Education and Training Task Group Minutes
Task Group Meeting - San Sebastian, 2nd June 2002    [PDF Download] Task Group Meeting - Amsterdam, 1st - 2nd April 2004    [PDF Download] Task Group Meeting - Valencia, 24th Augustl 2004    [PDF Download] Task Group Meeting - San Sebastian, 2nd June 2002 Research Question, Themes and Points of Interest Formulated by the participants of the international workshop on Model Based Systems (MBS) and Qualitative Reasoning (QR) for Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) (June 2nd, 2002, San Sebastian, Spain). This workshop was organized in collaboration with:   The international ITS 2002 conference (held in San Sebastian, 2-4 June, Spain, and Biarritz, 5-7   June, France), and   The MONET-2 task-group on Education and Training. (MONET (http://monet.aber.ac.uk) is a European   Network of Excellence on Model Based Systems and Qualitative Reasoning. MONET-2 is the   successor of MONET-1 and active since January 2002. Within MONET-2 a taskforce focuses on the   application of MBS/QR for educational purposes.) Summarized by Bert Bredeweg, June 3rd, 2002 External representations   Which types do exist, are being developed and/or should be developed   Do they differ with respect to certain domains, tasks and/or type of users (how? and why?) Modeling   What is modeling (how does it e.g. differ from design)?   Is modeling primarily the articulation of conceptual insights that students (have) acquire(d)?   What is the goal of a modeling effort?   Is modeling domain dependent or independent, and how that does affect the modeling process?   Modeling introduces questions on topics such as:   Multiple models   Model dimensions   Model interrelationships   Model accuracy   Model appropriateness   Model aggregation   Model simplification   Model assumptions Qualitative student models   How does this relate to subject matter simulation? Constructivism Theoretical insights such as this emphasize the relevance of collaborative learning and knowledge negotiation. It may also affect the issue of student assessment. (See also below) Collaborative learning and/or training   May concern ‘conceptual knowledge’ and/or ‘skills’   Knowledge negotiating is important and requires explicit knowledge representations   Multiple users working together (co-learning) on a task (e.g. design, operating, control, prediction,     diagnosis) possibly by interacting with a simulation or by building a simulation.   Qualitative models of (artificial) actors in a collaborative setting Assessment in an educational context   How to assess a learner and his or her learning behavior? (e.g. progress, quality of a solution,   capabilities, knowledge, subject matter coverage, problem solving)   There is a difference between the process (how the answer was found) and the result (the answer   itself). Both may need to be assessed, depending on the situation.   How to assess with solutions that are neither fully correct or fully wrong (neither good or bad)?   How to generate feedback in the context of answers that are neither good or bad, but at best   sub-optimal, or just somewhat better compared to an other solution?   Evaluation depends on the goal of the learning / training activity Explanation Qualitative models are often required for automatic generation of explanations Qualitatively interpreting quantitative solutions E.g. the appropriateness of a set of equations that a learner formulated as an interpretation of some system's behavior. Support tools Different foci exist: supporting the learner, the teacher or the author (of educational software) Explicit representations (or articulate representations)   Are seen as important to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge negotiation.   Do they differ with respect to certain domains, tasks and/or type of users (how? and why?)   Representations may be domain independent or dependent. How does that affect the explicitness?   How do such models interrelate? (this point relates to the previous point) Dealing with real-time situations / systems E.g. shipboard damage control, first aid, process control, etc. Alternative domains In general, alternative domains may have an impact on the issues mentioned in this document. During the workshop the following domains have been given attention (different notions exist, such as 'knowledge captured in a model' and 'subject matter a learner has to learn', often they are the same or closely related, but not always):   Engineering   Medical   Mathematics   Programming   Science / Physics   Ecology   Agents in a collaborative setting (in terms of knowledge captured in a simulation   model) Alternative tasks In general, alternative tasks may have an impact on the issues mentioned in this document. During the workshop the following tasks have been given attention (different notions exist, such as 'tasks a learner has to learn / perform' and 'tasks performed by a tutoring system'):   Design   Control   Diagnosis   Management   Prediction Alternative learners / users In general, alternative users / learners may have an impact on the issues mentioned in this document. During the workshop the following learners / users have been given attention:   High school level   University level (including technical University)   Professional training Task Group Meeting - Amsterdam, 1st -2nd April 2004 Agenda Location: University of Amsterdam - Social Science Informatics, Roetersstraat 15 1018 WB, Amsterdam. Thursday, April 1st 13.00 - 17.00 hours MONET - state of the art (Iain) (last review, next review, last SC meeting, ..) TG Education and Training - current status (Bert) Roadmap (2nd version) (Bert/Iain) Friday, April 2nd 9.00 - 16.00 hours (lunch 12-13 hours)    4.  ED3 (Bert)    5.  EU funding issues Some comments on the agenda: The meeting of the Ed&Tr TG in Amsterdam will largely be a creative meeting during which we will try to actually get work done, comparable to the Roadmap meeting we held in Algarve, Portugal in 2003. We plan to start Thursday shortly after lunch, with brief overviews of the current situation, both concerning MONET in general and the Ed&Tr TG specifically. A large part of the afternoon is reserved to discuss the current roadmap and what improvements to realise in the next version. Each participant is kindly asked to study the current version of the roadmap from this perspective. Minutes This Task Group met on the 1st-2nd of April 2004 in Amsterdam. The meeting was hosted by the Department of Social Science Informatics at the University of Amsterdam. The aim of this regular meeting was to further work on the Technological Roadmap (ED4), to start working on the concept for WWW integration (ED3), and to discuss EU funding issues. The agenda also included room for presenting the status of the MONET Network itself. Attending for the meeting were Tim Nuttle (University of Jena); Michael Neumann (University of Giessen); Franz Wotawa (University of Graz); Juan Jose Alvarez, and Jose Sanchez (University of Valladolid); Xiu T Yan (University of Strathclyde); Bert Bredeweg, Vania Bessado Muchado, Anders Bouwer, Barbara Dubbeldam, Jaeques Koeman and Elinor Bakker (University of Amsterdam); and Iain Russell (MONET, University of Aberystwyth). Technological Roadmap (ED4) The meeting was very creative and active. We discussed the current roadmap and what improvements were necessary to realise the next version. Each participant was well prepared by studying the current version and was able to comment on the Roadmap from their perspective. The Education and Training Roadmap discusses Technology Drivers that are of key importance to the field (Educational Institutions / Distance - Life long Learning/ Interactive - Peer Collaborative Learning etc.). The document then goes on to briefly describe the available products and discuss the technology advances required over the next ten years to achieve the goals. During the meeting we were able to re-investigate the information within the document and expand on it. We especially looked in greater detail at how the goals described within the document can be achieved and what limiting factors must be overcome in order to do so. Integration with WWW (ED3) The next deliverable of the Education and Training Task Group is ED3. The document reviews how to integrate MBS&QR with WWW and Multimedia and focuses on technology transfer and research topics to be addressed. During the meeting we discussed the structure and the format of the document. We concluded that an online version would be the best format. The document should contain a lot of typical examples and explanations on how / what to do to achieve certain results. We worked on the content of ED3 most of the second day. ED3 is now well in hand and the document and the webpage will be ready in time. EU Funding Iain form the MONET office gave a condensed but very precise introduction to the latest issues of EU funding. We then discussed possible strategies for the Task Group. The REDIME project (with several members of the Task Group participating) is in the status of negotiation with the European Commission. We will update on this in the next newsletter. Consequently we focused on funding instruments to support and surround the upcoming project. We decided to apply for funding of an exploratory workshop at the European Science Foundation and Michael agreed to write the proposal. The application was completed at the end of April for the workshop "Qualitative Reasoning in Ecology - Applications to stream ecosystem restoration and recovery (QRSER)". The workshop is to be held in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania, in May 2005 as a following up of the workshop that was held in Jena, Germany in March 2003 (see newsletter Issue 3). A decision on funding is expected in November 2004. We also discussed applying for funding for a Marie Curie Research Training Network, focusing on applications of QR. The precise domain (education broadly, or ecology and natural resource with an education element) is under active discussion. If you are interested in joining the discussion (and perhaps network), please contact the MONET office, who will forward your message to the organizing committee. Conclusion The meeting in Amsterdam can be seen as a productive and successful Task Group meeting. Attendees also had several opportunities to network and get to know each other on a more personal basis. Thanks to Bert, Iain, and Janet for the organization and thanks to all attendants for their work and input. Task Group Meeting - Valencia, 24th August 2004 Attendees JoseVicente Alvarez Bravo Bert Bredeweg Tim Nuttle JuanJose Sanchez Iain Russell Franz Wotawa Agenda   Minutes of the Last Meeting   WebPortal   Setpoint   National Waterfront Museum   Funding   Marie Curie Proposal   Roadmaps Minutes of the Last Meeting Use the version that is in the Newsletter - there was an original version to this. We should try and find this. ACTION (1) (rir) - Change minutes of last meeting to original version in Newsletter WebPortal The structure of the Web Portal is complete but some of the content is lacking, there is work to be done but it is a very good first draft. Some small points of language need to be sorted but most of what we want is there. There needs to be more work on Assignments and Exercises. The major work to be done is in the help section. The idea was to explain the vocabulary and detail how to use the model-building tool and how to use the visualisation tool. Although there are pages that describe all of the steps that are required to build a model in HOMER there is not much interaction to this and it is just a set of screen prints with some explanatory text. The Ontology section does have definitions and explanations already. The details of the Simulation tool are not that well developed. There is nothing in FAQ's at the moment. This will be filled in by the work of the STReP but currently there is nothing there. The assignments will be developed and added onto the site, those present at the meeting have volunteered to produce some of these. Currently the example is an assignment that was produced by Bert and Paulo Salles for the Jena workshop in 2002. There is very simple introductory section with nothing specific about tools and then you can move to sections that detail the actual tools themselves. ACTION (2) (All) - Complete and submit Assignments to Bert What we need are a range of assignments and examples, we want simple ones, complex ones, assignments that cover a range of topics and preferably that cover the range of solutions and benefits of utilising the technology. In the Jena workshop they made two assignments, one for woods and one for rivers, however the river assignment has not been used on this site because it is too open ended. The process takes you through ten (or so) steps and then just stops, whereas the ideal would be to follow the steps on the assignment and to finish with having a completed model and a clear understanding of the whole process. Other nice simple examples might be:   U-Tube   Spring   Bath Tub   Etc.. The Examples section is currently empty and requires filling. All of the Assignments could of course be presented as examples as well. These examples could be a simulation and with a full description but it could also be useful to include articles. The Glossary does contain some detail but it needs to be further developed. There is however a fairly detailed Glossary on the MONET website which we could point to, but it is quite old and it lacks some of the more detailed words and description that we may wish it to contain in this circumstance. The main focus of our efforts should be the Help page, which is the most important section. Soon the assignments will be created and added and then we hope that by the end of MONET the portal is populated with a full range of information. One thing that is strange is that on the Home page we have 'welcome' then 'ecologists', where as this group should be under 'model builders'. It would also help if we used two main headings 'Domains (or Domain Experts)' and 'User Groups' and then subdivide these on the Home page so non-experts know exactly which one applies to them. Domains would then be sub-divided into - Ecologists, Physicists, etc and the User Groups would then be Teachers, Students, etc. This would then lead to a page that would give you information that you needed in a way that was expressed for your use. It would then suggest assignments that you may want to look at / work through and explain why these would be of use. What would also be useful is to have a standard heading information for each assignment to let the users know who the assignment is aimed at and what it is demonstrating i.e. Title: Key Concepts: Target Audience: We also need to look into how this will be continued into the future, after the end of this phase of MONET. One suggestion was to make the Portal an online 'Publication' wherein work could be submitted and then cited. This would require an Editorial Board and a Peer Review process and raises the question of who would co-ordinate this. In the first instance Janet (MONET Project Administrator) will continue to work for MONET ½ a day a week for 18 months after the conclusion of the Project (end March 2005). So this would be a first port of call for questions and submission. One advantage of doing this would be that people who were required to write these assignments for their classes would then submit these to the site and turn 'work' into a 'publication' with very little extra effort. However there is little point in installing these procedures without momentum behind the site and this will not really be generated without initial content. Creating this initial content is where we should focus our efforts in the short term, with a view to how they can be continued in the long term - this should be discussed and hopefully put in place before the end of MONET. The Portal also needs to be advertised, especially outside of the QR Community, in order for people who would benefit from it to be aware of its existence. Initially this needs to be advertised in the MONET Newsletter. ACTION (3) (rir) - Ensure the Web Portal is advertised in the next Newsletter. It is envisaged that as the STReP moves forward it will have a focus on model building / builders and the Portal should play an important part in that. This will hopefully both advertise and populate the site. Also in Amsterdam in July there is the AI-Net conference and an effort should be made to advertise and explain the Portal. On a similar subject, some effort needs to be put into ensuring that the end result is usable by the target groups. The MONET-SETPOINT work will help; JuanJose also stated that they were working with High School teachers on how best to introduce models to the curriculum. They also volunteered to produce a Spanish version of the website. It is important that whatever information is on the website is both focused towards and understandable to the intended audience. ACTION (4) (JJ / JV) - Investigate production of Spanish version of Portal In conclusion we have three main issue to work on:   How to populate the Portal        Assignment promised   Rir - Population model and Introductory lecture ppt   JoseVi / JuanJo - Spring Model   Franz - Diagnosis Example   Tim - Single Population   How to ensure it keeps going after MONET concludes   How to ensure more people get involved and use the Portal (i.e. Advertising) SETPOINT Not a huge amount has happened just recently, continued to talk to teachers and focused work on what areas of the curriculum it would be most useful for them to have models in. Most (if not all) of the software that is used is replacing complex / dangerous / long-term experiments and the software models the 'experiment' not the 'process'. The classic example is photosynthesis, where the programme shows a plant in a jar and students can turn up the CO2, turn down the temperature, etc., instead of actually trying to represent the process of photosynthesis and therefore giving the learner an insight into what is actually going on in the plant. Most of the models that schools are interested in are these biological type models, especially where there is a need to have an 'overall' view and particularly where there are feedback mechanisms involved (homeostasis / female sex hormones) as experience had shown that learners have difficulty with understanding the underlying concepts of these. Aberystwyth has a Research Assistant (Jon Bell) working on building some software and models and Chris Price is going to get some final year students to do their project on this topic. The deliverable document is currently just a record of the stages we have gone through so far and a target area needs to be identified. Of note is that Jacques Masters Thesis was on building a Qualitative Model of the Water Cycle and Barbara did her Masters Thesis on the Carbon Cycle. The overall idea would be to provide a model that can be used on two levels, i.e. for the younger learners (c. 14 - 16 years olds) they would be using the models to gain an understanding of the underling issues. Where as older learners (c. 17 - 18 year olds) would hopefully be interacting with the models themselves and learning how to model. The idea would be to try to turn this work into a Project with some funding. National Waterfront Museum The Computer Science Dept at Aberystwyth was approached by the organisers of this project and asked if we could provide anything for this new Museum (which opens next Easter). MONET will be part of this exhibit, starting with a robotics feature and developing onto QR / AI and then onto the application areas of the Task Groups. The Exhibit will be interactive and feature short films on the areas and will be on display for 6 to 12 months. One possible idea for this Task Groups exhibit is that we could get a basic robot (Sony dog style) and connect it up to a QR engine with some simple speech software and the dog could then interact with the Museum visitor and discuss the Cerrado Vegetation issues, for example. Another, easier, way to do this would be to have the interaction with something on the screen, rather than a robot. Funding Life Programme - ACTION (5) (rir) - Get more details of Life Programme. This is a small funding area but one that is little known. The focus is very much on producing 'something', a physical end product, and so is not necessarily aimed at research but there is obviously a research element. One of these 'end products' can be teaching and information dissemination. The ideas that we have are not closely related to the topics but we could tailor some of our work to fit more precisely into the required areas. A couple of examples of successful projects were the decontamination of mines using chemical denaturing bacteria, and a system to move vast quantities of water around Europe from where there is too much to where there is not enough, and visa-versa. So we would not 'sell' this project on QR but we may use QR to build something that we could 'sell' the project with. There is an area within this Program that deals with 'Sustainable use of Surface and Ground Water', 'Wastewater Management' and also 'Reducing Environmental impacts of Products and Services'. All of these could utilise our technology but it would almost involve us putting together a broader project in order to ensure it needed us - this is obviously quite a lot of work. To take this forward we would have to sit down and pick an area and then build the project around it. Wastewater may be a way forward as there are people we know who are researching in this area (5 out of 10 talks as BESA'04 were on Wastewater). Interreg - ACTION (6) (rir) - Get more details of Interreg. This is a Funding body designed to establish cooperative research in certain regions of Europe. The basic aim is to ensure similar strategies for tackling structural issues throughout Europe in areas where inter-regional cooperation is the only was to tackle inter-regional problems. Interreg is (by design) a lot less specified that LIFE Programme. They suggest rough areas that they are looking for Projects in but do not specify exactly what they want. Subject areas include  Sustainable management of Water Resources and prevention of flood damage       o Land water use and systems       o Prevention of flood damage  Stronger Ecological Infrastructure / Reduced Ecological footprint One thing we need to do is investigate the process itself and ensure that we understand how Interreg works and who is running it and what they want. ACTION (7) (rir) - Find out about Interreg and especially who is running it and why. Whether we fit into this work or not, one thing we must do is to prove that the project would be required by the Region that is involved. One way may be to look at the SETPOINT Wales project and expand this to a project that looks at the benefit to the different curriculum throughout the Region. Marie Curie Are looking to put in a proposal for a Marie Currie network. "Cognition for Environmental Understanding" This would be focused on  Science Teaching  Sustainable Development  Environment (inc Ecology)  Economics  Social / Culture May include Specific Domain expertise, Naive Knowledge, Cognition, Machine Learning, QR ,etc. Next call (two stage application, stage one deadline c. 14th Nov) is for multidisciplinary projects. Next call is a year later and open to any sort of network.  We need to decide on a topic  We need to decide who is to be involved  We need background info on what MC want who is managing the funds  We should get in touch with individual national contact points ACTION (8) (rir) - Look into this / previously successful (unsuccessful) proposals ACTION (9) (rir) - Write up SS document and also include MONET1 Summer School Roadmap The discussion was on the evolution of the Roadmap and the justification for the changes and alteration that have been made. The initial Review of the Roadmap was done in Amsterdam where the group reviewed the Graphical Map first. We also had a version that was drawn up by Michael Neumann, this meeting will start by comparing the three versions of the roadmap (Old, Amsterdam and Michael's) and agree a common text. DRIVERS - One thing that Michael did was to represent all of the drivers in terms of the specific user group to which they applied, or to group the drivers under a 'General' heading if they applied to all user groups. The Valencia meeting felt that this gave extra clarity to the Drivers table and altered its structure accordingly and to this end introduced the following target User Groups.  General(applicable to all User Groups)  Students  Citizens / Stakeholders / Decision Makers  Scientists / Researchers  Employee Training / Industry Discussion then went onto the meaning and position of the factors in the Roadmap Driver, Products and Technologies. Actions ACTION (1) (rir) - Change minutes of last meeting to original version in Newsletter ACTION (2) (All) - Complete and submit Assignments to Bert ACTION (3) (rir) - Ensure the Web Portal is advertised in the next Newsletter ACTION (4) (JJ / JV) - Investigate production of Spanish version of Portal ACTION (5) (rir) - Get more details of Life Programme ACTION (6) (rir) - Get more details of Interreg ACTION (7) (rir) - Find out about Interreg and especially who is running it and why ACTION (8) (rir) - Look into this / previously successful (unsuccessful) proposals ACTION (9) (rir) - Write up SS document and also include MONET1 Summer School
[Page top] Any problems with this page please contact: Web maintainer Page last updated: November 8th , 2004