This document summarizes research conducted by a group of students and faculty at the University of Illinois at Chicago to develop an ontology for student lifecycle management (SLM). They conducted interviews and reviewed literature to understand the key dimensions and concepts relating to SLM. They then developed a conceptual model and taxonomy to capture this knowledge in an ontology. The ontology was validated through presentations and feedback from university staff and administration. The goal was to synthesize institutional knowledge on SLM into a formal conceptual model to help monitor student progress and identify retention issues.

1. Collaborative Conceptual
Modeling Using an Ontology
Arkalgud Ramaprasad, Steven Diduca, Abhinaya Javier, Tarun Misra, Ganesh
Parasuraman, Pratibha Prabhakaran, Himanshu Sharma, Devi Subramanian,
Anuroopa Thangaraja, Ankita Vij, David Yi and Jolita Zukaite
University of Illinois at Chicago
Presented at CRIWG 2010, Maastricht, Netherlands
September 20, 2010
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 1

2. September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 2

3. Student Lifecycle Management (SLM)
Objectives
• Identify success factors
• Monitor matriculation
• Monitor academic progress
• Identify retention issues
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 3

4. The Challenge
Collaborative conceptual modeling to
synthesize the knowledge for design.
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 4

5. The Solution
Ontological Design:
Capturing the core logic of student
lifecycle management.
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 5

6. SLM Knowledge Acquisition
• Presentation by the Decision Support (DS) staff
• Documents provided by DS staff
• Presentation by and discussion with an Assistant Dean of
Undergraduates
• Presentation by and discussion with Vice Provost of Admissions and
Records of the University
• Exhaustive review of academic and practitioner literature on SLM
• Exhaustive review of practices, policies, and procedures across the
three University campuses
• Review of practices, policies, and procedures in other US
universities
• Informal discussions with undergraduate students outside the class
• Personal experience of students.
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 6

7. An Ontology of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 7

8. An Ontology of SLM – Abbreviated
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 8

9. Dimensions of SLM
• Outcome
• Users
• Stage
• Bases
• Knowledge Management
– System
– Frequency
– Semiotics
• Phase
• Stage
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 9

10. Taxonomy of Outcome of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 10

11. Taxonomy of Users of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 11

12. Taxonomy of Stage of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 12

13. Taxonomy of Bases of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 13

14. Taxonomy of System for SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 14

15. Taxonomy of Frequency of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 15

16. Semiotics of SLM
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 16

17. An Ontology of SLM – Abbreviated
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 17

18. Validation of Ontology
• Mid‐term presentation
• End‐of‐term presentation
– Ontology
– Dashboards
• Client comments
• Client insights
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 18

19. Conclusion
The logic of SLM in 8.5 x 11.
September 20, 2010 © Arkalgud Ramaprasad et al. 19