Building a good instructional design requires a sound organization management to program and articulate several tasks based for instance on the time availability, process follow-up, social and educational context. Furthermore, learning outcomes are the basis involving every educational activity. Thus, based on a predefined ontology, including the instructional educative model and its characteristics, we propose the use of a Long Short–Term Memory Artificial Neural Network (LSTM) to organize the structure and automatize the obtention of learning outcomes for a focused instructional design. We present encouraging results in this direction through the use of a LSTM using as the training data, a small learning outcomes set predefined by the user, focused on the characteristics of an educative model previously defined.
DaneS., Kaggle US Baby Names–Explore naming trends from babies born in the US, National Data on the relative frequency of given names in the population of U.S. births where the individual has a Social Security Number (Tabulated based on Social Security records as of March, 2015), https://www.kaggle.com/chr7stos/us-names-babies-and-presindent-names/data, Python notebook using data from US Baby Names, 2015.
BaumeD., Writing and using good learning outcomes, Leeds Metropolitan University, ISBN 978-0-9560099-5-1, 2009.
5.
HartelR.W., FoegedingE.A., Learning: Objectives, Competencies, or Outcomes?, in, Journal of Food Science, Education: Teaching Tips3 (2004), 69–70.
6.
KawthekarP., RewariR. and BhooshanS., Evaluating Generative Models for Text Generation, The Stanford Natural Language Processing Group, Course Project Reports for 2017, CS224n: Natural Language Processing with Deep Learning (Winter 2017) (2017), 1–8.
7.
ShakespeareW., Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2006.
8.
YuY., SiX., HuCh. and ZhangJ., A Review of Recurrent Neural Networks: LSTM Cells and Network Architectures, in Neural Computation 31, Review Communicated by Terrence Sejnowski (2019), 1235–1270.
9.
HochreiterS. and SchmidhuberJ., Long Short–Term Memory, in, Neural Computation9(8) (1997), 1735–1780.
10.
ZhangW., LiY. and WangS., Learning document representation via topic-enhanced LSTM model, in Knowledge–Based Systems, Elsevier 174 (2019), 194–204.
11.
UdumaL. and MorrisonG.R., How do instructional designers use automated instructional design tool?, in, Computers in Human Behavior23 (2007), 536–553.
12.
ShakespeareW., Shakespeare’s Sonnets and a Lover’s Complaint, in Clarendon Press1907.
13.
WangY., LiuS., AfzalN., Rastegar–MojaradM., WangL., ShenF., KingsburyP. and LiuH., A comparison of word embeddings for the biomedical natural language processing, in, Journal of Biomedical Informatics87 (2018), 12–20.
14.
PandeyA.K., RathoreP.S. and BalamuruganS., A Practical Approach for Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms Tools and Technique using MATLAB and Python, in BPB Publications, 2019.
15.
López–SolazT., TroyanoJ.A., OrtegaF.J. and EnríquezF., Una aproximación al uso de word embeddings en una tarea de similitud de textos en español, in Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, Revista número 57, septiembre de 2016, págs. 67–74.
16.
Kenyon–DeanK., NewellE., CheungJ.C.K., Deconstructing word embedding algorithms, in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8479–8484, November 16–20, 2020.
17.
WangB., WangA., ChenF., WangY. and KuoJ., Evaluating Word Embedding Models: Methods and Experimental Results, in arXiv:1901.09785v2 [cs.CL] 29 January 2019.
18.
ChenG., A Gentle Tutorial of Recurrent Neural Network with Error Backpropagation, in arXiv:1610.02583v3 [cs.LG] 14 January 2018.
19.
CrawfordE.O., HigginsH.J. and HilburnJ., Using a global competence model in an instructional design course before social studies methods: A developmental approach to global teacher education, in The Journal of Social Studies Research, doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2020.04.002, 2020.
20.
DinutaN., Didactic Strategies Used in Teaching – Learning of Premathematical Operations in Preschool Education, in Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 76, pages 297 – 301, Elsevier, 2013.
21.
BowerG.H. and HilgardE.R., Theories of Learning, in Prentice–Hall, 1975.
22.
TsapatsoulisN., Chapter 2: Learning Theories, in Learning Principles and Approaches: Summary of Learning Theories, Learning Technologies & Open and Distance Education, Lecture Notes CS654, Computer Science Department of the University of Cyprus, Spring Semester, 2003 – 2005.
23.
LooβM., Types of Learning? A pedagogic hypothesis put to the test, in OECD Better Policies for Better Lives, nine pages, https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/34926352.pdf (this article was published in: Die Deutsche Schule 93 (2001) 2, 186–198).
24.
GibbsG., Learning by Doing, First Edition, in Oxford Brookes University, 2013.
25.
Anzures-GarcíaM., Sánchez-GálvezL.A., HornosM.J. and Paderewski-RodríguezP., A Workflow Ontology to SupportKnowledge Management in a Groups Organizational Structure, Comput. & Sist22(1) (2018), 163–178.
BilonEdmund, Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Objectives: The ABCDs of Writing Learning Objectives: A Basic Guide, Kindle Paperwhite international, ISBN–13 978–1797084848, 2019.
28.
ChatterjeeDebnath and CorralJanet, How to Write Well–Defined Learning Objectives,E610, Published online, Journal of Education Perioperative Medicine19(4) (2017), E610, Published online.
