The Experts below are selected from a list of 252 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rene Reitsma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
world vs method Educational Standard formulation impacts document retrieval
ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2011Co-Authors: Byron Marshall, Rene ReitsmaAbstract:Although initiatives are underway in the Educational community to consolidate disparate collections of Educational Standards, little has been done to explore the impact of Educational Standard formulation on information retrieval. Recent research contrasts two categories of Educational Standards: 'World' (topical domain-related concepts) and 'Method' (investigative and epistemological principles). This paper explores the information retrieval implications of the World vs. Method distinction. We find that experts are more likely to agree about which Educational resources align with a Method Standard but that a typical automatic Standard assignment tool is more likely to assign a World Standard to an Educational resource. Further, a text-based information retrieval system is more likely to be accurate in retrieving documents relevant to a World Standard as compared to a Method Standard. These findings have implications both for Educational Standard formulation (combining World and Method components in a Standard may improve retrieval) and for digital library builders who want to help teachers identify useful, Standards-aligned learning objects.
-
JCDL - World vs. method: Educational Standard formulation impacts document retrieval
Proceeding of the 11th annual international ACM IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries - JCDL '11, 2011Co-Authors: Byron Marshall, Rene ReitsmaAbstract:Although initiatives are underway in the Educational community to consolidate disparate collections of Educational Standards, little has been done to explore the impact of Educational Standard formulation on information retrieval. Recent research contrasts two categories of Educational Standards: 'World' (topical domain-related concepts) and 'Method' (investigative and epistemological principles). This paper explores the information retrieval implications of the World vs. Method distinction. We find that experts are more likely to agree about which Educational resources align with a Method Standard but that a typical automatic Standard assignment tool is more likely to assign a World Standard to an Educational resource. Further, a text-based information retrieval system is more likely to be accurate in retrieving documents relevant to a World Standard as compared to a Method Standard. These findings have implications both for Educational Standard formulation (combining World and Method components in a Standard may improve retrieval) and for digital library builders who want to help teachers identify useful, Standards-aligned learning objects.
-
comparison of human and machine based Educational Standard assignment networks
International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2010Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Anne R DiekemaAbstract:Increasing availability of digital libraries of K-12 Educational resources, coupled with an increased emphasis on Standard-based teaching necessitates assignment of the Standards to those resources. Since manual assignment is a laborious and ongoing task, machine-based Standard assignment tools have been under development for some time. Unfortunately, data on the performance of these machine-based classifiers are mostly lacking. In this article, we explore network modeling and layout to gain insight into the differences between assignments made by catalogers and those by the well-known Content Assignment Tool (CAT) machine-based classifier. To build the Standard assignment networks, we define Standards to be linked if they are jointly assigned to a learning resource. Comparative analysis of the topology and layout of the networks shows that whereas the cataloger-based network reflects the underlying curriculum, i.e., clusters of Standards separate along lines of lesson content and pedagogical principles, the machine-based network lacks these relationships. This shortcoming is partially traced back to the machine classifier’s difficulties in recognizing Standards that express ways and means of conducting science.
-
network visualization of human and machine based Educational Standard assignment
2010 14th International Conference Information Visualisation, 2010Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Anne R DiekemaAbstract:Rapid growth in the availability of digital libraries of K-12 curriculum, coupled with an increased emphasis on Standard-based teaching has led to the development of automated Standard assignment tools. To assess the performance of one of those tools and to gain insight into the differences between how human catalogers and automated tools conduct these Standard assignments, we explore the use of network modeling and visualization techniques for comparing and contrasting the two. The results show significant differences between the human-based and machine-based network maps. Unlike the machine-based maps, the human-based assignment maps elegantly reflect the rationales and principles of the assignments; i.e., clusters of Standards separate along lines of content and pedagogical principles. In addition, humans seem significantly more apt at assigning so-called ‘methodological’ Standards.
-
exploring Educational Standard alignment in search of relevance
ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2008Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Byron Marshall, Michael Dalton, Martha CyrAbstract:The growing availability of online K-12 curriculum is increasing the need for meaningful alignment of this curriculum with state-specific Standards. Promising automated and semi-automated alignment tools have recently become available. Unfortunately, recent alignment evaluation studies report low inter-rater reliability, e.g., 32% with two raters and 35 documents. While these results are in line with studies in other domains, low reliability makes it difficult to accurately train automatic systems and complicates comparison of different services. We propose that inter-rater reliability of broadly defined, abstract concepts such as 'alignment' or 'relevance' must be expected to be low due to the real-world complexity of teaching and the multidimensional nature of the curricular documents. Hence, we suggest decomposing these concepts into less abstract, more precise measures anchored in the daily practice of teaching.This article reports on the integration of automatic alignment results into the interface of the Teach Engineering collection and on an evaluation methodology intended to produce more consistent document relevance ratings. Our results (based on 14 raters x 6 documents) show high inter-rater reliability (61 - 95%) on less abstract relevance dimensions while scores on the overall 'relevance' concept are (as expected) lower (64%). Despite a relatively small sample size, regression analysis of our data resulted in an explanatory (R2 = .75) and statistically stable (p-values < .05) model for overall relevance as indicated by matching concepts, related background material, adaptability to grade level, and anticipated usefulness of exercises. Our results suggest that more detailed relevance evaluation which includes several dimensions of relevance would produce better data for comparing and training alignment tools.
Lorenzo Rocco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Educational Standards in Private and Public Schools
The Economic Journal, 2008Co-Authors: Giorgio Brunello, Lorenzo RoccoAbstract:We show that, when school quality is measured by the Educational Standard and attaining the Standard requires costly effort, secondary education needs not be a hierarchy with private schools offering better quality than public schools, as in Epple and Romano, 1998. An alternative configuration, with public schools offering a higher Educational Standard than private schools, is also possible, in spite of the fact that tuition levied by private schools is strictly positive. In our model, private schools can offer a lower Educational Standard at a positive price because they attract students with a relatively high cost of effort, who would find the high Standards of the public school excessively demanding. With the key parameters calibrated on the available micro-econometric evidence from the US, our model predicts that majority voting in the US supports a system with high quality private schools and low quality public schools, as assumed by Epple and Romano, 1998. This system, however, is not the one that would be selected by the social planner, who prefers high quality public schools combined with low quality private schools.
-
Educational Standards in Private and Public Schools
The Economic Journal, 2008Co-Authors: Giorgio Brunello, Lorenzo RoccoAbstract:When school quality increases with the Educational Standard set by schools, education before college need not be a hierarchy with private schools offering better quality than public schools. In our model, private schools can offer a lower Educational Standard at a positive price because they attract students with a relatively high cost of effort, who would find the high Standards of public schools excessively demanding. We estimate the key parameters of the model and show that majority voting supports a system where private schools have higher quality in the US and public schools have higher quality in Italy.
Giorgio Brunello - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Educational Standards in Private and Public Schools
The Economic Journal, 2008Co-Authors: Giorgio Brunello, Lorenzo RoccoAbstract:We show that, when school quality is measured by the Educational Standard and attaining the Standard requires costly effort, secondary education needs not be a hierarchy with private schools offering better quality than public schools, as in Epple and Romano, 1998. An alternative configuration, with public schools offering a higher Educational Standard than private schools, is also possible, in spite of the fact that tuition levied by private schools is strictly positive. In our model, private schools can offer a lower Educational Standard at a positive price because they attract students with a relatively high cost of effort, who would find the high Standards of the public school excessively demanding. With the key parameters calibrated on the available micro-econometric evidence from the US, our model predicts that majority voting in the US supports a system with high quality private schools and low quality public schools, as assumed by Epple and Romano, 1998. This system, however, is not the one that would be selected by the social planner, who prefers high quality public schools combined with low quality private schools.
-
Educational Standards in Private and Public Schools
The Economic Journal, 2008Co-Authors: Giorgio Brunello, Lorenzo RoccoAbstract:When school quality increases with the Educational Standard set by schools, education before college need not be a hierarchy with private schools offering better quality than public schools. In our model, private schools can offer a lower Educational Standard at a positive price because they attract students with a relatively high cost of effort, who would find the high Standards of public schools excessively demanding. We estimate the key parameters of the model and show that majority voting supports a system where private schools have higher quality in the US and public schools have higher quality in Italy.
Anne R Diekema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of human and machine based Educational Standard assignment networks
International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2010Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Anne R DiekemaAbstract:Increasing availability of digital libraries of K-12 Educational resources, coupled with an increased emphasis on Standard-based teaching necessitates assignment of the Standards to those resources. Since manual assignment is a laborious and ongoing task, machine-based Standard assignment tools have been under development for some time. Unfortunately, data on the performance of these machine-based classifiers are mostly lacking. In this article, we explore network modeling and layout to gain insight into the differences between assignments made by catalogers and those by the well-known Content Assignment Tool (CAT) machine-based classifier. To build the Standard assignment networks, we define Standards to be linked if they are jointly assigned to a learning resource. Comparative analysis of the topology and layout of the networks shows that whereas the cataloger-based network reflects the underlying curriculum, i.e., clusters of Standards separate along lines of lesson content and pedagogical principles, the machine-based network lacks these relationships. This shortcoming is partially traced back to the machine classifier’s difficulties in recognizing Standards that express ways and means of conducting science.
-
network visualization of human and machine based Educational Standard assignment
2010 14th International Conference Information Visualisation, 2010Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Anne R DiekemaAbstract:Rapid growth in the availability of digital libraries of K-12 curriculum, coupled with an increased emphasis on Standard-based teaching has led to the development of automated Standard assignment tools. To assess the performance of one of those tools and to gain insight into the differences between how human catalogers and automated tools conduct these Standard assignments, we explore the use of network modeling and visualization techniques for comparing and contrasting the two. The results show significant differences between the human-based and machine-based network maps. Unlike the machine-based maps, the human-based assignment maps elegantly reflect the rationales and principles of the assignments; i.e., clusters of Standards separate along lines of content and pedagogical principles. In addition, humans seem significantly more apt at assigning so-called ‘methodological’ Standards.
Byron Marshall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
world vs method Educational Standard formulation impacts document retrieval
ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2011Co-Authors: Byron Marshall, Rene ReitsmaAbstract:Although initiatives are underway in the Educational community to consolidate disparate collections of Educational Standards, little has been done to explore the impact of Educational Standard formulation on information retrieval. Recent research contrasts two categories of Educational Standards: 'World' (topical domain-related concepts) and 'Method' (investigative and epistemological principles). This paper explores the information retrieval implications of the World vs. Method distinction. We find that experts are more likely to agree about which Educational resources align with a Method Standard but that a typical automatic Standard assignment tool is more likely to assign a World Standard to an Educational resource. Further, a text-based information retrieval system is more likely to be accurate in retrieving documents relevant to a World Standard as compared to a Method Standard. These findings have implications both for Educational Standard formulation (combining World and Method components in a Standard may improve retrieval) and for digital library builders who want to help teachers identify useful, Standards-aligned learning objects.
-
JCDL - World vs. method: Educational Standard formulation impacts document retrieval
Proceeding of the 11th annual international ACM IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries - JCDL '11, 2011Co-Authors: Byron Marshall, Rene ReitsmaAbstract:Although initiatives are underway in the Educational community to consolidate disparate collections of Educational Standards, little has been done to explore the impact of Educational Standard formulation on information retrieval. Recent research contrasts two categories of Educational Standards: 'World' (topical domain-related concepts) and 'Method' (investigative and epistemological principles). This paper explores the information retrieval implications of the World vs. Method distinction. We find that experts are more likely to agree about which Educational resources align with a Method Standard but that a typical automatic Standard assignment tool is more likely to assign a World Standard to an Educational resource. Further, a text-based information retrieval system is more likely to be accurate in retrieving documents relevant to a World Standard as compared to a Method Standard. These findings have implications both for Educational Standard formulation (combining World and Method components in a Standard may improve retrieval) and for digital library builders who want to help teachers identify useful, Standards-aligned learning objects.
-
exploring Educational Standard alignment in search of relevance
ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2008Co-Authors: Rene Reitsma, Byron Marshall, Michael Dalton, Martha CyrAbstract:The growing availability of online K-12 curriculum is increasing the need for meaningful alignment of this curriculum with state-specific Standards. Promising automated and semi-automated alignment tools have recently become available. Unfortunately, recent alignment evaluation studies report low inter-rater reliability, e.g., 32% with two raters and 35 documents. While these results are in line with studies in other domains, low reliability makes it difficult to accurately train automatic systems and complicates comparison of different services. We propose that inter-rater reliability of broadly defined, abstract concepts such as 'alignment' or 'relevance' must be expected to be low due to the real-world complexity of teaching and the multidimensional nature of the curricular documents. Hence, we suggest decomposing these concepts into less abstract, more precise measures anchored in the daily practice of teaching.This article reports on the integration of automatic alignment results into the interface of the Teach Engineering collection and on an evaluation methodology intended to produce more consistent document relevance ratings. Our results (based on 14 raters x 6 documents) show high inter-rater reliability (61 - 95%) on less abstract relevance dimensions while scores on the overall 'relevance' concept are (as expected) lower (64%). Despite a relatively small sample size, regression analysis of our data resulted in an explanatory (R2 = .75) and statistically stable (p-values < .05) model for overall relevance as indicated by matching concepts, related background material, adaptability to grade level, and anticipated usefulness of exercises. Our results suggest that more detailed relevance evaluation which includes several dimensions of relevance would produce better data for comparing and training alignment tools.
