Collaborative Crossover: Identifying Classical Vocal Collaborative ...
Towards identifying Collaborative Learning groups using Social Media
-
Upload
selver-softic -
Category
Documents
-
view
257 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Towards identifying Collaborative Learning groups using Social Media
TOWARDS IDENTIFYING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING GROUPS USING SOCIAL MEDIA
Selver SofticSocial Learning
Agenda
• Motivation• Problem statement• Methodology• Concept• Implementation• Evaluation• Conclusion and future work
Motivation
• Web 2.0• User generated content• Social Networks• Microblogging• Twitter
http://blog.socialmaximizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Social-Media.jpg
Motivation• 57% of people talk to people more online than they do in real life• 40% of Twitter users don’t tweet, but instead use it to keep up to date• A great majority of tweets are just 40 characters long• Social media use is becoming much more even across age groups (see graph below)
http://thesocialskinny.com/100-social-media-statistics-for-2012/
Motivation ctd.
• Huge amount of informations• Sharing of interests, experiences etc.• no cultural or georgraphical boundaries• Implicit knowledge• Appliances: conferences, course support, viral
marketing
Problem statement
• Cluster users into sub-networks based upon their interest using topic items and social relations
• Provide a filtered view on information generated in their micro sub-networks
• Which methods or technologies would be suitable for this challenge?
• Define and evaluate the metrics that can be used to achieve this goal!
Methodology
• Basic metrics– #hashtags– @mentions– occurrence
• Evaluation tools: – Cosine Similarity, Euclidian Distance, Thresholds
• Focus on relevant information carriers
Concept: interest group
H α
I(i)
G(i)
αα δ
tc,tl
Implementation• Reference source
– Grabeeter database– 1600 users– approx. 4,7 million tweets
• Reference data base– 100 users talking on term „e-learning“– always last 250 hundred tweets considered
• Verfication account• Scaling the input vectors• Thresholds: 10% and 20%
http://grabeeter.tugraz.at/
Implementation
Implementations ctd.
• Similarity API– user to user– user to user group
• user grou can be randomised
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Conclusion and future work
• Results encouraging but:– More accurate and qualitative evaluation of
clustering– Involving other methods Pearson, Jaccard– Extending the measurement on more appliance
cases and reference users regarding the collaborative learning issues
• Later: k-means, hierarchical clustering
Contact
Twitter: @selvers
Mail: [email protected]
Slideshare:selvos
Linkedin:http://at.linkedin.com/pub/selver-softic/24/33b/211