Case-based analysis in user requirements modelling for knowledge construction
Sun, L. and Mushi, C. (2010) Case-based analysis in user requirements modelling for knowledge construction. Information and Software Technology, 52 (7). pp. 770-777. ISSN 0950-5849
To link to this item DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.010
Context: Learning can be regarded as knowledge construction in which prior knowledge and experience serve as basis for the learners to expand their knowledge base. Such a process of knowledge construction has to take place continuously in order to enhance the learners’ competence in a competitive working environment. As the information consumers, the individual users demand personalised information provision which meets their own specific purposes, goals, and expectations. Objectives: The current methods in requirements engineering are capable of modelling the common user’s behaviour in the domain of knowledge construction. The users’ requirements can be represented as a case in the defined structure which can be reasoned to enable the requirements analysis. Such analysis needs to be enhanced so that personalised information provision can be tackled and modelled. However, there is a lack of suitable modelling methods to achieve this end. This paper presents a new ontological method for capturing individual user’s requirements and transforming the requirements onto personalised information provision specifications. Hence the right information can be provided to the right user for the right purpose. Method: An experiment was conducted based on the qualitative method. A medium size of group of users participated to validate the method and its techniques, i.e. articulates, maps, configures, and learning content. The results were used as the feedback for the improvement. Result: The research work has produced an ontology model with a set of techniques which support the functions for profiling user’s requirements, reasoning requirements patterns, generating workflow from norms, and formulating information provision specifications. Conclusion: The current requirements engineering approaches provide the methodical capability for developing solutions. Our research outcome, i.e. the ontology model with the techniques, can further enhance the RE approaches for modelling the individual user’s needs and discovering the user’s requirements.
 J.S. Brown, A.R. Adler, Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0, EDUCAUSE Review 43 (1) (2008) 16–32.  K. Wright, Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance, Knowledge Management Research and Practice 3 (2005) 156–165.  P. Brusilovsky, Adaptive hypermedia, user modelling and user adapted interaction, in: A. Kobsa (Ed.), Ten Year Anniversary Issue, vol. 11(1/2), 2001, pp. 87–110.  P. Laplante, Requirements Engineering for Software and Systems, CRC Press,Redmond, WA, 2009.  B. Nuseibeh, S. Easterbrook, Requirements engineering: a Roadmap, in: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, 2000, pp. 35–46.  A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Fernandez-Lopez, O. Corcho, Ontological Engineering-with Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web, Springer-Verlag, London, 2004.  L. Sun, K. Ousmanou, Articulation of information requirements for personalised knowledge construction, Journal of Requirements Engineering 11 (4) (2006) 279–293.  A. Lau, E. Tsui, Knowledge management perspective on e-learning effectiveness, Knowledge-Based Systems 22 (4) (2009) 324–325.  K. Liu, L. Sun, J. Fu, Ontological modelling for content management and provision, Journal of Information & Software Technology 50 (11) (2008) 1155–1164.  P.C. Honebein, T. Duffy, B. Ishman, Constructivism and the Design of Learning Environment: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning. Design Environments for Constructivist Learning, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993. pp. 87–108.  D.H. Jonassen, Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need another philosophical paradigm?, Educational Technology Research and Development 39 (1) (1991) 5–14  A. Nanjappa, M.M. Grant, Constructing on constructivism: the role of technology, Electronic Journal of the Integration of Technology in Education 2 (1) (2003) 38–55.  K. Liu, Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.  C.S. Peirce, in: C. Hartshorne et al. (Eds.), Collected Papers of CS Peirce, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1935.  K.-D. Althoff, D. Pfahl, Making Software Engineering Competence Development Sustained Through Systematic Experience Management, Managing Software Engineering Knowledge, Springer-Verlag, 2003.  C. Estes, Promoting student-centred learning in experiential education, The Journal of Experiential Education 27 (2) (2004) 141–161.  C. Reigeluth, Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates Mahwah, NJ, 1999.  R. Schank, Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1982.  Z. Liu, W. Ng, E. Lim, Personalized web views for multilingual web sources, IEEE Internet Computing (2004) 16–22.  J. Cao, J. Wang, K. Law, S. Zhang, M. Li, An interactive service customization model, Journal of Information and Software Technology 48 (4) (2006) 280– 296.  S. Pedersen, D. Williams, A comparison of assessment practices and their effects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environment, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13 (3) (2004) 283–307.  D. Riecken, Personalized views of personalisation, Communications of the ACM 43 (8) (2000) 26–28.  I.B. Myers, M.H. McCaulley, Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1985.  C.G. Jung, Psychological Types or the Psychology of Individuation, Brace, Harcourt, New York, 1923.  N.D. Fleming, C. Mills, Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection, To Improve the Academy 11 (1992) 137.  T. Iyoshi, M. Hannafin, F. Wang, Cognitive tools and student-centred learning: rethinking tools, functions and applications, Educational Media International 42 (4) (2005) 281–296.  L. Sun, K. Ousmanou, M. Cross, An ontological modelling of user requirements for personalised information provision, Journal of Information Systems Frontiers (2009).  K. Liu, L. Sun, A method for interactive articulation of information requirements for strategic decision support, Journal of Information and Software Technology 43 (2) (2001) 247–263.  A. Aamodt, E. Plaza, Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations and system approaches, Artificial Intelligence Communications 7 (1) (1994) 39–59.  J. Meléndez, J. Colomer, J. Macaya, Case-based reasoning methodology for Supervision, in: Proceedings of the European Control Conference, Oporto, Portugal, 2001, pp. 1600–1605.  W. Vollrath, W. Wilke, R. Bergmann, Case-based reasoning support for online catalogue sales, IEEE Internet Computing (1998) 47–54.  P. Alvis, L. Amaral, J. Pires, Case-based reasoning to adaptive web-based education system, In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008, pp. 260–261.  IEEE Papi, IEEE Public and Private Information. www.edutool.com/papi/, 2003.  IMS lip, Learner Information Package Specification, imsglobal.org/profiles/index.cfm, 2003.  S.E. Middleton, N.R. Shadbolt, D.C. De Roure, Ontological user profiling in recommender systems, ACM Transaction, Information Systems 22 (1) (2004) 54–88.  C.D. Manning, P. Raghavan, H. Schütze, Introduction to Information Retrieval, Cambridge University Press, 2008. ISBN: 978-0521865715.  J. Kalervo, J. Kekalainen, Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 20 (4) (2002) 422–446.  P. Vakkari, Relevance and contributory information types of searched documents in task performance, in: N.J. Belkin, P. Ingwersen, M.K. Leong (Eds), in: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ACM Press, New York, NY, 2000, pp. 2–9.