A Systematic Literature Review on Recommender Systems for MOOCs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have become popular and the online learning resources are increasing, they are an offered courses by schools and universities, which are accessible to everyone and free of charge on the internet, they offer the possibility to teach a very group of students, in the same course, at the same time, even if they are not in the same location. There are many MOOCs platforms with different characteristics, they contain a huge amount of data, so the learner does not know which course to take and can choose irrelevant MOOCs. Therefore, he will waste the time and also the motivation. Recommender systems give a solution to this problem, they suggest learning resources to learners according to their interests and needs, so learner will be satisfied because he finds an appropriate course. In this paper, we give a systematic literature review of MOOCs recommender systems, based on published papers in the past ten years, between 2012 and 2022. We have selected 123 papers from five databases, IEEE Xplore, Springer Link, Science Direct, Google Scholar and ACM Library. We have divided the data analysis in two parts, the quantitative analysis, and the qualitative analysis. In the quantitative analysis, we have studied first the evolution of papers by year and the distribution of papers on databases by type. Then, in the qualitative analysis, we have based principally on the distribution of papers by the existed areas in MOOCs. We have found that there are six main fields, course recommendation, peer recommender, MOOC provider, video recommendation, learning activities and OER, paid activities recommender system and other papers in various types. A high number of articles have been published in the field of courses, which confirms that this domain is very important and crucial for learners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".