Recommender Systems for MOOCs: A Systematic Literature Survey (January 1, 2012 – July 12, 2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have gained popularity with learners and providers, and thus MOOC providers have started to further enhance the use of MOOCs through recommender systems. This paper is a systematic literature review on the use of recommender systems for MOOCs, examining works published between January 1, 2012 and July 12, 2019 and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind. We used Google Scholar, five academic databases (IEEE, ACM, Springer, ScienceDirect, and ERIC) and a reference chaining technique for this research. Through quantitative analysis, we identified the types and trends of research carried out in this field. The research falls into three major categories: (a) the need for recommender systems, (b) proposed recommender systems, and (c) implemented recommender systems. From the literature, we found that research has been conducted in seven areas of MOOCs: courses, threads, peers, learning elements, MOOC provider/teacher recommender, student performance recommender, and others. To date, the research has mostly focused on the implementation of recommender systems, particularly course recommender systems. Areas for future research and implementation include design of practical and scalable online recommender systems, design of a recommender system for MOOC provider and teacher, and usefulness of recommender systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".