Control Systems and Computers

https://doi.org/10.15407/csc.2024.02.048

Control Systems and Computers, 2024, Issue 2 (306), pp. 48-64

UDK 303.721; 004.03142

A.F. Manako, Doctor (Eng. ), Chief Department on Research, International Research and Training Center for Information Technologies and Systems of the NAS and MES of Ukraine, Glushkov ave., 40, Kyiv, 03187, Ukraine, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9706-7118, afmanako@gmail.com

V.V. Manako, PhD. (Physics and Mathematics), senior scientist, Ukrainian Language and Information Fund of the NAS of Ukraine, Str. Volodymyrska, 54, Kyiv, 01030, Ukraine, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4945-1892, manvv104@gmail.

MODELS DATA ANALYSIS OF THE  SUBJECT’S LIFELONG LEARNING

Introduction. The modeling of a complex object “data analysis of learning of the subject throughout life”, supported by technology, is experiencing a special stage of its development, undergoing a great influx of potential opportunities and possibilities. induce a steady increase in digital capabilities for everyone, Numerous subjects implement the designated capabilities with different perspectives, goals, at different levels, stages, different approaches, methods, designs, languages, procedures, systems, processes, tools, services, standards The hidden problem It seems that this great potential has not yet been systematically realized throughout life. And therefore, a lot of existing knowledge, models and technologies are often not effectively translated into existing tools for everyone. In our research, modeling focuses at a high level of abstraction on the enhanced understanding of the subject of the strategy for direct development, the adoption of informed solutions to the selection, adaptation of existing and planned Innovative tools, methods, analytics of all types with the help of available management systems.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is develop a formalized description with meaningful interpretations of basic system-forming elements, modeling constructs, a general model, inheritance models and a register of tasks to systematically improve understanding, progress of results, quality of products, services and making informed decisions for stakeholders based on methods and tools data analysis of learning of the subject throughout life.

Methods. System methodology, methods of analogies, didactic methods.

Results. On the basis of fundamental facts, ideas and systematic methodology, at the highest level of formalization, basic system elements, modeling constructs, a general model, inheritance models and a register of tasks are proposed and meaningfully interpreted in order to systematically improve understanding, progress, results, quality of products, services and acceptance reasoned decisions for interested parties based on methods and tools of of learning of the subject throughout life with the help of an accessible management system.

Conclusion. Modeling and practical implementation of an extremely complex process, system <data analysis of learning and behavior of the subject throughout life> in the era of digital transformations requires a comprehensive solution to many complex problems such as understanding, scaling, protection of property, elimination of uncertainty, interoperability, harmonization of existing and planned official and de facto standards. Systematized application of constructions from mathematical theories allows to better see their behavior, destroys uncertainty, helps to scale solutions, etc. Therefore, a necessary condition, a requirement for systematic improvement of models is a complex interpretation of abstractions in the context of the specified problems, as well as their practical approbation using available control systems with the aim of identifying and disseminating best practices to interested parties. The main directions of further research: building models of learning oriented games as part of the developed model of the Register of tasks in order to improve the skills of subjects in relation to data analysis: such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication, subject knowledge, data visualization; research on best practices for using the Glossary.

Download full text! (On Ukrainian)

Keywords: digital transformations, big data, formalization, systematization, inheritance, glossary, task registry, management system. 

1. National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. 2000. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.
   https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
2. Manako, A.F. (2022). “Systematic Investigation of Continuous E-Learning as a Complex Information System”. Control Systems and Computers, no 3, pp. 53-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/csc.2022.03.053
3. Osma, J.I.P., Lopez, D.A.G., Porra, A.A. (2021). “Maturity Model for Virtual Education”. Journal Of E-learning and Higher Education, 4 (11). Article ID 228061, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5171/2021.228061
4. Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. D. C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). “Trends in educational research about e-learning: A systematic literature review (2009-2018)”. Sustainability, 12 (12), 5153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153.
   https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153
5. Webb, S., Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M., Waller, R. (2019). “Conceptualising lifelong learning for sustainable development and education 2030”. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(3), pp. 237-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1635353
6. Wiener, M., Saunders, C., & Marabelli, M. (2020). “Big-data business models: A critical literature review and multiperspective research framework”. Journal of Information Technology, 35(1), pp. 66-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396219896811.
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396219896811
7. Van de Heyde, V., & Siebrits, A. (2019). “The ecosystem of e-learning model for higher education”. South African Journal of Science, 115 (5-6), pp. 1-6.
   https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/5808
8. Balabanov, O.S. (2019). “Big Data Analytics: principles, trends and tasks (a survey)”. Problems of programming. (2), pp. 47-68.
   https://doi.org/10.15407/pp2019.02.047
9. Nygren, H., Nissinen, K., Hamalainen, R., De Wever, B. (2019). “Lifelong learning: Formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of the problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments”. British journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), pp. 1759-1770.
   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807
10. Iden, J., Methlie, L. B., Christensen, G. E. (2017). “The nature of strategic foresight research: A systematic literature review”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, pp. 87-97.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.002
11. Lai, P.C. (2017). “The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology”. ISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14, pp. 21-38.
    https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
12. ISO/IEC TR 20748-2:2017. Information technology for learning, education and training – Learning analytics interoperability. Part 2: System requirements.
13. ISO/IEC TR 20748-1:2016. Information technology for learning, education and training – Learning analytics interoperability. Part 1: Reference model.
14. Caliper Analytics. [online]. Available at: <https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/caliper> [Accessed 01 Feb. 2017].
15. Kapitonova, Yu.V., Letichevsky, A.A. Paradigms of V.M. Glushkova. [online]. Available at: <http://ogas.kiev.ua/en/glushkov/paradygmy-glushkova> [Accessed 05 Sept. 2023].
16. Laal, M. (2011). “Lifelong learning: What does it mean?”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, pp. 470-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.090
17. Khan, B. H. (2010). “The global e-learning framework”. E-learning, pp. 42-51.
18. Nilsson, S. (2010). “Enhancing Individual Employability. The Perspective of Engineering Graduates”. Education + Training, 52, pp. 540-551.
    https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011068487
19. Educational Modeling Languages: A Conceptual Introduction and a High-Level Classification /I.L Martinez-Ortiz, P. Moreno-Ger, J.L. Sierra. Computers and Education 2007, pp. 27-40.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4914-9_3
20. Manako A.F. (2006). “An approach to modeling the purposeful development of innovative information technologies “educational objects”. Problems of programming. (2-3), pp. 475-481.
21. Zgurovsky, M.Z., Pankratova N.D. (2005). System analysis: problems, methodology, applications. K.: Naukova dumka, 744 p.
22. Manako A.F. (2005). “Models of aggregation of conceptual objects of continuous learning with the support of information and telecommunication technologies”. Systemic research and information technologies. 3, pp. 29-37.
23. Norris, D., Mason, J., & Lefrere, P. (2003). Transforming e-Knowledge, Society for College and University Planning: Ann Arbor, USA. 168 p.
24. “IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata,” in IEEE Std 1484.12.1-2020 , vol., no., pp.1-50, 16 Nov. 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9262118
25. Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the Challenge. Report of the Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force), 11 May 2001. 24 p.
26. A memorandum on life-long learning (2000). Commission staff working paper. Brussels, SEC, No 1832, 36 p.
27. Baldrige National Quality Program. (2000). Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. NIST, Guithersburg, MD 20899-1020. 54 p.
28. Baker T., Birlinghoven S. A. (2000). “Grammar of Dublin Core”. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (10), 3. https://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html.
    https://doi.org/10.1045/october2000-baker
29. Bearman, D., Miller, E., Rust, G., Trant, J., & Weibel, S. (1999). ” A common model to support interoperable metadata”. D-Lib magazine, 5(1), pp. 1082-9873.
    https://doi.org/10.1045/january99-bearman
30. Lassila, O. (1997). Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Rec. 134 p.
31. Clark, R.E. (1999). “The Cognitive Science and Human Performance Technology”. In H.D. Stolovitsch, E.J. Keeps, Handbook of Human Performance Technology. San Francasco: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer. pp. 82-95.
32. Sinitsa, K, Manako, A. (1999). “Extending glossary role in a virtual learning environment”. Proceeding of ComNEd’99 IFIP Conference, Finland, pp. 321-327.
33. Communications and Networking in Education: Learning in a Networked Society (2001). Editer by: Downes T. & Watson D. Kluwer Academic Publishers. USA. 348 p.
34. Sinitsa, K., Manako, A. (1999). “Interactive Dictionary as an Information Wish-maker”. Educational Technology Magazine, pp. 22-25.
35. Sinitsa, K. M., & Manako, A. (1999). “Interactive Dictionary in a context of learning”. In Proceedings of the HCI International’99 (the 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction) on Human-Computer Interaction: Communication, Cooperation, and Application Design. Vol. 2. pp. 662-666.
36. Dempsey, L., Heery, R. (1998). “Metadata: Current view of practice and issues”. Journal of Documentation. No 54 (2), pp. 145-172.
    https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007164
37. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College. pp. 44-46.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440211
38. Kolmogorov, A.N. (1987). “Three approaches to defining the concept of “amount of information”. Information theory and algorithm theory, pp. 213-223.
39. Virt, N. Algorithms + data structures = programs. M.: Mir, 1985. 406 p.
40. Ivanchenko (Manako), A.F., Kondratiev, A.I. (1984). “Logical structures in algorithms for calculating estimates”. Cybernetics. No. 4, pp. 121-123.
41. Glushkov, V.M. About cybernetics as a science. Cybernetics, thinking, life. M.: Nauka, 1964. 53 p.

Received 29.11.2023