Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

bernad
slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Download Presentation
Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios
284 Views
Download Presentation

Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios Olga C. Santos, Jesús G. Boticario ocsantos@dia.uned.es – jgb@dia.uned.es ADDW 2008 – York, September 22-25

  2. Technology is expected to attend the learning needs of students in a personalised and inclusive way following the lifelong learning paradigm But… very ofen technology is inapropriate or introduced with insuficient support  Further exclusion for people with disabilities EU4ALL (IST-2006-034778)

  3. Meaning of disability “Learners experience a disabilitywhen there is a mismatchbetween the learner’s needs(or preferences) and the education or learning experience delivered” • ISO JTC1 SC36 • Individualized Adaptanbility and Accessibility in eLearning, Education and Training

  4. Our research goal • Improve the learning efficiency • Task performance (speed) • Course outcomes (results) • User satisfaction

  5. Universal design Follow specifications Accessible contents W3C WAI WCAG Learning paths for different learning needs IMS-LD Contents metadata IEEE-LOM / IMS MD User characterization IMS-LIP, IMS-AccLIP, ISO PNP Device capabilities CC/PP Personalization AI techniques Knowledge extracted from users’ interactions Infer user features & preferences (user modelling) Help manage the collaboration Audit performance Context-awareness Recommender systems Improving learning experiences Runtime Design + EU4ALL (IST-2006-034778) = aLFanet (IST-2001-33288) + inclusion

  6. Outcomes from evaluations with users Carried out in ALPE project (eTEN-029328) Contents developed using the WCAG to suit end-users’ accessibility preferences  Dynamic support would have improved the learning performance and increased the learner’s satisfaction

  7. The educational experience is holistic • Provide accessible learning experiences • The learning path that the student chooses to follow should be accessible while individual online components or learning objects may not. • Rather than aiming to provide an e-learning resource which is accessible to everyone, resources should be tailored for the student’s particular needs • Although the WCAG guidelines can be used to “ensure” that learning objects are accessible this may not always be desirable from a pedagogic standpoint.

  8. Dynamic support demanded on ALPE • Need 1: Adapt the language used and offer glossaries that clarify terms (PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE) • if the difficulty level of a particular content is high and the user has not passed the evaluation of the associated learning objective  recommend more detailed content and a glossary with complex terms from the text • Need 2: Standing out what information is most important (INTEREST) • if the semantic density of a content is high  alert the user of its relevance • Need 3: Suggest functionality from the browser (TECH. SUPPORT) • If user low experienced in the usage of Internet and uses screen-reader  suggest and explain how to access abbreviations and acronyms • Need 4: Provide dynamic guide and embedded help (TECH. SUP.) • If technology level is low and new to the platform  Explain how to navigate in the platform, how to use their user agents and provide technical assistance

  9. Learning performance Factors • Factors identified from brainstorming with psycho-pedagogical experts • Motivation for performing the tasks • Platform usage and technological support required • Collaboration with the class mates • Accessibility considerations when contributing • Learning styles adaptations • Previous knowledge assimilation

  10. Our research goals • Improve the learning efficiency • Task performance (speed) • Course outcomes (results) • User satisfaction • by offering the most appropriate recommendation in each situation in the course • get familiarized with the platform • get used to the operative framework of the course • carry out the course activities • addressing the required factors

  11. Personalized content and service delivery • Dynamic support in terms of recommendations which focus on the learning factors • Covers the learning needs of the learners and the current context alongthe learning process • Reduces the workload of the tutors • Based on a standard-based user model (IMS-LIP/AccLIP) • Demographic information • Learning styles • Technology level • Collaboration level • Interest level per learning objective • Knowledge level per learning objective • Accessibility preferences (display, control, selection) • Past interactions

  12. The A2M recommendation model Objectives: • Support the course designer in describing recommendations in inclusive eLearning scenarios • Manage additional information to be given to the user to explain why the recommendation has been offered • Obtain meaningful feedback from the user to improve the recommender Aims: • to be integrated in LMS with an accessible, usable and explicative GUI • with generality in mind to be adapted to other domains if useful

  13. PREFS/CONTEXT fits in fulfills CONDITIONS TIMEOUT RESTRICTIONS offered applies limited by RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY TECHNIQUE belongs to generated by has ORIGIN EXPLANATION A model for Recommendations in LLL

  14. Factors  Categories • Motivation • Learning styles • Technical support • Previous knowledge • Collaboration • Interest • Accessibility • Scrutability

  15. Process Runtime time Design time Human Expert USER (Learner/Tutor) static Rec. instances in the LMS = Recs. context Rec. types dynamic user device course Artificial Intelligence techiques

  16. Recommender User interface (page 1) If applicable, the recommendation is offered to the user in a usable and accessible user interface, together with a detailed explanation.

  17. Recommender User interface (page 2) Explanation page with additional information regarding the origin, category, technique and high level description Feedback requested from this page

  18. Small-scale experience • Objective • Get feedback of the recommendation model • not to validate the generation of recommendations • Settings • Access to a course space in dotLRN LMS • 13 static recommendations available • Method • 30 questions test • Experience with eLearning platforms • Recommender output • Type of recommendations

  19. 29 users from two summer courses • 16 valid responses: • 50% accessibility experts • 20% people with disabilities • 80% experience with web-based application for learning and teaching

  20. Experience with the platform • Perception • Very good: 18.75% • Good: 75% • Regular: 6.25 % • Bad or very bad: 0% • Compared to previous experiences • Better: 70% • Worst: 15% • Not Answered: 15% • Reasons: • Positive opinions: • WebCT was not friendly • this one adjusts to my learning style • this one presents an easier navigation • this one is more accessible • sections are clearly separated in this one • Negative opinion: • depends on the time spent to get used to the platform

  21. Recommender system output (I) • All users were aware the RS • None wanted to get rid of it • Positive feedback: • Very useful service: 56.25% • Another service of the platform: 43.75% (it is a demand from the users!) • Usage of icons • A third of students (31.25%) had not paid attention to them • For 2/3: • Useful and clear: 56.25% • Good idea but requiring a redesign: 12.5% • Origin of recommendations • Most liked to receive this info: 93.75% • Preferred origins: • recommended by the professor: 93.75% • adapted to my preferences: 68.75% • defined by the course design: 43.75% • useful for my classmates: 43.75%

  22. Recommender system output (II) • Additional information page • Not accessed: 37.5% • Useful: 62.50% • Preferred information: • Detailed explanation: 66% • Category: 43.75% • Origin: 31.25% • Technique: 31.25% • Categories • No other category was identified. • Relevance: • Learning styles: 68.75% • Previous knowledge: 62.50% • Interest level: 56.25% • Motivation: 43.75% • Technical support: 31.25% • Scrutability: 31.25% • Accessibility: 31.25% • Collaboration: 25%

  23. Feedback on the type of recommendations Learner point of view • Types of recommendations selected for more that 60% of the users: • Fill in a learning style questionnaire, so the system can be adapted to me • Read some section of the help, if there is a service in the platform that I don't know • Read a message in the forum that has information that may be relevant to me • Read a file uploaded by the professor or a classmate • Get alerts on deadlines to hand in an activity • Types selected by less than 25% of users: • Fill in a self-assessment questionnaire • Rate some contribution done by a learner • Access an external link of the platform • Messages without any action (e.g. motivational messages) • New suggested type of recommendation: • Recommend some aspects of the course that the user had not visited for a long time

  24. Feedback on the type of recommendations From the professor point of view • Preferred information to define the recommendations: • learning styles: 62.50% • interest level in course objective: 62.50% • collaboration level: 56.25% • course features: 56.25% • actions already done by the user: 56.25% • knowledge level in a course objective: 56.25% • accessibility preferences: 43.75% • interaction level: 43.75% • course space in which the user is navigating: 31.25% • technological level: 25% • features of the device used to access the course: 18.75%

  25. Some consequences (I)

  26. Some consequences (II)

  27. Evaluation plan • User interface • WCAG conformance • Tests with users (accessibility & usability) • Recommendations • User satisfaction  questionnaires • Task performance  interactions • Course outcomes  assessment on objectives • Methodology: • Study group vs. Control group

  28. Open issues • Categories defined • Overlapping??? • Recommendations on accessibility • Suggest alternative learning experiences (not just contents/formats, …) • Tell to modify contributions no properly tagged • Show user agent functionality • Others??? • Large-scale formal evaluations

  29. Adaptive accessible design as input for runtime personalization in standard-based eLearning scenarios Thanks Olga C. Santos, Jesús G. Boticario ocsantos@dia.uned.es – jgb@dia.uned.es ADDW 2008 – York, September 22-25