Conference PaperPDF Available

May I suggest? Three PLE recommender strategies in comparison


Abstract and Figures

Personal learning environment (PLE) solutions aim at empowering learners to design (ICT and web-based) environments for their activities in different learning contexts and even for transitions between these contexts. Hereby, recommender systems which are highly successful in other application areas comprise one relevant technology for supporting learners in PLE-based activities. In this paper we examine the utilization of recommender technology for PLEs. However, being confronted by a variety of educational contexts and due to different research approaches dealing with recommenders, we present three strategies for providing PLE recommendations to learners. Consequently, we compare these recommender strategies by discussing their strengths and weaknesses in general.
Content may be subject to copyright.
May I suggest? Three PLE recommender strategies in comparison
Felix Mödritscher and Barbara Krumay, Vienna University of Economics and
Business, Austria – and
Sandy El Helou and Denis Gillet, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL), Switzerland – and
Sten Govaerts and Erik Duval, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium – and
Alexander Nussbaumer and Dietrich Albert, Graz University of Technology, Austria – and
Ingo Dahn, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany –
Carsten Ullrich, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China –
Personal learning environment (PLE) solutions aim at empowering learners to design
(ICT and web-based) environments for their activities in different learning contexts
and even for transitions between these contexts. Hereby, recommender systems
which are highly successful in other application areas comprise one relevant
technology for supporting learners in PLE-based activities. In this paper we examine
the utilization of recommender technology for PLEs. However, being confronted by a
variety of educational contexts and due to different research approaches dealing with
recommenders, we present three strategies for providing PLE recommendations to
learners. Consequently, we compare these recommender strategies by discussing
their strengths and weaknesses in general.
1. Introduction
Over the last decades, recommender systems have been successfully applied in
various areas, like online retailing (cf. Amazon) or social networking (cf. Facebook).
Due to the success of this kind of technology, research on technology-enhanced
learning (TEL) has started to deal with recommender strategies for learning, as
documented by workshop proceedings (Manouselis et al., 2010) and special issues
in journals (Santos and Boticario, 2011). Addressing more learner-centric TEL
streams, recommendations seem to be a powerful tool for personal learning
environment (PLE) solutions (Mödritscher, 2010). In PLEs, personalized
recommendations help filtering information based on “soft” but significant context
boundaries (Wilson et al. 2007), giving learners the opportunity to take the best of an
environment where shared content differed in quality, target audience, subject
matter, and is constantly expanded, annotated, and repurposed (Downes, 2010).
This paper addresses the generation and provision of PLE recommendations within
the EU project ‘ROLE’ (abbreviation for ‘Responsive Open Learning Environments’,
cf. As ROLE deals with a wide range of educational
scenarios and even with transitions between learning contexts, we present three
different strategies, each one aiming at supporting certain needs of learners.
The paper is structured as follows. The upcoming section summarizes our
understanding of personal learning environments and gives a brief overview of
recommenders for TEL and PLEs. Then, we describe the three recommender
approaches being developed in the ROLE project. Furthermore we discuss benefits
and disadvantages for their application in PLEs before the paper is concluded, and
future work is indicated.
2. PLEs, PLE recommendations, and related work
According to Henri et al. (2008), personal learning environments (PLEs) refer to a set
of learning tools, services, and artifacts gathered from various contexts to be used by
the learners. A typical situation for PLE-based collaboration is depicted in Figure 1. A
learner is involved in two activities, an individual tutoring session in which she
consults the facilitator via Facebook and a task in which she collaboratively works on
an outcome together with a peer actor using four different tools (RSS Feed, Google
Mail, YouTube, and Twitter). This example illustrates how learners interact with their
PLEs consisting of different entities, i.e. tools, content artifacts (like emails or
Tweets), peer actors, etc.
Fig. 1: Example scenario for PLE-based collaboration (see also Wild et al., 2008).
According to Van Harmelen (2008), web-based PLEs aim at empowering learners to
design (ICT-based) environments for their activities by allowing them to build,
connect, and expand learner networks in order to collaborate on shared outcomes
and acquire necessary (professional and rich professional) competences. However
user studies in the fields of higher education (Ullrich et al., 2010) and workplace
learning (Kooken et al., 2007) evidence that learners – and even teachers!
(Windschitl and Sahl, 2002) – have varying attitudes towards hand-on skills in using
ICT for learning.
Against this background, PLE solutions should provide facilities for empowering
learners in using this kind of technology. One possible solution is the application of
recommender technology, because recommendations are necessary if users have to
make choices without sufficient personal experiences of alternatives (Resnick and
Varian, 1997). This aspect is considerably the case for informal learning activities of
(lifelong) learners who try to utilize PLE technology in highly different contexts in
order to achieve their goals. Thus recommendations could be valuable for various
aspects of PLE-based learning activities, e.g. for formulating concrete learning goals
or needs, retrieving relevant artifacts, finding relevant peers or tools, getting
suggestions for learner interactions in a specific situation, etc.
Coming to fame particularly by their application in eCommerce (like or
social networking platforms (like, recommender systems describe
systems that produce individualized recommendations as output or have the effect
of guiding the user in a personalized way to interesting or useful objects in a large
space of possible options” (Burke, 2002). Recommenders can follow various
different strategies, such as item-based ones (e.g. content artifacts or links to users),
model-based ones (e.g. by applying probabilistic models or networked structures),
collaborative filtering (based on user-given data-sets), or hybrid strategies (cf.
Mödritscher, 2010). Moreover, Verbert and Duval (2011) outline the importance of
building upon real-world data-sets, e.g. in the form of user interaction data or (implicit
and explicit) user feedback, to develop and improve TEL recommender systems.
A lot of research on recommendation services has been done in the last few years.
Amongst others, theoretical work on this issue proposes models and ontologies for
recommendations in the educational domain (Santos and Boticario, 2010) or
recommendation frameworks based on content and context (Broisin et al., 2010). On
a more practical level, other approaches deal with concrete facilities like social
navigation elements for educational libraries (Brusilovsky et al., 2010), ranking
algorithms for lecture slides (Wang and Sumiya, 2010), people finder for workplace
learning (Beham et al., 2010) or even algorithms for predicting student performance
(Thai-Nghe et al., 2010).
However, in the ROLE project we are facing new challenges which have led to the
development of different recommender strategies for PLE settings.
3. Three different PLE recommender approaches
A grand challenge of the EU project ROLE concerns the wide range of learning
contexts to be supported through responsive open learning environments. As being
targeted by the vision of the project (cf.,
ROLE claims to support learners in different educational contexts, starting with
formal and informal learning scenarios at universities and at workplaces and
reaching to the many contexts of lifelong learning. Moreover, it is even a goal to
support transitions between these contexts, as indicated by the five test-beds
(‘university to company’ transition, ‘individual to shared competences’ transition,
‘formal to informal learning’ transition etc). Consequently, the project focuses on
integrating flexible infrastructures, i.e. widget technology, into existing learning
platforms and on different approaches to personalize learning, amongst others by
providing context-sensitive PLE recommendations to the learners.
In the upcoming subsections we briefly describe three of these recommender
strategies being developed in the project and following different paradigms.
3.1 Federated Search and Collaborative Recommendation Widget
The first approach developed within the ROLE project is implemented as a federated
search and recommendation widget exploiting the usage of resources by people
sharing the same learning and/or social context. The ‘Binocs’ widget (see Figure 2)
employs a federated search engine that aggregates heterogeneous resources and
forwards them to a recommender system. Recommended resources ranging from
wiki pages, videos, to presentations can be saved, shared, assessed, and re-
purposed according to each user’s interest.
Fig. 2: Federated search and collaborative recommendation widget ‘Binocs’
displaying the results for the query ‘learn french introduction’ and the opened
settings menu.
To rank resources, the recommender system takes the following user actions into
account: (1) selecting a resource from a search result, (2) liking or disliking a search
result (using a thumbs up and down feature) and (3) previewing a search result. The
learning and social context can be derived from the course (e.g. all students from a
course share similar interests), the business setting (e.g. all employees of the sales
department) or from the user’s friends and contacts in the widget container (via the
OpenSocial API (Mitchell-Wong et al., 2007)). The recommender system relies on an
algorithm influenced by Google's original PageRank algorithm (Page et al., 1999)
and based on the 3A interaction model (El Helou et al, 2009). In the absence of
previous user interaction with a resource, ranking is still possible based on the
resource relevance to the search query.
A preliminary evaluation of the widget’s usability and recommendation usefulness is
summarized in Govaerts et al. (2011a). The evaluation helped to improve the user
interface, and revealed that users prefer Google results due to their diversity. The
widget’s results were biased to media, while Google provides a wider range of Web
pages. This can be remedied by adding more repositories to the federated search
engine to drive the recommendations. On the other hand, pilot users agreed on the
usefulness of the collaborative recommendations on top of the search results. We
plan to evaluate the use of the recommender system further through the analysis of
user online feedback (by clicking on top N recommended items) and through user
surveys in real-life scenarios.
Two more usability and usefulness evaluation studies of the Binocs widget being
used in a PLE were conducted (Govaerts et al., 2011b). One was done in the context
of Business English courses at the Shanghai Jiao-Tong University (SJTU, where the widget is used to provide access to social media
resources (e.g. YouTube and SlideShare). The second evaluation was conducted in
a business setting, more specifically within an international corporation, FESTO
( where the widget is used to assist sales people by offering
more efficient search over multiple product databases. The results for the widget in
the business setting are more positive than in the university. Potential explanations
are the higher stability of the learning environment at FESTO and the slow internet
connection perceived at the SJTU, which could have biased the evaluation of our
federated search and recommendation services. Moreover it was noted that
extending the available repositories would be helpful to get richer search results.
3.2 Community-based PLE recommender
A second recommender going beyond collaborative recommendations within a single
widget is implemented as part of a practice sharing approach for learning
communities (see Mödritscher et al., 2010). Basically, the idea is to integrate a
pattern repository into existing PLE solutions so that users can voluntarily share their
PLE usage experiences as ‘good practices’ with peers. Thereby, a pattern repository
is a web-based service (with a RESTful API) which allows storing and retrieving
patterns of PLE-based activities, i.e. recordings of learner interactions with a tool
mash-up used for a specific situation (see also right-hand side of Figure 3). Overall,
this practice sharing approach is intended to be for informal learning settings, thus
supporting life-long learners in achieving their personal needs but also in succeeding
at the workplace or in further education.
Fig. 3: Client-sided PLE solution PAcMan (left) and proposed architecture of a PLE
practice sharing infrastructure (right, taken from Mödritscher et al., 2010).
The data for this recommender approach is captured through facilities of the PLE
which enables users to share such an activity pattern in a simply way. A prototypic
version of the pattern repository has been integrated in two different PLE like
solutions, a client-sided one (PAcMan add-on, cf.
US/firefox/addon/176479) and in OpenSocial-based widget containers (like iGoogle
or Liferay). The format of the activity patterns to be shared has to be specified by the
PLE developers who aim at integrating the pattern repository. For the PAcMan add-
on, the shared data is given as JSON which consists of web resources being
structured according to a simple activity model (an activity is a list of user-tagged
URLs; see also left-hand side of Figure 3). Data capturing in OpenSocial containers
is realized through a widget which records all events triggered by the widget on a
mash-up page if it has been added to this page. After pressing the ‘Share’ button,
the recording of learner-triggered events (user interactions) is stored to the
repository on the basis of the Contextualized Attention Metadata (CAM) schema.
As the format of the shared activity patterns depends on the PLE solution submitting
the data, a recommender strategy has to be implemented for each data format.
Currently, the standard algorithm available can be characterized as a collaborative
filtering (CF) technique, as it measures the occurrences of each item (pattern titles,
users having shared patterns, user-generated tags, and URLs). The
recommendations can be retrieved by the PLE solutions through the RESTful API
and according to different entities (patterns, peers, user tags, tools, and artifacts)
and different strategies. Next to the default strategy (‘global top-n’) it is planned to
provide local top-n recommendations. Hereby, locality could refer to the patterns
used for generating the recommendations, e.g. by using the patterns of a clique or
for a specific search term only. For the first case, Mödritscher (2010) describes a
study in which a few patterns of a research group was captured for a (work-related)
scenario. Results showed that the distribution of item occurrences follows a power
law, and the network of activities, resources (URLs) and user-generated tags tend to
have characteristics of a scale-free network, which is an indicator that this
collaboratively created data-set is suitable for generating useful recommendations
for users (cf. experiences on music recommendations by Cano et al., 2006).
Overall, this strategy for generating and providing PLE recommendations seems to
be reasonable, as it already works with smaller sets of data and allows personalizing
recommendations e.g. according to learner’s clique, a search term, or other
contextual information. So far, recommendations are only provided on the level of
activity patterns – if a user opens the ‘Pattern Store’ of the PAcMan add-on (see
Figure 3) she can either query the patterns or receives recommendations in terms of
the most frequent downloaded patterns. A more sophisticated strategy would be to
suggest items (peers, artifacts, tools, or resource tags) according to specific
situations, e.g. for a certain clique or a given goal of a learner. As retrieved sub-sets
of activity patterns lead to scale-free networks, it is planned to provide two kinds of
recommendations: (a) the must-sees which comprise the hubs in the PLE network
structure and are always displayed to the user; (b) the might-be-of-interest
suggestions, i.e. items of the long tail which are recommended from time to time or
also triggered by a certain context or user interaction.
3.3 Psycho-pedagogical recommender
In contrast to collaborative filtering strategies, the psycho-pedagogical recommender
is not based on large, community-generated data-sets. However, it is developed
according to a theoretical model and relevant taxonomies (Fruhmann et al., 2010) on
the one hand and user data on the other hand. In order to empower learners to build
their learning environments and to use those for learning, this recommender strategy
deals with providing guidance in self-regulated learning situations. While
experienced learners are capable in using PLE technology without getting external
support, many learners need some kind of guidance and support to go through the
learning process (cf. Dabbagh and Kitsantas, 2004; Efklides, 2009). The main aim of
the psycho-pedagogical recommender is to provide guidance especially with respect
to self-regulated learning and to find appropriate resources (artifacts, tools, peers)
fitting to the competence of the learner.
There are two kinds of data which is used for generating psycho-pedagogical
recommendations. First user model data is taken into account, comprising learning
goals and competences required at the moment. Also preferences, such as the
degree of guidance needed, are considered. A second kind of data is given in the
form of learning models which serve as basis for the recommender algorithm. The
SRL process model describes how learning should ideally happen in a self-regulated
way. It is a formalization of self-regulated learning in the context of ROLE. The SRL
process model is related to general and concrete learning activities on the cognitive
and meta-cognitive level. Learning tools are also related to learning activities, which
describes the way of learning possible with certain tools. These relations are
specified in advance and form an important basis of the recommendation strategy.
The recommendation strategy is closely related to these learning models and to
each of its elements. The recommender tries to guide the learner though the learning
process according the SRL process model. Therefore (cognitive and meta-cognitive)
learning activities are recommended depending on what the learner has already
done. The learner has to give feedback what has been done (which recommended
learning activity has been performed). In order to recommend learning resources (at
the moment only tools), the learning goals and competences are taken into account.
Tools are recommended if they fit to the goals of the learner and if learners can
actually use them for successful learning. Preferences such as the degree of
guidance are also taken into account, which has effect how detailed
recommendations are.
Fig. 4. Psycho-pedagogical recommender realized and provided in the form of
widgets (left: guidance widget, right: learning planning widget).
According to the recommendation strategy the learner is provided with two kinds of
recommendations, learning activities and learning resources. Both are presented on
a list of possible choices, where the user can also report back which one she has
chosen. In addition to these recommendations the learner also gets explanations,
which is important because self-regulated learning is difficult to adopt. Furthermore,
the learner gets an automatically generated learning plan which is updated each time
an interaction takes place. So the learner gets visual feedback and orientation what
has been planned or completed and a general overview on this state in the SRL
process. The user interface has been implemented as a widget (see Figure 4). It
uses a service in the background where the models and user data are stored and
where the recommendation strategy is implemented.
Further work will concentrate on the integration of artifacts and peers to be
recommended, usage of log data as input data, and on an improved user interface.
4. Discussion of the PLE recommender strategies and future work
Considering the different goals and techniques of the PLE recommenders being
developed in the ROLE project, it is obvious that each one has specific benefits and
shortcomings. Basically a user scenario for our recommenders could look like this. In
the beginning a learner has a specific need and decides to start a new activity to
address this need and achieve some goal, e.g. creating an outcome like a document
together with some colleagues. In a first step, a PLE recommender has to support
the learner by formulating her learning need and suggesting PLE designs so that she
gets an idea what an environment for fulfilling the need could look like. Then, after
reusing and adjusting such a PLE design or creating a new one from scratch, a PLE
recommender should provide links to artifacts, peer users, or tools which are
appropriate for the current activity.
Collaborative recommendations are realizable with a certain degree of accuracy
without threatening the users’ privacy (see also Machanavajjhala et al., 2011).
However, this recommender is highly tailored to a specific context, namely
information retrieval, as the Binocs widget enables federated search in different
media and content repositories. In the scope of PLEs, this recommender supports
learners in finding appropriate artifacts for their different activities. Additionally it is
also possible that the widget points to peers that are relevant to query terms, if the
privacy policy allows this. However, the widget does not recommend learning
activities and does not take learner network structures in to account. So, the
usefulness of the federated search and collaborative recommendation widget
supports learners in the second phase of PLE-based collaboration rather than in
designing their environment.
The community-based PLE recommender, on the other hand, has been developed
on top of a simple semantic model, namely the notion of activities which are used to
structure one’s learning context and to capture information on user interactions and
the context. Following a collaborative filtering (CF) approach, the pattern repository
provides both recommendations of pre-given (shared) PLE designs in the form of
tagged bookmarking collections as well as recommendations on artifacts, tools, and
peers generated according to contextual information. Both kinds of
recommendations can be requested by a PLE solution through the Web-API,
whereby items can be differentiated between ‘must-haves’ (most frequent items) and
‘might-be-of-interest’ (items from the long tail; see also Mödritscher , 2010). Although
perfectly supporting the two phases of the before-mentioned PLE scenario, this
recommender suffers from typical weaknesses of CF techniques, namely the cold-
start problem (no data on new user and items) and sparsity (no or less user ratings;
cf. Adomavicius and Tuzhilin, 2005). The application of clustering techniques and
usage data is currently evaluated in order to refine the recommender algorithm.
Finally, the psycho-pedagogical recommender also supports the two phases of PLE-
based learning. On the one hand, a learner can use the planning widget to start an
activity and determine her goal. On the other hand, she can use the guidance widget
to design and adjust the environment for her current activity. As this recommender is
based on a more complex and pre-defined semantic model and structured, pre-
processed usage data, it has clear advantages if less or no data is given. In this
case, the psycho-pedagogical recommender claims to use expert-given rules to
suggest goals and/or widgets. On the negative side, it can identify and recommend
new items much slower, as the generation of recommendations is at least a semi-
controlled process which involves pedagogical experts.
With these recommender approaches we believe that we cover the most critical
issues for supporting learners in designing and using their PLEs. The most positive
aspect of developing these three strategies next to each other concerns the
weaknesses of single recommenders we have highlighted before. In case of lacking
good recommendations for a specific case - e.g. if the community-based
recommender does not have enough data on items or users – the learner can try to
make use of suggestions of another recommender. This multi-approach also gives
us flexibility to support different scenarios in the very heterogeneous test-beds of the
ROLE project. While some test-beds are based on instructions and organizational
driven learning (SJTU, FESTO) others have a strong focus on informal settings and
collaboration. Here we can vary the strategies for learner support.
To conclude, at this point the three recommenders are on rather different maturity
levels. While Binocs is ready to be used by end-users the pattern repository
approach relies on the integration within existing PLE systems, i.e. also facilities to
provide recommendations to the end-users, and the psycho-pedagogical
recommender lacks the full implementation of all features. So, next to finishing
development work on the latter two recommenders future work also comprises a
user study for evaluating the recommenders ‘in action’.
5. Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European
Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant
agreement no 231396 (ROLE project).
6. References
Adomavicius, G., and A. Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the Next Generation of
Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions.
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17(6): 734-749.
Beham, G., B. Kump, T. Ley, and S. Lindstaedt. 2010. Recommending
knowledgeable people in a work-integrated learning system. Procedia Computer
Science 1(2): 2783-2792.
Broisin, J., M. Brut, V. Butoianu, F. Sedes, and P. Vidal. 2010. A personalized
recommendation framework based on cam and document annotations. Procedia
Computer Science 1(2): 2839-2848.
Brusilovsky, P., L.N. Cassel, L.M.L. Delcambre, E.A. Fox, R. Furuta, D.D. Garcia,
F.M. Shipman III, and M. Yudelson. 2010. Social navigation for educational digital
libraries. Procedia Computer Science 1(2): 2889-2897.
Burke, R. 2002. Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 12: 331-370.
Cano, P., O. Celma, M. Koppenberger, and J.M. Buldú. 2006. Topology of music
recommendation networks. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science
(CHAOS) 16(1): 013107/1-6.
Dabbagh, N., and A. Kitsantas. 2004. Supporting Self-Regulation in Student-
Centered Web-Based Learning Environments. International Journal on e-Learning
3(1): 40-47
Downes, S. 2010. New Technology Supporting Informal Learning. Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence 2(1): 27-33.
Efklides, A. 2009. The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process.
Psicothema 21(1): 76-82.
El Helou, S., D. Gillet, and C. Salzmann. 2010. The 3A Personalized, Contextual and
Relation-based Recommender System. Journal of Universal Computer Science
16(16): 2179-2195.
Fruhmann, K., A. Nussbaumer, and D. Albert. 2010. A Psycho-Pedagogical
Framework for Self-Regulated Learning in a Responsive Open Learning
Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference eLearning Baltics Science
(eLBa Science 2010), Rostock, Germany.
Govaerts, S., S. El Helou, E. Duval, and D. Gillet. 2011a. A Federated Search and
Social Recommendation Widget. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on
Social Recommender Systems (SRS 2011), Hangzhou, China.
Govaerts, S., K. Verbert, D. Dahrendorf, C. Ullrich, M. Schmidt, M. Werkle, A.
Chatterjee, A. Nussbaumer, D. Renzel, M. Scheffel, M. Friedrich, J.-L. Santos, E.
Law, and E. Duval. 2011b. Towards Responsive Open Learning Environments: the
ROLE Interoperability Framework. Proceedings of the EC-TEL 2011 Conference,
Palermo, Italy. (accepted)
Henri, F., B. Charlier, and F. Limpens. 2008. Understanding PLE as an Essential
Component of the Learning Process. Proceedings of ED-Media 2008 Conference,
Vienna, Austria, pages 3766-3770.
Kooken, J., T. Ley, and R. De Hoog. 2007. How Do People Learn at the Workplace?
Investigating Four Workplace Learning Assumptions. In E. Duval, R. Klamma, and
M. Wolpers, eds.: Creating New Learning Experiences on a Global Scale. LNCS Vol.
4753, Springer, Heidelberg, pages 158-171.
Machanavajjhala, A., A. Korolova, and A. Das Sarma. 2011. Personalized Social
Recommendations - Accurate or Private? Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment,
Seattle, Washington, pages 440-450.
Manouselis, N., H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, and O.C. Santos, eds. 2010. Proceedings
of the 1st Workshop on Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning
(RecSysTEL). Procedia Computer Science 1(2): 2773-2998.
Mitchell-Wong, J., R. Kowalczyk, A. Roshelova, B. Joy, and H. Tsai. 2007.
Opensocial: From social networks to social ecosystem. Proceedings of the Digital
EcoSystems and Technologies Conference (DEST 2007), Cairns, Australia, pages
Mödritscher, F. 2010. Towards a recommender strategy for personal learning
environments. Procedia Computer Science 1(2): 2775-2782.
Mödritscher, F., Z. Petrushyna, and E.L.-C. Law. 2010. Utilising Pattern Repositories
for Capturing and Sharing PLE Practices in Networked Communities. Proceedings of
the I-Know 2010 Conference, Graz, Austria, pages 150-161.
Page, L., S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. 1999. The pagerank citation ranking:
Bringing order to the web. Technical Report 1999-66, Stanford InfoLab.
Resnick, P., and H.R. Varian. 1997. Recommender systems. Communications of the
ACM 40: 56-58.
Santos, O.C., and J.G. Boticario, eds. to appear in 2011. Educational Recommender
Systems and Technologies: Practices and Challenges. IGI Global, Hershey.
Santos, O.C., and J.G. Boticario. 2010. Modeling recommendations for the
educational domain. Procedia Computer Science 1(2): 2793-2800.
Thai-Nghe, N., L. Drumond, A. Krohn-Grimberghe, and L. Schmidt-Thieme. 2010.
Recommender system for predicting student performance. Procedia Computer
Science 1(2): 2811-2819.
Ullrich, C., R. Shen, and D. Gillet. 2010. Not Yet Ready for Everyone: An Experience
Report about a Personal Learning Environment for Language Learning. In X. Luo, M.
Spaniol, L. Wang, Q. Li, W. Nejdl, and W. Zhang, eds.: Advances in Web-Based
Learning - ICWL 2010. LNCS Vol. 6483, Springer, Berlin, pages 269-278.
Van Harmelen, M. 2008. Design trajectories: Four experiments in PLE
implementation. Interactive Learning Environments 16(1): 35-46.
Verbert, K., and E. Duval. 2011. Dataset-driven Research for Improving
Recommender Systems for Learning. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2011), Banff, Canada.
Wang, Y., and K. Sumiya. 2010. Semantic ranking of lecture slides based on
conceptual relationship and presentational structure. Procedia Computer Science
1(2): 2801-2810.
Wild, F., F. Mödritscher, and S. Sigurdarson. 2008. Designing for Change: Mash-Up
Personal Learning Environments. eLearning Papers 9(2008): 1-15, (accessed March
24, 2011).
Wilson, S., P.O. Liber, M. Johnson, P. Beauvoir, and P. Sharples. 2007. Personal
Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems.
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 3(2): 27-28.
Windschitl, M., and K. Sahl. 2002. Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional
culture. American Educational Research Journal 39: 165-205.
... Therefore, these systems could offer guidance to learners without limiting their freedom, by mediating the relationship between users' existing knowledge and potential knowledge acquisition (Lichtnow et al. 2006). According to Drachsler, Hummel and Koper (2008), with recommendations, users are able to be self-regulated and responsible for their own learning, while they also have the opportunity to find peers and/or tools and get suggestions and motivational support from interaction with peers (Mö dritscher et al. 2011). ...
Full-text available
This paper aims to assess the relevance and usefulness of the SAPO Campus recommender system, through the analysis of students' and teachers' opinions. Recommender systems, assuming a 'technology-driven' approach, have been designed with the primary goal of predicting user interests based on the implicit analysis of their actions and interactions. The results of this study reveal that although there is some confusion and unawareness about the recommender system, the participants consider that SAPO Campus recommendations are useful and they often find interesting people and content through the results provided by the system. The results also reveal that there is a negative correlation between finding and following people through the platform recommendations and the level of education, that is, the higher the level of education, the lower is the frequency regarding finding and following people suggested by the platform recommendation system.
Full-text available
To explore students’ use of Web 2.0 tools and their perceptions of using Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment (PLE), quantitative surveys (n = 113) and interviews (n = 12) were conducted. In the survey, we identified that students already have familiarity with using Web 2.0 tools, as well as a positive attitude toward using Web 2.0 for learning. However, in the interview, students referenced challenges with using Web 2.0 in their PLE. The results imply that there are gaps between students’ perceived comfort and familiarity with using Web 2.0 tools and their readiness to be an active and successful designer for Web 2.0-based PLEs. This research also identified that there may be other factors influencing students’ building PLEs with Web 2.0 tools including the knowledge of different tools, the abilities of identifying learning objectives and learning styles, access to the tools, motivation, and knowing how to locate the correct information through students’ interviews.
This chapter develops the characterisation of a PLE as a LLL tool by detailing the SSW4LL (Social Semantic Web for Lifelong Learners) format. After an overview about the aims, possible scenarios and elements of the SSW4LL format, a motivated choice of adult lifelong learners’ needs that SSW4LL aims to meet is developed. Subsequently, the chapter illustrates the learning paradigm and strategies that underpin SSW4LL. Then, the SSW4LL system, the technological architecture, is presented as a whole made up of components of formal and informal learning environments. The formal learning environment is devised by Moodle 2.0; a description and an evaluation of Moodle 2.0 features are provided, with a focus on the potential of its conditional activities as a suitable mechanism of learning adaptation. Concurrently, this part identifies the benefits of Felder–Silverman’s learning style model, which was selected as the most suitable learning style model for the use in LMSs. The elements of the informal learning environment, Semantic MediaWiki, Diigo and Google+, are presented and their implications within the SSW4LL format are discussed. The next section of the chapter deals with the organisation of the format: the resources needed a user case scenario, and a flow chart of the steps of the format implementation are outlined. Finally, a SWOT analysis provides evaluation elements for the format.
Full-text available
Personalised web information systems have in recent years been evolving to provide richer and more tailored experiences for users than ever before. In order to provide even more interactive experiences as well as to address new opportunities, the next generation of Personalised web information systems needs to be capable of dynamically personalising not just web media but web services as well. In particular, eLearning provides an example of an application domain where learning activities and personalisation are of significant importance in order to provide learners with more engaging and effective learning experiences. This paper presents a novel approach and technical framework called AMASE to support the dynamic generation and enactment of Personalised Learning Activities, which uniquely entails the personalisation of media content and the personalisation of services in a unified manner. In doing so, AMASE follows a narrative approach to personalisation that combines state of the art techniques from both adaptive web and adaptive workflow systems.
Full-text available
Web 2.0 technology integration requires a higher level of self-regulated learning skills to create a Personal Learning Environment PLE. This study examined each of the four aspects of learner self-regulation in online learning i.e., environment structuring, goal setting, time management, & task strategies as the predictor for level of initiative and sense of control with regard to iGoogle gadgets management in PLE. This study has concluded that goal setting, time management, and task strategies in self-regulated learning can predict level of initiative in organizing PLE. Furthermore, goal setting and task strategies can predict sense of control in PLE management.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
To empower the learner for true lifelong and personalised learning with a responsive open learning environment (ROLE) is one aim of the ROLE project. A psycho-pedagogical integration model (PPIM) towards supporting learning has been developed by facilitating the concept of personalised self-regulated learning. The first version of the ROLE PPIM is presented in this paper and gives a general view of the components of this model. The central part of the PPIM is the description of the self-regulated learning process and how it can be personalised by learners using adaptive guidance of ROLE.
Full-text available
Recommender systems represent user preferences for the purpose of suggesting items to purchase or examine. They have become fundamental applications in electronic commerce and information access, providing suggestions that effectively prune large information spaces so that users are directed toward those items that best meet their needs and preferences. A variety of techniques have been proposed for performing recommendation, including content-based, collaborative, knowledge-based and other techniques. To improve performance, these methods have sometimes been combined in hybrid recommenders. This paper surveys the landscape of actual and possible hybrid recommenders, and introduces a novel hybrid, EntreeC, a system that combines knowledge-based recommendation and collaborative filtering to recommend restaurants. Further, we show that semantic ratings obtained from the knowledge-based part of the system enhance the effectiveness of collaborative filtering.
This paper presents an overview of the field of recommender systems and describes the current generation of recommendation methods that are usually classified into the following three main categories: content-based, collaborative, and hybrid recommendation approaches. This paper also describes various limitations of current recommendation methods and discusses possible extensions that can improve recommendation capabilities and make recommender systems applicable to an even broader range of applications. These extensions include, among others, an improvement of understanding of users and items, incorporation of the contextual information into the recommendation process, support for multicriteria ratings, and a provision of more flexible and less intrusive types of recommendations.
Recommender systems have shown to be successful in many domains where information overload exists. This success has motivated research on how to deploy recommender systems in educational scenarios to facilitate access to a wide spectrum of information. Tackling open issues in their deployment is gaining importance as lifelong learning becomes a necessity of the current knowledge-based society. Although Educational Recommender Systems (ERS) share the same key objectives as recommenders for e-commerce applications, there are some particularities that should be considered before directly applying existing solutions from those applications. Educational Recommender Systems and Technologies: Practices and Challenges aims to provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art practices for ERS, as well as the challenges to achieve their actual deployment. Discussing such topics as the state-of-the-art of ERS, methodologies to develop ERS, and architectures to support the recommendation process, this book covers researchers interested in recommendation strategies for educational scenarios and in evaluating the impact of recommendations in learning, as well as academics and practitioners in the area of technology enhanced learning.
The main goal of the workshop was to bring together researchers and practitioners who are working on topics related to the design, development and testing of recommender systems in educational settings as well as present the current status of research in this area and create cross-disciplinary liaisons between the RecSys and ECTEL communities. Overall, its contributions outline the rich potential of TEL as an application area for recommender systems and identify the challenges of developing such systems in a TEL context.
Numerous benefits of student-centered web-based learning environments have been documented in the literature; however the effects on student learning are questionable, particularly for low self-regulated learners primarily because these environments require students to exercise a high degree of self-regulation to succeed. Currently few guidelines exist on how college instructors should incorporate self-regulated strategies using web-based pedagogical tools. The scope of this paper is to (a) discuss the significance of self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments; (b) demonstrate how instructional designers and educators can provide opportunities for student self-regulation using web-based pedagogical tools; and (c) redefine the role of the instructor to support the development of independent, self-regulated learners through the use of web-based pedagogical tools.
Recommender systems assist and augment a natural social process. In a typical recommender system people, provide recommendations as inputs, which tile system then aggregates and directs to appropriate recipients. In some cases, the primary transformation is in the aggregation; in others, the system's value lies in its ability to make good matches between recommenders and those seeking recommendations. This special section includes descriptions of five recommender systems. A sixth article analyzes incentives for provision of recommendations. Recommender systems introduce two interesting incentive problems. First, once one has established a profile of interests, it is easy to free ride by consuming evaluations provided by others. Second, if anyone can provide recommendations, content owners may generate mountains of positive recommendations for their own materials and negative recommendations for their competitors. Recommender systems also raise concerns about personal privacy.
Research on ubiquitous computing in schools has documented that teachers often change instructional practices over time when using technology with students and has further suggested that teachers’ use of technology may play a role in their shifting toward more constructivist pedagogy. Our two-year study takes an ethnographic perspective in examining how three middle school teachers learned to use technology in the context of a laptop computer program. The ways in which those teachers eventually integrated computers into classroom instruction were powerfully mediated by their interrelated belief systems about learners in their school, about what constituted “good teaching” in the context of the institutional culture, and about the role of technology in students’ lives. The condition of ubiquitous technology did not initiate teachers’ movement toward constructivist instruction. Rather, the laptops were a catalyst that enabled one participant, who had a pre-existing dissatisfaction with teacher-centered practices, to transform her classroom through collaborative student work and project-based learning.
Increasingly, there is a shared understanding that the educational approach driving the development of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) is one of learner empowerment and facilitation of the efforts of self-directed learners. This approach fits well with concepts of social constructivism, constructionism, and the development and execution of learning plans. This paper describes how these have been increasingly supported in four successive PLE prototypes. These prototypes have successively moved towards support for communities of learners by basing PLE design on social networking services, and support for the formulation of learning plans and transformation of those plans into public exhibits of growing knowledge.