1 / 14

(Personalization of learning material in web-based education)

Personalisering av læringsinnhold i e-læringskurs. (Personalization of learning material in web-based education). Håvard Narvesen 05HMTMT. Overview. Employer: Apropos Internett (Hamar, Norway) Main task: Study ways to adapt learning material based on individual competence gaps

stacey-joyner
Télécharger la présentation

(Personalization of learning material in web-based education)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Personalisering av læringsinnhold i e-læringskurs (Personalization of learning material in web-based education) Håvard Narvesen 05HMTMT

  2. Overview • Employer: Apropos Internett (Hamar, Norway) • Main task: Study ways to adapt learning material based on individual competence gaps • Supervisor: Rune Hjelsvold • Keywords: E-learning, personalization, adaptive hypermedia

  3. Introduction What is a Learning Management System (LMS)? What is the problem with presentation of most web-based education material today? How can personalization improve web-based education?

  4. Problem area «One-size-fits-all»-scenario Personalized material

  5. Why personalize learning material? • It makes web-based courses more relevant to each learner. • By making e-learning courses adaptable to each learner’s pre-knowledge, learners may start the same course at different entry levels. • «If the learning material doesn’t feel relevant, then the learner’s motivation weakens». – Audun Gjevre, Apropos Internett

  6. Research questions • S1: «Hvilke egenskaper bør et nettbasert læringssystem inneha for å støtte personalisering av læringsinnhold basert på hver kursdeltakers kompetansegap?» • S2: «Hvilke er de største tekniske utfordringene ved implementasjon av et adaptivt e-læringskurs, der innhold tilpasses basert på kursdeltakerens forhåndskunnskaper?» • S3: «Hvordan oppfatter kursdeltakerne automatisert pretesting?»

  7. Method • S1: A literature study and an interview with an expert was used to understand relevant concepts and point out key characteristics of educational adaptive learning systems. • S2: A prototype of a system, capable of personalizing learning material, was build in order to bring out major technical difficulties. • S3: An experiment was carried out to get feedback from a set of learners on implemented personalization techniques. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to gather data.

  8. Some results – Study of characteristics (S1) • By pre-testing each users knowledge prior to the web-based course, it is possible to unveil human competence gaps, and let them influence the personalization. • The pre-test cannot be too resource-demanding neither for teachers or learners. • Computer agents are commonly used to support learners in modern web-based educational systems.

  9. Some results – Technical challenges (S2) • Describing and dividing learning material suited for personalization. The SCORM standard is not perfectly suited for advanced personalization. (Abdullah et al., 2003) • Building automated pre-tests, and then evaluate the results • Automatically adapt learning material to each learner based on results from the pre-test and the learning goals. (Knowledge based) • Implementation of agents for supporting adaptation  «one learner – many teachers»

  10. The experiment • A test group of 11 learners used the prototype to carry out a web-based course. • The course concerned computer viruses. • A simple pre-test determined the available learning material.

  11. The structure of the course: • The pre-test was organized as follows: • This means that the pre-test consists of the users pre-knowledge for each of the main topics in the course. The pre-knowledge was included as a part of a user model.

  12. Some results – Experiment (S3) • All participants agreed to spend 5% or more of the total time a course demands in order to personalize a course (in the future). • Only 2 of the 11 learners fully agreed with the technique for filtering learning material implemented in the prototype. These results confirms conclusions from other researchers that creating a system that can predict every learners competence gap with 100 % accuracy, is unrealistic. • Also, the learners view on: Personalization in e-learning, how they like to be tested, how they liked link-personalization and more.

  13. General conclusion (preliminary) • The experiment in this work, and other studies, suggest that a pre-test should be used to decide which learners that need (or not need) extra attention, rather than entirely delimit the course material. • Most test-learners did not like that the system totally decided what they should read and not. Based on information from the learners, the pre-test results should rather be used to make a suggestion of what to prioritize in the e-learning course.

  14. Thank you for your attention! Any comments or questions?

More Related