A comparison among approaches for recommending learning objects through collaborative filtering algorithms. Issue 1 (3rd April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: dos Santos, Henrique Lemos; Cechinel, Cristian; Araújo, Ricardo Matsumura
• Is Part Of: Program. Volume 51:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 35
• Page End: 51
• Publication Date: 2017-04-03
• Subjects: Clustering -- Collaborative filtering -- Hybrid recommender system -- Learning objects recommendation -- Recommender systems -- Recommender sytems evaluation; Libraries, University and college -- Great Britain -- Automation -- Periodicals; 025.30285
• DOI: 10.1108/PROG-05-2016-0044
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0033-0337

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comparison among three different approaches for recommending learning objects (LO) inside a repository. The comparison focuses not only on prediction errors but also on the coverage of each tested configuration. Design/methodology/approach: The authors compared the offline evaluation by using pure collaborative filtering (CF) algorithms with two other different combinations of pre-processed data. The first approach for pre-processing data consisted of clustering users according to their disciplines resemblance, while the second approach consisted of clustering LO according to their textual similarity regarding title and description. The three methods were compared with respect to the mean average error between predicted values and real values. Moreover, we evaluated the impact of the number of clusters and neighborhood size on the user-coverage. Findings: Clustering LO has improved the prediction error measure with a small loss on user-coverage when compared to the pure CF approach. On the other hand, the approach of clustering users failed in both the error and in user-space coverage. It also became clear that the neighborhood size is the most relevant parameter to determine how large the coverage will be. Research limitations: The methods proposed here were not yet evaluated in a real-world scenario, with real users opinions about the recommendations and their respective learning goals. Future work is still required to evaluate users opinions. Originality/value: This research provides evidence toward new recommendation methods directed toward LO repositories.