventual incorporation of a Semantic Web within our key information systems will not only bring social and educational benefits, but may bring about a paradigm shift in our relationship with technology, hitherto unseen since the proliferation of the World Wide Web during the 1990s. The educational benefits have always been apparent, even anticipated by the likes of Vygotsky in Thought and Language (1986), though it is unlikely that he could have anticipated the extent to which his sociocultural Constructivism might be played out between human and automaton. The changeover from an information web to a semantic web will not be marked. It may in fact go largely unnoticed, at least to begin with. Search engines will begin to perform better and more relevant searches. Learning environments will begin to learn about and from their users. Applications will surface that can intelligently plan more and more of our daily activities, such as optimal travel routes, shopping requirements and learning needs. It is still a nascent yet inevitable technology, meaning that modern society has, rather uniquely, been put in an anticipative state as opposed to a reactive one, as has traditionally been the case. We can choose now how we wish this deeper relationship with machines to evolve. According to Jason Ohler, (2008) it is the prerogative of the educators to spearhead the movement at ground-level, to help shape the future of learners, who may one day have no knowledge of a time before an intelligent Internet:
Semantic Web is far enough into the future that we can actually help shape it. Educators would do themselves, students, and the world a tremendous favor by jumping into the discussion now and helping Web 3.0 developers realize a vision that recognizes education and promotes the public good as top priorities.

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

References Alexa Internet Inc. (2011) Top Sites [Online] available: http://www.alexa.com/topsites [accessed 17 November 2011] Allert, H. (2004) Coherent Social Systems for Learning: An Approach for Contextualized and Community-Centred Metadata, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (2) Berners-Lee, T. (1998) Semantic Web Road map [Online] available: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html [accessed 12 November 2011] Berners-Lee, T. (2000) Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor, New York: HarperCollins Bittencourt, I., Costa, E., Isotani, S. and Mizoguchi, R. (2008) Research directions on Semantic Web and education, Interdisciplinary Studies in Computer Science, 19 (1) pp. 60-67 Bordeau, J., Hayashi, Y. and Mizoguchi, R. (2007) Inside Theory-Aware and Standards-Compliant Authoring System, SWEL Workshop of Ontologies and Semantic Web Services for IES, Working Paper, available: http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/00/32/PDF/SWEL07-miz.pdf [accessed 22 November 2011] Chakravarthy, A. (2005) Mining the Semantic Web, Workshop at 13th European Conference on Machine Learning, 4 (2) Christensen, C., Johnson, C.W., & Horn, M.B. (2008) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, New York: McGraw-Hill Clark, K., Hendler, J. and Parsia, B. (2004) Will the Semantic Web Change Education?, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (3) Collis, B. & Strijker, A. (2004) Technology and Human Issues in Reusing Learning Objects, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (4) Devedzic, V. (2004) Education and the Semantic Web, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1 (14), pp. 39-65 Diaz, P., Lytras, M. D., Sampson, D. G. and Wagner, G. (2004) Ontologies and the Semantic Web for E-Learning, Educational Technology & Society, 7 (4), pp. 26-28 Fawzi, M. (2009) Wikipedia 3.0 (Three Years Later), Evolving Trends, [online] posted August 11, 2009, available: http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/wikipedia-3-0-three-years-

Individual Study L2:20 CATS later/ [accessed 13 November 2011]

Darby Costello M1004824

Fisher, A. (1988) The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Freeman, M. (2010) Vygotsky and the Virtual Classroom: Sociocultural Theory Comes to the Communications Classroom, Christian Perspectives in Education, 4 (1) Gasevic, D., Jeremic, Z. and Jovanovic, J. (2011) Personal Learning Environments on Social Semantic Web, Semantic Web Journal, Working Paper, available: http://www.semantic-webjournal.net/sites/default/files/swj183_0.pdf [accessed 17 November 2011] Hendler, J. (2001) Agents and the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16 (2), pp. 30-37. Koper, R. (2004) Use of the Semantic Web to Solve Some Basic Problems in Education: Increase Flexible, Distributed Lifelong Learning, Decrease Teachers Workload, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (6) Marshall, C. C. & Shipman, F. M. (2003) Which Semantic Web?, accepted for Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pp. 57-66 McCalla, G. (2004) The Ecological Approach to the Design of E-Learning Environments: Purpose-based Capture and Use of Information About Learners, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (7) McLean, R., Richards, B. H. and Wardman, J. I. (2007) The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: Darwikinian evolution or folksonomic revolution?, Medical Journalists Association, 187 (3) pp. 174177 Mendes, P. (2011) DBPedia [online] available: http://dbpedia.org/About [accessed 22 November 2011] Miller, L. & Wiliamson, B. (2003) The Semantic Web: A touch of intelligence for the internet? The Guardian, 21 June, available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/21/elearning.technology [accessed 21 November 2011] Mizoguchi, R. (2004) Tutorial on ontological engineering - Part 2: Ontology development, tools and languages, New Generation Computing, 22 (1) pp. 61-96, available: http://www.ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/pub/miz/Part2V3.pdf [accessed 19 November 2011] Motta, E. & Stutt, A. (2004) Semantic Learning Webs, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (10)

Individual Study L2:20 CATS

Darby Costello M1004824

Ohler, J. (2008) The Semantic Web in Education, Educause Quarterly, 31 (4) Swartout, W. & Tate, A. (1999). Ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14 (1) pp. 18-19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and Language. London: MIT Press W3C (2011) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview, [online] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ [accessed 13 November 2011] Wells, G. (2000) Dialogic Inquiry in Education: Building on the Legacy of Vygotsky in Lee, C. D. & Smagorinsky, P., eds. Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51-85 Ziegler, S. (2007) The (mis)education of Generation M. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (1), pp. 69-81.