1 / 29

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

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 Technology is expected to attend the learning needs of students

bernad
Download Presentation

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

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. 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

More Related