Publikationen

Hier finden Sie von Know-Center MitarbeiterInnen verfasste wissenschaftliche Publikationen

2011

Lindstaedt Stefanie , Kraker Peter, Wild Fridolin, Ullmann Thomas, Duval Erik, Parra Gonzalo

First experiences with a Science 2.0 infrastructure

2011

This deliverable reports on first usage experiences and evaluations of the STELLAR Science 2.0 Infrastructure. Usage experiences were available predominantly for the "mature" part of the infrastructure provided by standard Web 2.0 tools adapted to STELLAR needs. Evaluations are provided for newly developed tools. We first provide an overview of the whole STELLAR Science 2.0 Infrastructure and the relationships between the building blocks. While the individual building blocks already benefit researchers, the integration between them is the key for a positive usage experience. The publication meta data ecosystem for example provides researchers with an easy to retrieve set of TEL related data. Tools like the ScienceTable, Muse, the STELLAR latest publication widget, and the STELLAR BuRST search show already several scenarios of how to make use of this infrastructure. Especially a strong focus on anlytical tools based on publication and social media data seem useful. In order to highlight the relevance of the infrastructure to the individual capacitiy building activties within STELLAR, the usage experiences of individual building blocks are then reported with respect to Researcher Capacity (e.g. Deliverable Wikis, More! application), Doctoral Academy Capacity (e.g. DoCoP), Community Level Capacity (e.g TELeurope), and Leadership Capacity (e.g. Meeting of Minds, Podcast Series). Here we draw from 11 scientific papers published. The reader will find an overview of all these papers in the Appendix. Based on the usage experiences and evaluations we have identified a number of ideas which might be worth considering for future developments. For example, the experiences gained with the Deliverable Wikis show how the modification of the standard Wiki history can provide useful analytical insights into the collaboration of living deliverables and can return the focus on authorship (which is intentionally masked in Wikis, because of their strong notion on the product and not on authors). We conclude with main findings and an outlook on the development plan and evaluation plan which are currently being developed and which will influence D6.6. Particularly, we close with the notion of a Personal Research Environment (PRE) which draws from the concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLE).
2011

Windrum Caroline, Joubert Marie, Barak Noaa, Specht Marcus, De Vries Fred, Persico Donatella, Camilleri Anthony, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Kraker Peter, Herder Eelco, Wild Fridolin, Duval Erik

D5. 3.1-Report on community building with Stakeholders

2011

This report provides the first of three annual reports on the progress of Work Package 5. It describes what has been achieved in the first year of activity related to the 5 tasks outlined in the Description of Work.Task 1 Stakeholder Analysis and Initiation of Activities. Establishment of Stakeholder Panel, monitoring tools, and metrics.Task 3 Stakeholder Needs Analysis.Elaboration and Showcasing: Two way communications with the rest of STELLAR WPs.Implementation of Synergetic Activities: Involvement in conferences/ workshops.
2010

Kraker Peter, Fessl Angela, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Ullmann T.D., Wild F., Scott P., Duval E., Vandeputte B., Parra G., Reinhardt W., Heinze N., Nagel T., Gillet D.

Components of a Research 2.0 Infrastructure

EC-TEL 2010: Fifth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Wolpers, M., Kirschner, P. A., Scheffel, M., Lindstaedt, S. N., Dimitrova, V., Springer, 2010

Konferenz
In this paper, we investigate the components of a Research 2.0infrastructure. We propose building blocks and their concrete implementationto leverage Research 2.0 practice and technologies in our field, including apublication feed format for exchanging publication data, a RESTful API toretrieve publication and Web 2.0 data, and a publisher suit for refining andaggregating data. We illustrate the use of this infrastructure with Research 2.0application examples ranging from a Mash-Up environment, a mobile andmultitouch application, thereby demonstrating the strength of thisinfrastructure.
2010

Lindstaedt Stefanie , Beham Günter, Stern Hermann, Drachsler H., Bogers T., Vuorikari R., Verbert K., Duval E., Manouselis N., Friedrich M., Wolpers M.

dataTEL - Issues and Considerations regarding Sharable Data Sets for Recommender Systems in Technology Enhanced Learning

1st Workshop on Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning (RecSysTEL 2010), Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier, 2010

Konferenz
This paper raises the issue of missing data sets for recommender systems in Technology Enhanced Learning that can be used asbenchmarks to compare different recommendation approaches. It discusses how suitable data sets could be created according tosome initial suggestions, and investigates a number of steps that may be followed in order to develop reference data sets that willbe adopted and reused within a scientific community. In addition, policies are discussed that are needed to enhance sharing ofdata sets by taking into account legal protection rights. Finally, an initial elaboration of a representation and exchange format forsharable TEL data sets is carried out. The paper concludes with future research needs.
2010

Lindstaedt Stefanie , Duval E., Ullmann T.D., Wild F., Scott P.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Research 2.0

CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS, 2010

Buch
Research2.0 is in essence a Web2.0 approach to how we do research. Research2.0 creates conversations between researchers, enables them to discuss their findings and connects them with others. Thus, Research2.0 can accelerate the diffusion of knowledge.ChallengesAs concluded during the workshop, at least four challenges are vital for future research.The first area is concerned with availability of data. Access to sanitized data and conventions on how to describe publication-related metadata provided from divergent sources are enablers for researchers to develop new views on their publications and their research area. Additional, social media data gain more and more attention. Reaching a widespread agreement about this for the field of technology-enhanced learning would be already a major step, but it is also important to focus on the next steps: what are success-critical added values driving uptake in the research community as a whole?The second area of challenges is seen in Research 2.0 practices. As technology-enhanced learning is a multidisciplinary field, practices developed in one area could be valuable for others. To extract the essence of successful multidisciplinary Research 2.0 practice though, multidimensional and longitudinal empirical work is needed. It is also an open question, if we should support practice by fostering the usage of existing tools or the development of new tools, which follow Research 2.0 principles. What makes a practice sustainable? What are the driving factors?The third challenge deals with impact. What are criteria of impact for research results (and other research artefacts) published on the Web? How can this be related to the publishing world appearing in print? Is a link equal to a citation or a download equal to a subscription? Can we develop a Research 2.0 specific position on impact measurement? This includes questions of authority, quality and re-evaluation of quality, and trust.The tension between openness and privacy spans the fourth challenge. The functionality of mash-ups often relies on the use of third-party services. What happens with the data, if this source is no longer available? What about hidden exchange of data among backend services?
2010

Duval Erik, Ullman Thomas Daniel, Wild Fridolin, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Scott Peter

Research 2.0 for TEL: four challenges

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Research 2.0. At the 5th European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning: Sustaining TEL, 2010

Konferenz
2010

Ullmann Thomas Daniel, Wild Fridolin, Scott Peter, Duval Erik, Parra G., Reinhardt W., Heinze N., Kraker Peter, Fessl Angela, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Nagel T., Gillet D.

A science 2.0 infrastructure for technology-enhanced learning

Computer Science Education, 2010

Journal
Science 2.0 is a rather young concept and despite its short historyalready induced numerous controversial positions, oscillating between newtechnologies and new practices. Even though many TEL researchers already useScience 2.0 tools, although not always labeled as such, there is no commonlyshared practice and tools in use. Within this paper, we investigate the conceptof Science 2.0 and propose an embracing definition. From there we investigateexisting practice with pilot studies and propose a framework for further indepthstudy and elicitation of Science 2.0 practices of technology-enhancedlearning researchers. Furthermore, we propose a mash-up architecture andconcrete infrastructure to leverage Science 2.0 practice and technologies in ourfield, including the proposal of a publication feed format, a retrieval API, andthe provision of an initial set of data sources and services. We illustrate the useof this infrastructure with several Science 2.0 application examples, therebydemonstrating the strength of this infrastructure and architecture.
2010

Verbert Katrien, Duval Erik, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Gillet Denis

Context-aware recommender systems

Journal of Universal Computer Science, Springer, 2010

Journal
Kontakt Karriere

Hiermit erkläre ich ausdrücklich meine Einwilligung zum Einsatz und zur Speicherung von Cookies. Weiter Informationen finden sich unter Datenschutzerklärung

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close