Intelligent courseware development and delivery

• US 20040029093A1
• Filed: 03/13/2003
• Published: 02/12/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 09/13/2000
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Cloverworxs Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Cloverworxs Incorporated
• Inventors: Guignard, Paul
• Application Number:
  US10/380,298
• Publication Number:
  US 20040029093A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/365
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/06 of the multiple-choice answer-type, i.e. where a given question is provided with a series of answers and a choice has to be made from the answers

Abstract

The invention concerns a system for intelligent courseware development and delivery. It particularly involves a knowledge representation system having knowledge items expressed as respective mappings with multimedia explanations between patterns in a multidimensional problem space onto a multidimensional solution space. The problem and solution spaces form the context for the knowledge. Knowledge is accessed by consultations, where the user answers a question and the knowledge representation system uses the answer to automatically select another question. Items of course material are represented as respective knowledge items. Course elements are used to generate questions and tests semi-automatically in which the explanations can become the questions and the problem or source regions are presented to the learner as the options for the answers in multiple choice questions. The same model can be used for interactive learning games for individuals or groups of people.

Claims

1. A system for intelligent courseware development and delivery, comprising:

a knowledge representation system having knowledge items expressed as respective mappings between patterns in a multidimensional problem space onto a multidimensional solution space, where the problem and solution spaces form the context for the knowledge, and knowledge is accessed by consultations where the user answers a question and the knowledge representation system uses the answer to automatically select another question; and

where items of course material are represented as respective knowledge items.

2. A system according to claim 1, where the context is made of attributes, with each attribute having a type, a title, an explanation of its meaning and a set of values.

3. A system according to claim 1 or 2, where a knowledge item has a type, a title, a problem space and a solution space.

4. A system according to claim 2, where a subset of the problem space defines the applicability of a knowledge item;

it is defined by a subset of the attributes in the context and their values.

5. A system according to claim 2, where a subset of the solution space specifies how a problem can be solved;

it is defined by a subset of the attributes in the context and their values.

6. A system according to claim 2, where knowledge elements also have a category they belong to and, often, a super-category or module as higher classification.

7. A system according to claim 1, where knowledge elements are presented in a separate window that is opened on screen.

8. A system according to claim 7, where each knowledge element, when displayed, shows a header with some or all of the following information:

a title of the knowledge element;

a module and category it belongs to;

a level of difficulty or alternatively the level of difficulty for this particular student;

whether it has already been seen or visited or studied by the user;

whether it needs attention by this learner the type of material it is;

a learning mode.

9. A system according to claim 8, where the information, except the title of the course element and the module and category it belongs to, is presented in the form of icons.

10. A system according to claim 8 or 9, where underneath the header the system displays some or all of the following elements:

an explanation about how the situation can be solved or dealt with;

a list of the attributes that form the solution region and the values of these attributes;

a list of the attributes that form the problem or situation region and the values of these attributes;

11. A system according to claim 1, where knowledge elements are presented in views, that is, as a list underneath a category or module title.

12. A system according to claim 11, where information displayed next to each element is one or more of the following:

the level of difficulty or alternatively the level of difficulty for this particular student;

whether it has already been seen by the learner;

whether it needs attention by this learner;

a learning mode;

13. A system according to claim 1, where the system provides a pre-learning test designed to ascertain the competency level of the student before any new learning takes place.

14. A system according to claim 13, where the system provides a practice test to enable students to access a set of questions and get a mark;

this mark is then used to update the competency level and the relative degree of difficulty of the course elements, as determined by a pre-learning test or practice test.

15. A system according to claim 14, where an exam test functions as a practice test but the test results are communicated to the trainer.

16. A system according to claim 14 or 15, where the system re-uses knowledge elements by copying and then storing them for use as the basis for a question.

17. A system according to claim 16 where each element has a problem region, a subset of the problem space, that forms the basis of a question/answer by asking the learner to specify what application or situation or problem this course element is suitable for.

18. A system according to claim 17, where copied knowledge elements can be used in two ways.

a trainer checks that the explanation of the course element is understandable as a question and, if not, modifies it;

or

a also modifies the problem region.

19. A system according to any one of claims 13 to 18, where at run time, the system selects the questions randomly among the available questions.

20. A system according to any one of claims 13 to 18, where a test result can be used to determine a student'"'"'s competency level which can then be used to personalise the difficulty of course elements in the module.

21. A system according to claim 1, where the system provides assignments which a trainer checks and grades.

22. A system according to claim 21, where the assignments are produced using one or more of the following steps:

a statement of requirement is presented to the student the student writes a contribution and submits it;

the system presents the student with examples of correct or appropriate statements and the student'"'"'s first contribution in non-editable mode;

the system invites the student to compare the previous contribution with the examples and write an improved statement below the first contribution;

23. A system according to claim 1, where the system provides assignments where a case or situation is presented to a learner as a series of knowledge elements, and the learner is then asked a series of questions about the situation and how to deal with it, and these assignments are graded automatically by the system.

24. A system according to claim 23, where the assignments are constructed out of the elements already available in the system and presented sequentially, followed by a series of questions produced using a subset of the problem space of each element.

25. A system according to claim 1, where a trainer is able to specify the learning mode for each course element.

26. A system according to claim 25, where a learner'"'"'s preferred learning mode is determined using a consultation.

27. A system according to claim 26, where each course element and a learners preferred mode and indicates whether or not they match.

28. A system according to claim 1, where a trainer is able to specify parameters that define the way the system behaves, they include:

parameters used to specify the behaviour of the knowledge representation system;

maximum number of questions per test;

pass rate for a tests;

lower rate for an intermediary competency level;

lower rate for an advanced competency level.

29. A system according to claim 1, where information captured by the system about the learner and its use of the system is used to provide the following feedback:

a learning mode and whether it matches that of the learner;

which course elements have been visited and which have not;

whether a module is ‘

not started’

, ‘

in progress’

or ‘

passed;

’

whether a course element requires revision or attention.

30. A system according to claim 1, where the system provides dynamic scenarios in which users are offered choices at certain points in a story, and the choice selected then determines what the next part of the story will be.

31. A system according to claim 30, where the source region of each page is used to output the question.

32. A system according to claim 30, where the questions answered so far and path followed so far determine which is the next question to ask.

33. A system according to claim 1, where the system provides interactive games where the behaviour of the opponent is unpredictable.

34. A system according to claim 33, where a ‘

game master’

sets the boundaries for the game by specifying the source context for the knowledge items and the destination context to provide a framework for the players to define their own rules and behaviours.

35. A system according to claim 33, where each player defines their own behaviour by defining knowledge items, and the source space of the knowledge item determines when the behaviour will be triggered during the game and a knowledge item explanation can be used to provide some description of the behaviour and perhaps its reason.