MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983184465

LPR: an adaptive learning path recommendation system using ACO and meaningful learning theory

2017· dissertation· en· W6983184465 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPath (computing)Cluster analysisComponent (thermodynamics)Recommender systemPersonalized learningProactive learningUnsupervised learningRobot learningAdaptive learningPreference learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the educational community has been interested in enabled learning systems. That is, having a personalized learning system that can adapt itself while providing learning support to different learners to overcome the weakness of ‘one size fits all’ approaches in technology-enabled learning systems. In this thesis, we address one known problem in adaptive learning systems called curriculum sequencing. We design and implement a learning path recommendation (LPR) system that selects an appropriate learning path for learners based on their characteristics and needs. There are two components to the LPR system: searching for the learning paths and clustering the learners into groups based on their prior knowledge. Using bioinspired ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm and meaningful learning theory of Ausubel, the ACO path finder component searches for a suitable learning path for the learner. This component incorporates continuous learner’s improvement in the process of a learning path selection. The LPR system, uses the pre-assessment/familiar degree calculator to gauge learner’s prior knowledge and produces a learner’s familiar degree of concepts. The clustering component uses Fuzzy C-Mean (FCM) algorithm. The LPR system can recommend more than one learning path to learners located on the cluster boundaries. We implement an interface to provide the recommendation to the learner. We evaluate the effectiveness of the LPR system by designing and developing a database course and ask actual learners to complete the course. The results of our experiment show that the group that used the LPR system have higher performance and knowledge improvement in the course than the control group. The performance and knowledge improvement differences between the two groups are statistically significant. Based on the statistical tests, the LPR system has a moderate to large impact on the learners’ performance and knowledge improvement. Although the course completion time for the LPR group was slightly less than the control group, no statistically significant difference is found between the time completion of both groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207