CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING SYSTEM WITH DYNAMICALLY COMPOSABLE LEARNING OBJECTS

PROJECT REPORT

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

By
MINU. M. DAS (Reg. No: 1082308)

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY PUDUCHERRY – 605 014 JUNE 2010

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this project work entitled “Context Aware E-Learning System with Dynamically Composable Learning Objects” is a bona fide record of work done by Ms. Minu. M. Das, Reg. No. 1082308, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering in the Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Technology of Pondicherry University.

This work has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of any other degree to the best of our knowledge.

GUIDE
DR. S. SIVASATHYA
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Technology Pondicherry University

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
DR.R. SUBRAMANIAN
Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Technology Pondicherry University

Submitted for the University Examination held on _________________

INTERNAL EXAMINER

EXTERNAL EXAMINER

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge my sense of gratitude to my guide Dr. S. Siva Sathya, Senior Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, and Dr. T. Chithralekha, Reader,

Department of Banking Technology Pondicherry University who made valuable guidance, contributions, centering effort, timely advices, and creative support in organizing and implementing phase of this project. I express my special thanks to Dr. A. M. S. Ramaswamy, Professor and Dean, Ramanujan School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Pondicherry

University for his continuous support, advice and encouragement. I extend my humblest thanks to kind, ambitious, helpful head of the department Dr. R. Subramanian, Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Computer Science, Pondicherry University for her guidance, and support in

undergoing this project. I like to express my profound gratitude to all faculties and non- teaching staff of Department of Computer Sciences, Pondicherry University for supporting me in fulfilling the projected targets. I would be failing in my duty, if I do not thank my classmates who have helped me in many other ways in completion of my project work. I also acknowledge the help of others who were involved in this project in one way or other. Last but not the least I acknowledge the blessings of my parents, which had constantly supported me in many ways throughout development of this project. I am grateful for the providence of the grace provided by the LORD ALMIGHTY.

- Minu. M. Das

ii

The design of the standardized context model requires that a learning object should not have a static monolithic structure but be flexible enough to be dynamically composed based on a learner‟s context.ABSTRACT Context aware E-Learning systems provide learning content according to a learner‟s context. In the existing context aware E-Learning systems there is no standardized set of context parameters considered and content is adapted based on a randomly considered set of parameters. a standardization of context model for context aware E-learning has been proposed. A content management system which stores these flexible learning object constituents and assembles them dynamically based on a learner‟s context is also described. iii . In this work. Hence. a flexible learning object model and its representation are defined in this paper.

2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.3 Figure 5. User interface of proposed system Learner‟s context for generating learning content dynamically Figure 5.LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page No Figure 2.1 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.2 Learning Content Management System Components Formalized way of representing standardized context model Different levels of abstraction Three dimensional representation of learning object chunks Hierarchical representation of learning objects Architecture of proposed context aware E-Learning system.5 Learnativity Content Models SCORM Content Aggregation Model CISCO RLO/RIO Model NETg Learning Object Model Hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content Models Figure 2.3 Figure 4.4 Dynamically composed adaptive learning object Graphical representation of evaluation of existing ELearning systems against proposed E-Learning system 42 44 28 33 35 37 37 39 41 41 21 22 23 24 25 iv .1 Figure 2.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 5.4 Figure 2.

2 List of context parameters Structured set of contexts Learning object structure based on the learner‟s preferences and intentions 13 31 36 Table 5. Table 2.LIST OF TABLES Tables Page No.1 Table 4.2 Fulfillment of context aware requirements by the proposed system 42 Comparison of proposed system with existing context aware ELearning systems 43 v .1 Table 5.1 Table 4.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADL CMS IMS CP IMS GLC LCMS LMS LO LOCM LOM PDA RIO RLO SLO SCO SCORM Advanced Distributed Learning Content Management System Instructional Management System Content Package Instructional Management System Global Learning Consortium Learning Content Management System Learning Management System Learning Object Learning Object Content Models Learning Object Metadata Personal Digital Assistant Reusable Information Object Reusable Learning Object Static Learning Object Sharable Content Objects Sharable Content Object Reference Model vi .

1 E-Learning 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS i ii iii iv v vi 1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED SYSTEM 29 4.1 Context Aware E-Learning 2.2 Learning Objects 2.28 2.5 Summary 3. LITERATURE SURVEY 4.3 Context Aware E-Learning 1.2 Architecture of the Proposed System 4.3 Summary vii .4 Problems in existing Context Aware E-Learning 1.39 4.5 Proposed System 1. PROPOSED SYSTEM 30.2 Personalized E-Learning 1.6 Organization of the report 2. INTRODUCTION 1-3 1.1 Introduction 4.3 Learning Object Content Models 2.4 Learning Content Management Systems 2.

1 Introduction 5.53 54-55 viii .5.GURUDEV 5.2 Case Study.45 5.4 Summary 6. CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS 40. CONCLUSION AND FORESEEABLE ENHANCEMENT 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY PUBLICATIONS 47.3 Analysis 5.

Hence. context. training or education program by electronic means. instructor led or self study with an expert. place and learner‟s other requirements.1 E-LEARNING E-Learning or electronic learning refers to a wide range of applications and processes designed to deliver instruction through electronic means. and computer-based training which focus on delivery of learning. E-Learning is the process of delivering formal and informal learning and training activities and events through the use of all electronic media such as Internet. Using the network. select. extranet. Personalized E-Learning is mostly focusing on learner‟s preferences and current state of a learner to provide the learning content correctly. Personalized learning should not be restricted by time. 1 . ELearning systems evolved and personalized E-Learning systems which enable customized E-Learning for every learner came into existence. Personalized learning can be used for developing the individual learning programs and also engage these learners into the learning process so that learner‟s learning potentials and success can be optimized. students can learn the contents anytime and any where.paced. blended educational model that is tailored to the individual learner‟s needs and interests. Cell phones.2 PERSONALIZED E-LEARNING In (Thyagharajan & Ratnamanjari. 2007) personalized E-Learning is described as a unique. but includes. CDROM. administer and extend learning. TV.CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1. Web-based training. online learning. M Plain E-Learning systems cannot adapt to a learner‟s learning requirements. E-Learning uses network technology to design. computer technology. deliver. video tape. etc. The definition of E-learning is broader than. It does not focus on the learner‟s situation. E-Learning can be self. intranet. Hence. These came to be called as context-aware E-Learning systems. personal organizers. however it also can include CD-ROM or video-conferencing through satellite transmission. 1.aware E-Learning systems which consider a learner‟s situation also were developed. Usually this means over the Web.

An entity is a person. Each of them helps to capture certain aspects of the learner‟s context. Also. etc. or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application. including the user and applications themselves. to provide the learning content based on a learner‟s context. place. These parameters constitute for the learner‟s context. a learning object have to be available at different levels of abstraction and media types which is termed as learning 2 .4 PROBLEMS IN EXISTING CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING SYSTEM Existing context aware E-Learning system uses only some of the context parameters or sub context parameter values. But they are incomplete in certain aspects. Hence. there is a need to define a standardized context model which can completely capture the learner‟s context. The definition of context given by ubiquitous computing community as “Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. the system will give customized information to the user. 1. By using these context parameters. There is no standardized context model for capturing the learner‟s context fully. The selection or filtering of the e-learning resources is done by considering the learner‟s personal information. learner‟s situation. it is obvious that different subsets of the context parameters are considered for capturing the learner‟s context.5 PROPOSED SYSTEM From the study of the existing works in context aware E-Learning. learning style preferred by him.” Context aware E-Learning systems select or filter the learning resources in order to make the E-Learning content more relevant and suitable for the learner in his/her situation.1. These systems do not capture the learner‟s context fully since it uses only some of the context parameters. The learning objects structures in the existing context aware E-Learning systems are monolithic and do not support to provide learning content based on the complete context of the learner.3 CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING A context aware E-Learning system considers many parameters that contribute for a learner‟s contexts. 1.

a suitable representation for the same also has to be proposed. Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Describes the literature survey. Since a new learning object structure is defined. Case study and analysis. 3 . the following have been carried out to develop a context aware ELearning system     Standardization of Context Model Definition of Learning Object Model Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation Design and development of Content Management System 1. Explains the proposed context aware E-Learning system. the structure of learning objects are monolithic and do not support to provide learning content based on the complete context of the learner. Gives the need for proposed system. In addition. At present. a content management system for storing the learning chunks and dynamically composing them to form a learning object based on a leaner‟s context has to be defined. there is a need to define the modular structure of a learning object that helps to realize a learning object based on complete learner‟s context. In this project.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The report is organized as follows.chunks. Hence. These learning chunks have to be composed dynamically and constitute for a learning object to be delivered to the learner. Gives the conclusion and foreseeable enhancements.

location-aware does not necessarily capture things of interest that are mobile or changing. noise level.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY 2. and adapt their behavior accordingly. and even the social situation.. CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING 2. lighting. devices. or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application. Context-aware in contrast is used more generally to include nearby people. including the user and application themselves..1. 2007). An entity is a person. Context-aware computing refers to a general class of mobile systems that can sense their physical environment. Three important aspects of context are:    Where you are Who you are with What resources are nearby Although location is a primary capability. Adapting system behavior to this context. According to (Schmidt. i. 2005) there are two aspects of context awareness.1 Context and Context Aware Computing Context is a set of constraints that can influence the behavior of a system in a given task (Schmidt.g. network availability.e.1. their context of use. e. They are   Knowing about the user. The most generally accepted definition in the community of ubiquitous computing as given by (Dey. 4 .” In (Schmidt. 2006) the situation of a user is defined as a relevant subset of the state of the world at a given point in time including the respective knowledge of history and expectations for the future at that point in time. 2001) is “Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. whether you are with your family or a friend from school. place.

. or an intelligent stimulus.The term „context-aware' can be described as a model of computing in which users interact with many different mobile and stationary computers and classify a contextaware systems as one that can adapt according to its location of use. and react based on their environment. 2007) context are used in context-aware applications to       Adapt interfaces Tailor the set of application-relevant data Increase the precision of information retrieval Discover services Make the user interaction implicit Build smart environments. 1994). Context defines some rules of inter-relationship of features in processing any entities as a binding clause. They are the following     Location Identity Activity Time In computer science it refers to the idea that computers can both sense. Some common understanding is the segregation of four categories. (Dey. 5 ." According to (Cristiana et. Context aware devices may also try to make assumptions about the user's current situation. al. 2001) define context as "any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. Devices may have information about the circumstances under which they are able to operate and based on rules. the collection of nearby people and objects. react accordingly. The term context-awareness in ubiquitous computing was introduced by (Schilit. as well as the changes to those objects over time over the course of the day.

all the learning processes are recorded continuously everyday. In addition. 2.g. driving a car etc. According to Ogata & Yano (2003) based on Chen (2002) and Curtis (2002). This helps learners notice the features of problem situations that make particular actions relevant. teachers. the main characteristics of ubiquitous learning are the following:  Permanency: Learners never lose their work unless it is purposefully deleted.1. the learning involved is self-directed. the experts are more reachable and the knowledge becomes more available. data. Otherwise. That information is provided based on their requests. locations. devices and even simultaneously executing everyday tasks like meetings. 6 . Thus. or peers in the form of synchronies or asynchronous communication. learners can solve problems quickly. that learning environments can be accessed in various contexts and situations. or videos from anywhere.  Adaptability: Learners can get the right information at the right place with the right way.A context adaptive system typically enables the user to maintain a certain application (in different forms) while roaming between different wireless access technologies. Therefore.2 Characteristics of Context Aware E-Learning Context aware E-Learning system is equivalent to some form of simple mobile learning. the learner can record the questions and look for the answer later.  Interactivity: Learners can interact with experts. e.  Immediacy: Wherever learners are. Hence.  Accessibility: Learners have access to their documents. The problems encountered as well as the knowledge required are all presented in their natural and authentic forms.  Situating of instructional activities: The learning could be embedded in our daily life. they can get any information immediately.

IMS.. Learner‟s personal profile contains learner‟s personal details such as name. Kawanish et al... Jovanovic et al. Mingfei et al. 2004. 2006. Jeongwoo et al. Yevgen et al. Thyagharajan & Nayak. Peng et al.Thyagharajan & Nayak. 2003. Knowledge of the learner etc.. 2009. Maria. 2004.. Date of Birth.. Stefan et al. 2007. 2008.1. Sun Microsystems . 2006. Xinyou et al. 2007). 2007. 2008. Enrico et al.. Srimathi & Srivatsa.. Tzone et al. The following are the various context parameters considered. Jeongwoo et al. 2003.              Learner personal profile Level of Expertise Learning Style Learner Preferences or Learner Approach Learner Intention Learner Situation Quality of Learning Service (QoLS) Network Device Learning Pace Learning State Comprehension Level Personality Type Learner personal profile This is described in (Carla et al. Yang . Learner’s Level of Expertise This is described in (Andreas & Claudia. 2006. 2003. IMS.3 Context parameters in existing context aware E-Learning systems This section gives an overview of the context parameters used in the various contextaware E-Learning systems. Level of expertise 7 . 2007. 2007. 2007.2.. 2006.. Mingfei et al.. 2006a. Koun & Hsin.. 2003. 2007). IMS. The knowledge of the person is the prior knowledge and that is described in (Adriana & Francisco. Srimathi & Srivatsa. Jeongwoo et al. 2008. 2009). ID.. 2008..

IMS. Sun Microsystems. simulation approaches preferred by the learner for learning the e-content... 2006b) means in what intention the learner is coming for ELearning site. 2009). Thyagharajan & Nayak. Learner’s Preferences Most of the existing systems are focusing on Learner‟s preferences (Adriana & Francisco. 2006.Adriana & Francisco. Learning Style Learning Style (ADLI.. Mingfei et al. Learner’s Intention Learner‟s intention (Enrico et al. Learner‟s preferences described in these papers correspond to the conceptual. 2008. 2003.. 2003. Peng et al. 2007. 2003. audio. 2007. 1994. 2007.. 2006. Yuan et al. 2008. Xinyou et al. 8 .. Learner’s Situation Learner‟s situation (Bill et al.. 2007. Tzone et al. 2004. 2008. 2009. 2008. 2007. Jose et al. 2006. 2009. Stefan et al. Kawanishi et al. 2008. Yevgen et al. 2007. 2007) defines the situation of the learner. Koun & Hsin. Carla et al. Yang... Koun & Hsin.. 2007... Maria. Enrico et al.. 2004. IMS. 2007)corresponds to video. 2006.is used to indicate whether the person is a beginner or that learner has some preknowledge about a topic or the learner is an expert in that topic.. example-oriented. Jovanovic et al. Jeongwoo et al. Srimathi & Srivatsa. The learner might be driving some vehicle or he/she might be in private place or in public place etc. Darrel. demonstration. The learner can come for research purpose or survey purpose or interview purpose or just to learn the concept etc.. Sun Microsystems.. Kawanishi et al. Jeongwoo et al. 2006a. 2003. Mianxiong et al. 2009.. Carla et al. textual. Andreas & Claudia. Jovanovic et al. 2003. 2008. Thyagharajan & Nyak. 2004. IMS. animation media used by the learner for learning his lessons. Mingfei et al.. Yang. The learner‟s location details are also included in learner‟s situation. 2006a. Yang... case study or problem-oriented. 2007. Maria.. 2007. 2008. 2003. Thyagharajan & Nayak.

.. Howe. 2009) can take the following values. availability and cost.. Yevgen et al.. 2009. 2007. Zhu.functional requirements are reliability. PC. 2007.. Mianxiong et al.. 2006. Non. Mingfei et al. This is determined by conducting some test for the learner. Kawanishi et al. 1994. 2007. 1994. 2006. Learning State Learning state (Bill et al.. PDA etc.. Jose et al. Jovanovic et al.. 9 . Thyagharajan & Nayak. 2007. „Studied‟ – if the learner has gone through each and every lesson and in test he/she has not performed well then this value is considered. 2009. Jovanovic et al. Yuan et al. 2007. 2006. Koun & Hsin. The functional requirements are network bandwidth and response time. 2009) used by learner can be mobile.. Jovanovic et al. Kawanishi et al. 2007. Zhu.. 2008.Quality of Learning Service (QoLS) QoLS (Bill et al. 2007.. Xinyou et al. Carla et al. 2007) means the speed of learning the subject.. „To Be Studied‟ – if the learner skipped some lesson then this value is considered. „To Be Revised‟ – if the learner has not performed well in test. Yuan . Device The device (Bill et al. Mingfei et al.. then this value is considered. 1994. Jovanovic et al. 2008. 2009) can be wired network or wireless network. 2007. 2009. Mianxiong et al. Learning Pace Learning pace (IMS. 2006. 1994. Carla et al.. 2008. Zhu. Carla et al. Yuan et al.. Darrel.. 2008. The learner can be a fast learner. 2007. medium learner or slow learner. Srimathi & Srivatsa. 2007. Howe. Network Network (Bill et al. 2003. 2008... 2007... Maria. Laptop. 2008) contains functional and non functional quality requirements..

Gets energized from socializing.         Extrovert Introvert Sensate Intuitive Feeler Thinker Judger Perceiver Extrovert 60% of the populations are in extrovert personality type category.       Learns best from doing. Likes to know how others are doing it. Some of the personality types include the following. Tzone et al. Introvert 40% of the populations are in introvert personality type category. Table 1 gives a list of context parameters. Some of the characteristics of introvert personalities are given below..Comprehension Level Comprehension level (Jose et al. Is more at ease and confident socially. Readily volunteers and offers opinions. 2007. Thyagharajan & Nayak. Personality Type The learners are of different personality type. 2008) means whether the person understood the e-content well. or not understood. 10 . The following are the characteristics of extrovert personalities.. 2008. or understood completely or understood a little. Idea starts from the outside in.

      Is more realistic and practical. Is more imaginative and abstract. Uses his/her experience and common sense. Idea starts from inside out. Intuitive 35% of the populations are from this personality type category. Intuitive people characteristics are given below. Looks more for what is possible. Characteristics of sensate personalities are given below. Lives towards her/his vision of the future. Likes quiet space to work. Lives in the here and now. Trusts what makes sense to her/him. Prefers working alone or with one other.  Is more interested in people than idea. 11 . Sensate Population‟s 65% is in sensate personality type category. Seems deep and hard to understand.       Feeler From the entire population 65% of females and 45% of males are from feeler personality category. Is more steady and patient. Characteristics of these personality types are given below. Looks more for what is actual and sensible. Likes routines and order. Sets own standards when possible.      Likes to watch before doing. Dislikes routine and detail work. Likes new challenge and works in spurts.

Is warm and arouses enthusiasm. Likes the spontaneous and unplanned. Has very set opinion. Perceiver‟s characteristics are given below. adaptable and tolerant. Characteristics of judger personality type category are given below. Likes planned and scheduled activities.headed and impartial in conflict. Judger 45% of populations are from this category. Likes order and organization. Feels good when things are completed. Makes decisions based on his/ her heart. Thinker 55% of males and 35% of females from the population are in this personality type category. May make decisions too quickly.       Is more decisive than curious.    Focuses more on personal relationships. Makes decisions based on rational thoughts. Is tuned in to logical consistency.       Is more interested in fascinating ideas. Stands. Wants things to be fair and reasonable.    Is more curious than decisive. Perceiver 55% of populations are from perceiver personality type. Is flexible. Is tuned into others feelings.up for what he/ she think. The characteristics of thinker personality types are given below. Is cool. 12 .

2003.. 2008.   Likes to keep opinions open.. 2006. Jovanovic et al.. 2008. Jeongwoo et al.. Tzone et al. Maria. Table 2. 2007. Thyagharajan. 2006. 2003. 2007. 2007. 13 . Srimathi & Srivatsa. Yang. May have trouble making up his/ her mind. Srimathi & Srivatsa. Table 2. Stefan et al. 2007. 2004. Yevgen et al.1: List of context parameters Context Parameters Considered Compiled set of Sub Context Parameters Name ID DOB Gender Address E -mail ID Learner Profile Phone Number Technologies Known Knowledge Level OS Experience Internet Usage Existing Systems Carla et al. 2009. Enrico et al... Mingfei et al. IMS. 2004. IMS. Peng et al.. Beginner Level of Expertise Practitioner Expert Andreas. Sun Microsystems . Xinyou et al.. 2003.. Kawanish et al. 2007. 2008. Seeks more to understand than manage things.1 gives the list of context parameters which are used by the existing systems.. 2006a.

2007. 2004. IMS. 2007. IMS.Jeongwoo et al. 2007. 2006. Koun & Hsin. Thyagharajan. Sun Microsystems.. 2008. Jovanovic et al. 2003. 14 . Jeongwoo et al. Koun & Hsin. 2009. 2007. Video Learning Style Audio Text Animation Slides ADLI. 2003. Srimathi & Srivatsa. Jose et al. 2008.. Enrico et al. Peng et al... Carla et al. Yuan et al. 2003. Jeongwoo et al. 2003.. Mingfei et al. 2006. 2004. 2008. 2007 Conceptual Learning Preference Example-Oriented Case Study Simulation Demonstration Adriana & Francisco. Andreas & Claudia. 2006. Darrel. 2008. 2007. Kawanishi. Thyagharajan.. Maria. Mianxiong et al. 2009.. 2007. Mingfei et al. 2006. Adriana & Francisco.....

Carla et al. 2003. IMS... 2008. 2006a.Stefan et al. 2003.. Maria. Yang... Yevgen et al.. 2006b QoLS Functional Requirement Non. 2006. 2007. 2008. Carla et al.. 2006a. 2008. 2008. 2008.. Sun Microsystems.. 1994. Xinyou et al. Koun & Hsin. 2009. 2007 Enrico et al. Research Learning Intention Survey/ Overview Quick Reference Basic Introduction Project Assignment Seminar Private Learner Situation Public Driving Bill et al. 2006. Yang.. Mingfei et al. 15 . 2007. Tzone et al.Functional Requirement Bill et al. Jovanovic et al. Carla et al. Thyagharajan.. Howe. 1994. 2006 Wired Network Wireless Bill et al.2004. 2007. 1994. Kawanishi et al. Howe.. Yang.. 2008.

Jovanovic et al. 2006. 2007.. 2008. 2009.. Mianxiong et al.. Jovanovic et al... 16 .. 2003. Koun & Hsin. Carla et al. 2007. Jovanovic et al. 2006. 2007. Jose et al.. Yevgen et al. 2007. Jovanovic et al.. 2006. Yuan et al. Kawanishi et al.. 2009. 2007.. 1994. Mingfei et al.. Srimathi & Srivatsa. 2006. 2009 Mobile Device PC Laptop PDA Bill et al. 1994. 2007 Bill et al. Howe. 2008. 2009 Slow Learning Pace Medium Fast Studied Learning State To be Studied To be Revised IMS. Mianxiong et al. 2007 Zhu. Maria.Howe. 2007.. 2009.. Mingfei et al.. 2007. 2007. Darrel. Yuan et al. 2008... Zhu. Kawanishi et al..

2009 Not Understood Comprehension Level Understood a Little Understood Well Understood Completely Jose et al.. Yuan et al. and assessment.    Introduce a new concept or idea Give students practice with something they are learning Give students a new experience of a familiar idea 17 . these learning objects can be a short video or complete lesson. At their core. usually digital and web-based. Learning objects can be defined as individual elements of learning or basic unit of training. Learning objects can be used for the following.. 2008. Tzone et al.Thyagharajan. self-contained. however.. 2007 Zhu. animation etc. It does not rely on other learning object to function and does not specifically refer to other learning objects. they provide smaller. 2008. practice. that can be used and re-used to support learning. text. A key issue is the use of metadata. 2008 2.. Thyagharajan.2 LEARNING OBJECTS Learning Objects (LO) are modular building block of E-Learning content. Learning objects offer a new conceptualization of the learning process: rather than the traditional several hour chunks. and of the object's relation to a broader learning management system. will be instructional content. Each learning object is a standalone entity. They will typically have a number of different components that range from descriptive data to information about rights and educational level. A learning object is a resource. Xinyou et al. 2007. Learning objects contents can be audio. Each learning object is designed to teach or test a series of specific objectives. video. re-usable units of learning. Learning object design raises issues of portability. 2007.

images.     Pose problems for students to solve Provide a backup resource Give students practice at something they are having difficulty with Provide students with a variety of experiences in a learning sequence Assess student knowledge and / or understanding 2. Are tagged with Metadata . or they can be the whole courses. Click2Learn 2. digital or non-digital. re-used or referenced during technology supported learning.It must be operable in different kind of hard wares and soft wares. in the spirit of object oriented programming.2 Characteristics of Learning Objects The following are some of the characteristics of the learning objects and their description. Interoperable .2.2. These assets can be lessons. Granular in nature – Smaller in size 18 . which can be used.” – Claude Ostyn. The Learning Objects can represent tiny „chunks‟ of knowledge.Every learning object are descriptive information allowing it to be easily found out by a search.” – David Wiley “Learning Objects are small or large resources that can be used to provide a learning experience.” – Learning Object Metadata Working Group of the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) “The main idea of „learning objects‟ is to break educational content down into small chunks that can be reused in various learning environments. Definitions of learning objects Different definitions given for learning objects are: “Any entity.1. or even people. video clips.Contents are digitized.     Digital .

3. Nowadays the E-Learning systems are using only dynamic learning objects. These learning objects are organized in a pre-determined order. 2. The delivery 19 . Such learning objects can be found in professional training materials used for professional certifications offered by IT/ Telecomm companies like Microsoft or Cisco systems where simulations. Static Learning Objects (Carlo. Can be aggregated . 2007) are helpful in instructional settings with simple and / or very straight forward requirements.2. Durable . This approach is useful in a controlled learning setting where participants have almost equal levels of experience and learning capacities. Types of learning Objects The learning objects are of the following.Each learning objects can be taken independently. Static Learning Objects (SLO) 2. These static learning objects are used by previous E-Learning systems.It refers to the capability to have been found and became available to learners and developers anywhere. Self Contained . 1. animations and explanations follow a predefined path that does not vary in terms of difficulty levels or overall lesson details. SLOs are self paced learning objects.     Reusable – A single learning object may be used in multiple contexts for multiple purposes.Learning objects can be grouped to form larger collections of contents for example different learning objects are integrated to form the course structure. Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO) Static Learning Objects (SLO) Static Learning Objects (SLO) can be produced as software materials intended to be fairly static and constant.It is not necessary to change the learning objects in the case of new version of software. These contents remain to a specific form and style that does not vary throughout the overall learning experience. generally similar to those in which educators need to have full control of learning method and process. Accessible .

The delivery of learning objects is based on learner choices. This content model contains a collection of learning object. These objects are not ordered. Different types of content models are described below. Dynamic Learning Objects represents a great challenge when adapting educational software to the true nature of human‟s learning methods. The delivery of these Static Learning Objects is defined by an instructional designer or teacher. These learning object content models groups the learning objects to form a complete course structure. Dynamic Learning Objects (Carlo. 2007) are conceived and designed to be used within learning environments where an educator encounters variable level of skill. that means each learning objects are independent of the other learning objects.or invocation of objects is determined by time or sequence. experience. Dynamic learning objects are used when educators need to adapt to the ever changing way of knowledge acquisition of students. retention and reasoning amongst a group of learners. Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO) Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO) is un-paced learning objects. 2. Content Models provide a more precise definition of what learning objects are and also it helps to identify learning object components and repurpose them.3 LEARNING OBJECT CONTENT MODELS Content models identify different kind of learning objects and their components. The delivery or invocations of objects are triggered by events.      Learnativity Content Model SCORM Content Aggregation Model CISCO RLO/RIO Model NETg Learning Object Model General Learning Object Content Model 20 .

 Collections: lessons or chapters can be assembled into larger collections. This level corresponds with more conventional lessons or chapters. animation.Learnativity Content Model The Learnativity content model (Wagner 2002) identifies the following taxonomy:  Raw Media Elements are the smallest level in this model: these elements reside at a pure data level. The following Figure 2.  Information Objects are sets of raw media elements. like courses and whole curricula.  Aggregate Assemblies that deal with larger (terminal) objectives. Examples include a single sentence or paragraph. etc.  Based on a single objective. Such objects could be based on the information block model. At this level reside learning objects in a more restricted sense than the aforementioned definition of the LOM standard suggests. illustration. information objects are then selected and assembled into the third level of Application Specific Objects. Figure 2.1 shows Learnativity Content Model.1: Learnativity Content Models. 21 .

 Sharable Content Object (SCO): Represents a collection of one or more assets. 22 . A SCO can for example be reused in different learning experiences to fulfill different learning objectives. SCOs are meant to be small units.  Content Aggregation: is a map (content structure) that can be used to aggregate learning resources in a well integrated unit of education (for example course. images. Assets: Assets are an electronic representation of media. Figure 2. Figure 7 shows the SCORM Content Aggregation Model. audio. module).2: SCORM Content Aggregation Model. web pages or other data that can be presented in a web client. chapter.SCORM Content Aggregation Model The SCORM content aggregation model contains the following components:    Assets Sharable Content Objects (SCO) Content Aggregations. such that reusability in more learning objectives is feasible. a SCO should be independent of its learning context. text. To improve the reusability.

A course contains independent units. lesson and topic. A practice item is an activity that gives the learner the ability to apply its knowledge and skills. The following figure Figure 2. An assessment item is a question or measurable activity used to determine if the learner has mastered the learning objective for a given RIO.3: CISCO RLO/RIO Model NETg Learning Object Model NETg was one of the first to use the LO concept for its IT courses. 23 . unit. Summary and Assessment are added to the packet. Figure 2. The following figure Figure 2. an Overview.4 shows NETg Learning Object Model. Each RIO is composed of three components: content items. A unit contains independent lessons and a lesson contains independent topics. To make a complete learning experience or lesson from a collection of RIOs. A topic represents an independent learning object that contains a single learning objective and has a corresponding activity and assessment. practice items and assessment items.CISCO RLO/RIO Model A Reusable Learning Object (RLO) is a collection of 7 ± 2 RIOs (Reusable Information Objects). It has a hierarchy of 4 levels – course. Reusable Information Objects (RIOs) are pieces of information that are built around a single learning objective. like a case study or a practice test.3 shows CISCO RLO/RIO Model.

24 .4: NETg Learning Object Model Figure 2.5 gives the hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content Model Structure.Figure 2.

an overview. 25 .Learning Object Content Models Learnativity Content Model SCORM Content Aggregation Model CISCO RLO/ RIO Model NETg Learning Object Model Collections Content Aggregations RLOs Courses Aggregate Assemblies SCOs RIOs Units Application Specific Objects Assets Content Items Lessons Information Objects Topics Raw Media Elements Figure 2. It is obvious that a learning object of a model can be used in another model if the learning object is in a subset of both models. For example. a learnativity learning object can be used in CISCO if it contains 7 ± 2 information objects. Homogeneity of the different learning object content models can be found out easily.5: Hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content Model Structure.

and reused through integrated database functionality. text. The LMS cannot create and manipulate courses. graphics or any other object that makes up the content within the course being created.4 LEARNING CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LCMS) Learning content management systems (LCMS) allow online content to be stored. storing and delivering E-Learning content. management and publishing of the content that will typically be delivered via an LMS. can create. store. A dynamic delivery interface that delivers content. assessment items. A learning object repository that is a central database that manages content. simulations. An LCMS is a multi-user environment where developers may create. The LCMS is a complex piece of software that labels learning objects then organizes and delivers them in infinite combinations. These assets may include media files developed in other authoring tools. managed. An LCMS manages the process of creating. The core components of a LCMS are     An authoring tool suitable for non-programmers. it cannot reuse the content of one course to build another. commonly referred to as learning objects. manage. launches courses. reuse. editing.. 2. however. search for and reuse small units or chunks of digital learning content and assets. The LCMS. manage. The central database or repository either delivers learning objects to learners individually or combines objects into learning modules. A learning object of CISCO fits within the NETg model if the RLO contains a single learning objective and has a corresponding activity and assessment. WebCT). and deliver digital learning content from a central object repository.g. it is not in a subset of both profiles and cannot be used within a CISCO context. and tracks progress. manage and deliver not only training modules but also manage and edit all the individual pieces that make up a catalog of training. If the learning object contains only 4 RIOs. An administrative component that manages learner records. A learning content management system (LCMS) is a related technology to the learning management system (e. import. These objects and modules 26 . in that it is focused on the development. LCMS applications allow users to create.summary and assessment.

The administrative application manages learner information. RLO are assembled into learning chunks or accessed as individual pieces of information or instruction and delivered to the learner. et al.. The individual learner data is also managed by the system and is accessible to the individual user. creating new learning objects. 2001).. Using these templates authors may develop an entire course by using existing learning objects in the repository. The authoring application provides templates that automate storyboarding. An effective LCMS will enable an organization to organize courseware without programming expertise. or using a combination of old and new objects (Brennan. The content is created and stored in a repository that is accessed by the learning management system and distributed to the users (i. managing the content for distribution. which are reusable. LCMS are particularly suited to handling large amounts of content for E-Learning efforts. launches courses from a catalogue. To accomplish this. media-independent chunks of information organized by a metadata classification system (Ellis. LCMS and LMS can be complementary and each solves a uniquely different challenge. LCMS are based on a reusable learning object model allowing content to be reused within or across courses or programs (Hall. and tracks and reports on learner progress. So one begins to comprehend the integration of content. LCMS were not created with the intention of replacing LMS. and handles assessment and feedback. and managing learner data.6 depict the elements that comprise a typical LCMS. provides links to information. 2003). So an LCMS can support the creation and management of Reusable Learning Object (RLO).e. The following Figure: 2. The successful and efficient deployment of an LCMS relies largely on effective development and use of learning objects. 2001).are presented to learners through the interface which tracks users. learners). LCMS manage content separately from the media in which the content will be delivered. 27 .

28 .Figure 2.5 SUMMARY This chapter describes various context parameters that are used in existing systems to acquire context awareness in E-Learning and also about the learning objects.6: Learning Content Management System Components 2. learning content management systems that are described in the existing works.

Hence. it is obvious that different subsets of the context parameters are considered for capturing the learner‟s context. there is a need to define a standardized context model which can completely capture the learner‟s context. Thus the proposed system needs the following to dynamically compose and provide the learning object according to the learner‟s context.CHAPTER 3 NEED FOR PROPOSED SYSTEM From the study of the existing works in context aware E-Learning. Hence. to provide the learning content based on a learner‟s context. a learning object have to be available at different levels of abstraction and media types which is termed as learning chunks. there is a need to define a modular structure of a learning object that helps to realize a learning object based on complete learner‟s context. But they are incomplete in certain aspects. Since a new learning object structure is defined. the structure of learning objects are monolithic and do not support to provide learning content based on the complete context of the learner. a suitable representation for the same also has to be proposed. a content management system for storing the learning chunks and dynamically composing them based on a leaner‟s context has to be defined. These learning chunks have to be composed dynamically to constitute for a learning object to be delivered to the learner based on his current learning context. Also. At present. In addition.     Standardization of Context Model Definition of Learning Object Model Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation Design and development of Content Management System 29 . Each of them helps to capture certain aspects of the learner‟s context.

They are the following.     Profile Context Preference Context Infrastructure Context Learning Context The structured sets of context parameters are given in Table 4. Profile Context This context is giving information about learner‟s personal information. it is necessary to derive a standardized context model that helps to establish a learner‟s context comprehensively.1. personality type and learner‟s level of expertise regarding the topic of study. Hence. it cannot help to accommodate all the details of a user‟s context completely.1.1 INTRODUCTION The proposed context aware E-Learning system is to be developed by using the solutions proposed for each of the following.CHAPTER 4 PROPOSED SYSTEM 4. 30 . different subsets of context parameters have been used for capturing a learner‟s context. The standardized context model consists of mainly four sub context parameters which consolidates the existing systems parameters.     Standardization of Context Model Definition of Learning Object Model Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation Design and development of Content Management System 4.1 Standardization context model for context aware e-learning systems In the existing E-Learning systems. Since the subset is not complete.

1: Structured set of contexts Sub Context Name Context Type Parameters SubParameters Profile Context Static Personal Information Name ID DOB Gender Address Email-id Phone Number Technologies Known Knowledge Level OS Experience Internet Usage Personality Type Extrovert Sensory Thinkers Judgers 31 . Infrastructure Context It describes the information about learner‟s situation. Table 4. network and device used by the learner. Learning Context This describes the information about the learning pace. learning state and the comprehension level of the learner.Preference Context It contains the information about learner‟s approach or preferences and learner‟s intention and learning style.

Beginner Level of Expertise Practitioner Expert Conceptual Example-Oriented Learner Preference Case Study Simulation Preference Context Static Demonstration Research Learner Intention Survey or Overview Quick Reference Basic Introduction Project Assignment Seminar Learning Style Video Audio Text Animation Slides I Learner Situation Private Public Infrastructure Context Static Network Driving Wired Wireless Device Mobile 32 .

Learning context is dynamic context because it changes according to the learner‟s pace. ID. Formalized way of representing the standardized context model is given in Fig. In the above subcontexts. Internet Usage} 33 . Preference. Address.4. Context Ontology – {Profile. Static contexts are constant. Email-id. learner‟s state and comprehension level. Learning State} Profile – {Personal Information. it will not change in the entire E-Learning session. Knowledge Level. Gender. the profile context. DOB. Technologies Known.1.functional requirements Slow Learning Pace Medium Fast Studied Learning State Learning Context Dynamic To Be Studied To Be Revised Not Understood Comprehension Level Understood a little Understood Well Understood Completely These sub-contexts are either Static type or Dynamic type. OS Experience. Personality Type. Phone Number. Infrastructure.PDA Laptop PC QoLS Functional requirements Non. preference context and infrastructure contexts are static because it will remain the same for the entire course session. Level of Expertise} Personal Information {Name.

Audio. Judges. Basic Introduction.{Learner‟s Preference. Comprehension Level} Learning Pace {Slow. Learner‟s State. PDA. Thinkers. Network. Simulation} Learner’s Intension {Research. Device} Learner’s Situation QoLS {Public. Non-Functional Learning State – {Learning Pace. Fast} 34 . Quick Reference. Text. Driving} {Functional Requirements} Functional Requirements {Bandwidth. Medium. Demonstration. Cost} Response Requirements. QoLS. Availability. PC} {Reliability. ExampleOriented. Assignment. Expert} Preference . Learner‟s Intension.} {Beginner. Practitioner. Survey. Laptop. Sensory. Wireless} {Mobile. Case Study. Seminar} Learning Style {Video. Private. Learning Style} Learner’s Preference {Conceptual. Time} Non-Functional Requirements Network Device {Wired.Personality Type Level of Expertise {Extrovert. Animation} Infrastructure – {Learner‟s Situation. Project.

Every abstraction would be available in different media types. Definition of Learning Object Model for Context Aware E-Learning systems The design of the standardized context model requires a flexible learning object model.Learner’s State Comprehension Level {Studied. To Be Studied. To Be Revised} {Not Understood. Each of these corresponds to the various abstraction of the same learning object. The structure of the learning object will change according the learner‟s preferences and intentions.1.2. Concept Detailed Concept Example Case Study Simulation Demonstration Figure 4.2. These learning object abstractions in the various media types are called as learning object chunks. case study. That is.2: Different levels of abstraction When a learner whose learning preference is learning by „case study‟ approaches the E-Learning system with the intention of preparing for interview. the same learning object is available in the form of a concept. Understood Well. Understood a Little. simulation and demonstration. detailed concept. This requires that the learning object is structured in terms of different levels of abstractions as given below in Fig 4. That is. the different learning object abstraction chunks chosen to constitute the learning object structure 35 . example.1: Formalized way of representing the standardized context model. the learning object structure should not be static. 4. Understood Completely} Figure 4.

2: Learning object structure based on the learner’s preferences and intentions. Simulation} {Detailed Concept. Demonstration} {Detailed Concept. Example. Detailed Concept. Example. Learner’s Intention Research Learning chunk abstractions constituting the learning object {Simple Concept. Example. Example. Case Study. Case Study} 36 . Case Study. Example} {Detailed Concept. Example. Case Study} {Simple Concept. Demonstration} Survey Quick Reference Basic Introduction Project Seminar Assignment {Detailed Concept. Case Study} {Simple Concept. This structure is dynamically determined based on the learning preference and intention of the learner. Demonstration. for the above mentioned scenario. Simulation. Formalized way of representing the learning object model for different intentions of a learner is given in Table 4. This shows the different learner‟s intention and the corresponding sequencing of the learning object abstractions for each of these intentions. the learning object is structured with three abstractions – simple concept. Table 4.and the sequencing order of these abstractions while presenting to the learner is as shown below Simple Concept  Case Study  Example. Thus. Case Study.2. Example. case study and example.

yn and every abstraction is available in z1. It is available in a particular level of abstraction in a particular media. is available in abstractions y1. Every learning chunk corresponds to a particular domain. Level of Abstraction Media Domain Ontology Figure 4..4.3 Definition of Learning Object-Chunk Representation For representing the standard context model and structured learning object model a suitable representation technique has to be identified.3 shows the 3 dimensional representation of learning object chunks. Y-axis represents the level of abstraction of the learning object chunk viz.1.3: Three dimensional representation of learning object chunks The following Fig. z1 y1 x x yn zn Figure 4. That is. 4. learning objects chunks are represented in a threedimensional way. zn media types. detailed concept. 4. example etc. concept.. X-axis represents the domain ontology to which the learning object chunk belongs. Thus. and the Z-axis represents the media in which a learning object chunk abstraction is existing.4: Hierarchical representation of learning objects 37 . Fig. a learning object x.4 shows hierarchical representation of learning object.

5 shows the architecture of the proposed Context Aware E-Learning system.      User Interface Module Context Building Module Learning Object Structure Generation Module Learning Object Delivery Module Content Management System Fig 4.1. Through this user interface module the learner‟s context is built. Content Management Systems for Context Aware E-Learning Systems In order to accommodate the newly designed standardized context model and learning object content model.4. since the learning object structure is dynamically composed it can cater to learner‟s preference an intentions so that the learner will get highly customized learning content. The learning object model is 38 . A suitable learning object model which best suits the current context is generated dynamically. The learner will give input through the user interface module. the learning object delivery module makes use of the learning object model which is dynamically generated for the learner‟s context and composes a learning object in terms of many zs which correspond to the various ys that have been chosen to constitute for the structure of the learning object in a domain x. The content management system has to store and retrieve the learning object chunks. The advantages of the proposed system are that it generates content based on a standardized set of context parameters. Also. During content generation.4. 4. a content management system which can store the learning object chunks and dynamically compose a learning object according to the current context of the learner is required.2 ARCHITECTURE OF THE PROPOSED CONTEXT-AWARE ELEARNING SYSTEM Architecture of the proposed context aware e-learning system includes the following modules.

39 . Standardized Context Model Learning Object Model User Interface Module Learning Object Delivery Module Content Management System Figure 4.3 SUMMARY This chapter describes the proposed systems and the architecture of the proposed context aware E-Learning system.the input to content management system which fills the structure with the required learning object chunks and delivers it to the learner through the learning object delivery module.5: Architecture of proposed context aware E-Learning system. 4.

Then.5. 5.1 shows the user interface of the GURUDEV. This chapter also explains the two analyses carried out among proposed context aware E-Learning system and existing context aware E-Learning system. 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes about proposed context aware E-Learning system and screen shots of proposed context aware E-Learning system. The learner is assumed to be in „private‟ place. the media preferred by the learner is „text‟ and the learner is using „laptop‟ and network used is wired and the learner want to study about network topology. 5. Through the proposed system GURUDEV the learner can learn about some computer network portion.2 gives the learner context for generating the appropriate learning content dynamically.2 CASE STUDY The proposed context aware E-Learning system is entitled as GURUDEV.CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS 5. The learner provides „detailed concept‟ as his learning preference. 40 .3. GURUDEV will provide apt content to the learner with particular intention and preference.2 the learner comes with an intention of „seminar‟. 5. That is shown in Fig. In Fig. Fig. the sequencing of abstraction of learning object chunk will be in the following form Detailed Concept Example Case Study Demonstration. Fig. Finally the system dynamically composes learning objects according to the learner‟s context and is given to the learner. GURUDEV defines everything that is described above.

Figure 5.1: User Interface of proposed system

Figure 5.2: Learner’s context for generating learning content dynamically

41

Figure 5.3: Dynamically composed adaptive learning object

5.3 ANALYSIS Two types of analyses are carried out among proposed and existing context aware ELearning systems. First analysis verifies whether implemented context aware ELearning system, GURUDEV fulfills the requirements of the context aware ELearning system. Each of the stipulated parameters are fulfilled by GURUDEV and explained in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Fulfillment of context aware requirements by the proposed system Requirements of Context Fulfillment in the Aware E-Learning Standardized Context Model Learner‟s Ability Learner‟s Preferences Learner‟s Fulfilled How it is fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Learners abilities are Described in the Profile Context Learner‟s preferences are Described in the Preference Context Described in the Profile

42

Background Knowledge Learner‟s Interest Learner‟s Skills Learner‟s Requirements

Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled

Context Described in the Profile Context Described in the Profile Context Described in Profile as well as Infrastructure Context

The second type of analysis performs an evaluation of proposed E-Learning system with the existing E-Learning system. The evaluation is performed using the parameters defined in the standardized context model. That is, every system is analyzed to determine whether the context awareness such as profile awareness, preference awareness, infrastructure awareness and learning awareness are fulfilled in them. Table 5.2 shows whether the existing systems are satisfying the contexts parameters of the standardized context which is described in the proposed context aware E-Learning system. The total score is given based on the context parameters fulfilled. . Score 1 is attributed to every awareness that is fulfilled. The sum of all the score is plotted in the form of a graph in figure 5.4. Table 5.2: Comparison of proposed system with existing context aware E-Learning systems Existing Systems Profile Preference Infrastructure Learning Awareness Awareness Awareness State Awareness     ADLI, 2003    Adriana & Francisco      Andreas, 2007     Andreas, 2004     Bill et al., 1994     Carla et al., 2008     Darrel, 2009     Enrico et al.,2004     Srimathi & Srivatsa     IMS, 2003    Jeongwoo et al., 2006      Jose et al., 2008    Jovanovic et al., 2007     Kawanishi et al., 2006      Thyagharajan, 2007 Total Score 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3

43

2007 Zhu.. 2009 Mianxiong et al. 2006 Maria. 2009 Yuan et al.. 5. 2003 Tzone et al.5 2 1.. 2006 Yevgen et al.5 4 3.4.. 5. 2007 Mingfei et al.. 2006 Yang et al..4: Graphical representation of evaluation of existing E-Learning systems against proposed E-Learning system 44 . 2008 Lanzilotti et al.4 shows the graphical representation of the evaluation.5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 e-learning Systems Figure 5.2007 Peng et al. The X coordinate represents the E-Learning systems and Y coordinates represents the Total Value of that each system obtained.Koun & Hsin. 2007 Sun Microsystems.. 4... 2008 Xinyou et al. 2008 Yang. Most of these existing systems are satisfying only 3 context parameters described in the proposed context model but the proposed ELearning system satisfies all the 4 context parameters and is shaded in Fig.5 3 Total Score 2. 2007 Stefan et al.5 1 0. 2009 Proposed System                                                                 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 The following Fig..

5.4 SUMMARY This chapter gives the two types of analysis carried out among the existing and proposed context aware E-Learning systems and also the screen shots of the proposed context aware E-Learning system GURUDEV. 45 .

In future psychological aspects and user‟s cognitive level details can be included in the context model. 46 . For this. an E-Learning system will give customized information to the user. In this work a context aware E-Learning system is proposed to be developed. learning styles. Context aware E-Learning systems select or filter the learning resources in order to make the E-Learning content more relevant and suitable for the learner in his/her situation. A new content management system (CMS) which can store the structured learning objects and deliver highly customized content to the learner by dynamically composing the learning objects is also developed. But most of the existing context aware E-Learning systems uses only some of the context parameters namely learner‟s preferences. learner‟s intentions etc. By using these context parameters.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FORESEEABLE ENHANCEMENT A context aware E-Learning system considers many parameters that contribute for a learner‟s learning context. a standardized context model and learning object model are devised.

(1994). IMPACT OF CONTEXT-AWARENESS ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS. B. B. S. (2005). L. IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications. Adaptation of Learning Spaces: Supporting Ubiquitous Learning in Higher Distance Education. 38-46. Claudia W. pp. (2007). Architecture solutions for E-Learning systems. D. (2003). Interoperability between Information and Learning Environments– Bridging the Gaps. Betermieux. Bomsdorf.. 10(1). (2003). (2004). Birgit B. Feldmann. and Clifford. Towards reusable Adaptive Rules. Francisco J.. Heuel.Group Publishing.... 47 . Andreas S. and Roy Want. Journal of Universal Computer Science. N. E. Andreas Schmidt. Adriana Berlanga. Becking.. Mobile Computing and Ambient Intelligence: The Challenge of Multimedia. G. Langer. Anderson.. Bill N. Schlageter. Proceedings E-Learn 2004. Bomsdorf. Norman Adams. User Context Aware Delivery of E-Learning Material: Approach and Architecture. Context-Aware Computing Applications. S. (2004) Didactic Profiling: Supporting the Mobile Learner. Towards Plasticity of Digital Learning Spaces.BIBLIOGRAPHY ADLI Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ambient Intelligence.. P. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative. Idea. Garcia. (2005). B.

5 (1). 33(2).Carla Limongelli.. (2007). F. Letizia T. Personal Ubiquitous Computing . IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'02). Soloway E. pp. Ellis.. Marco Temperini. IEEE Transaction on Learning Technologies. 2003. Cristiana B. ACM SIGMOD Record. Proceedings of the 2007 Informing Science and IT Education Joint Conference. pp 19-26.. Giulia Vaste. Creating Learning Object. (2001). (2001) LCMS Roundup. 36(4). Fabio A. Quintana C.. (2008). (2002). Elisa Q. e-Learning. 48 . Chen Y. (2005). A data-oriented survey of context models. (2007). Dey. Curtis M. Y. Darrel Woelk. Handheld Use in K-12: A Descriptive Account. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'02)..Y. Derek Stockley. Kao T. R. pp.S. Luchini K. Cui. Adaptive Learning with the LS-Plan System: a Field Evaluation. (2002). Anind.15-22.C. (2009). K.P. pp. 233-237.23-30.. Context and Learner Modelling for the Mobile Foreign Language Learner. Bull. Semantic Web Services and Competency Ontologies. 4–7. S. Bobrowsky W. IEEE First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science.. Carlos.. pp. Carlo A.. E-learning Definition and Explanation (Elearning Online Training Online Learning).. 353-367. International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.. pp. Understanding and Using Context. K. Filippo Sciarrone.. Sheu J. Chiang C. A Mobile Scaffolding-AidBased Bird -Watching Learning System.

H. pp. (2004). K. Kawanishi. (2002). Richards. Luis Gonzalez-Abril. Free online dictionary of computing. Francisco Velasco. IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communications. Morikawa. pp. Eleftherios Koutsoloukas. Context-Aware Dialog Strategies for Multimodal Mobile Dialog Systems. Building Context-Aware Applications and Probe Space Infrastructure. Howe. Journal on AAAI.. 49 . (2006). Masahiko Tateishi. George N. H. 10(3). Jose Manuel Marquez. (2006).S. “Identification of ontology based learning object using instructional design. D. Creating adaptive learning paths using Ant Colony Optimization and Bayesian Networks. H. International Journal of Computational Intelligence. Jovanovic. (2007). Y. 103-106. Si. Ichiro Akahori. C. Educational Technology & Society. Knight. pp. Giovanni Cortese. N. D. IMS Abstract Framework: White paper. Prezerakos. Eric Nyberg. Srimathi. 1-12. Jeongwoo Ko. (2008). Ontologies for Effective Use of Context in e-Learning Settings. 47-59. Gasevic. IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN 2008). IMS Global Learning Consortium. 1(1). Context for Simplicity: A Basis for Context-aware Systems Based on the 3GPP Generic User Profile.K. S. (2006). Learning management systems 2002. UK. G. 3834-3839. B.Enrico Rukzio. Kawahara. (2003). Jin. Imperial College Department of Computing London. Fumihiko Murase. Hall. Teruko Mitamura. Juan Antonio Ortega. J. Sofia Kapellaki... pp. Srivatsa.

Pete S. pp. pp.K. Ubiquitous. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks. Rupert C. Koun-Tem Sun. 358. pp.256-265.K. 42-53.. 9(4). Linlin Ci. 791-795. Lanzilotti. IEEE Third International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC 2007). Peng Chen.. F.. and Trustworthy Computing. Guojun Wang. (2000). 50 . Adaptive Content Creation for Personalized e-Learning Using Web Services. 534-548. Educational Technology & Society. 26(3). pp.. Royal Society London. pp.. eLSE Methodology: a Systematic Approach to the eLearning Systems Evaluation. C. A. Zixue Cheng. (2008). 3(9).Agent System. & Costabile. De Angeli. Andy W. Implementing a Sentient Computing System. (2007). 2349-2358. Mingfei Wang. IEEE 2007 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICPPW 2007). Constructing Adaptive Individual Learning Environment Based on Multi. (2007). Using Learning Styles to Personalize Online Learning.Wide Information System. 67-72. Steve H.. pp.. Joe N. Ardito. pp. (2006). Thyagharajan. Yongjun Xu. A Support Method for Improving Learner‟s Learning Habit Using Behavior Analysis in a Ubiquitous Environment. Journal on Campus. Mike A. Applying Wireless Sensor Networks to Context-Awareness in Ubiquitous Learning. pp. M. Maria Zajac. Hsin-Te Chan. Kaoru Ota. 374-377. Mianxiong Dong. R. (2007). 5. Anbo Meng. The Study of Using Sure Stream to Construct Ubiquitous Learning Environment. Ratnamanjari Nayak. (2009). Ping Zhan. Philosophical Transactions.. Chunhua Zhao. (2007). Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 828-836.. IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security Workshop (CISW 2007). Andy H.

pp.Ogata H. (2007). In: Proceedings of Interact’99.. (1994).Group Publishing. Addressing Context-Awareness and Standards Interoperability in E-Learning: A Service-oriented Framework based on IRS III. Coutaz. Theimer. 89– 101. (2006). International Conference on Ontologies. Stefan Dietze. (1994). A. (2003). Yano Y. IEEE Network. Sun Microsystems. 110-117. J. John Domingue. D. Ontology-based User Context Management: The Challenges of Dynamics and Imperfection. Schmidt A. Alessio Gugliotta. Context-Aware Support for Computer Supported Ubiquitous Learning. Retrieved from the website http://sandbox.N. IMPACT OF CONTEXT-AWARENESS ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS. 995-1011.com/want/papers/parctabwmc-dec94. pp.M.. Databases and Applications of SEmantics (ODBASE 2006). Schilit B. Adams. A. 8 (5). Architecture solutions for E-Learning systems. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (IEEE WMTE2004).. M. Disseminating Active Map Information to Mobile Hosts. Schmidt A. IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA'94). pp. (2004).N. Context-aware computing applications. 13th Annual Workshop of the SIG Adaptivity and User Modeling in Interactive Systems. Fifth Inter-national Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW 2005).pdf. (2005b). Schilit B. Potentials and Challenges of Context-Awareness for Learning Solutions.27-34.parc. pp. Schmidt. (1999) Plasticity of User Interfaces: Framework and Research Agenda. 51 . Idea. Thevenin. Want R. 22–32. E-learning Framework. (2005a). The Knowledge Maturing Process as a Unifying Concept for ELearning and Knowledge Management. pp. Schmidt.

. Lan. (2005). Chen. H. Educational Technology and Society. H. Yang. B.K. A.. (2006). 3(9). Educational Technology and Society. 7 (4).toPeer Collaborative Learning. J. 828-836. Steps to Creating a Content Strategy for Your Organization. pp. 8(8). A. D. (2006). B. Kun-Te Wang. 52 . J. Providing Context Aware Learning Services to Learners with Portable Devices. The e-Learning Developers' Journal. (2008). H.Thyagharajan K. (2008). Fumihiko ANMA. pp.. Tishio OKAMOTO. 9(1). Context Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Peer. (2004). 34(4). J. Wagner. Ontological Enabled Annotations and Knowledge Management for Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning Community. J. Irene Y. (2007). Journal of Applied Sciences Research. Ratnamanjari N. I. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security. (2002). S. Getting a handle on learning content management systems. Context Aware Service Oriented Architecture for Web Based Learning. Tzone-I. Wang. D. Williams. Elsevier Journal on Expert System with Application. C. & Shao. (2002). S. Yang. Yang. Chen. In proceedings of 2006 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ‘06).. 70-81.. Personalized Adaptive Content System for Context Aware Mobile Learning. C. Wu. Yang S. International Journal of Advance learning Technology. N. & Chang. 840-842. H. pp. pp. pp. Adaptive Content Creation for Personalized e-Learning Using Web Services. 2(4). pp. Yueh-Min Huang. 244-246. Using a style-based ant colony system for adaptive learning. W. Toshie NINOMIYA. 188201. 153-161. Xinyou ZHAO.L. D. N. E. S. J.

Networking. 233-237. 778-785. 53 . Michael Fleming. X. pp. Elsevier Journal on Expert System with Application.by. Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. (2009). IEEE 2009 First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science. 347-350. Nicole Tourigny. 9113-9120..Yevgen B. IEEE Proceedings of First International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. and Parallel/Distributed Computing. pp. Hamidreza Baghi. Design and implementing An integrated Learning Content Management System. 36(5). Laurence Capus. (2008). ZHU Zhen.Example Context. A Learner Model for Learning. Design and Implementation of Web-Services based E-Learning System. An adjustable personalization of search and delivery of learning objects to learners. Yuan Fan Zhan. Artificial Intelligence. Igor Keleberda. Zhou. (2009). (2007). pp.

Chithralekha. T. Das. Dr. Manju Bhaskar. “Three Layered Adaptation Model for Context Aware E-Learning”. Dr. T. 2010. Minu. No. Das. Communicated to the International Journal of Computer Science and Information. S. Dr. M. Minu. T. Vol. Manju Bhaskar. Manju Bhaskar. Siva Sathya. Dr. 2. T. Chithralekha. International Conference on Advances in Information and Communication Technologies (iCT 2010). Minu. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE). Das. Chithralekha. 2. 2337-2346.PUBLICATIONS JOURNALS 1. Dr. 2010. Siva Sathya. Dr. Siva Sathya. Dr. Das. 2. Dr. M. T. 4. India. 6. International Journal of Computer Application (IJCA). 3. September 7-9.Learning”. 2. Manju Bhaskar. Minu. Chithralekha. Vol. Siva Sathya. No. Dr. Chithralekha. M. “Standardization of Context Model for Context Aware E-Learning”. August 2010. M. Dr. “Standardized Multi Layered Context Model for Context Aware ELearning”. pp. Siva Sathya. S. Minu. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE). S. 5. “Static Context Model for Context Aware E-Learning”. “Context Aware E-Learning System with Dynamically Composable Learning Objects”. 54 . Das. M. Kerala. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST). Minu. S. No. S. 4. “Genetic Algorithm Based Adaptive Learning Scheme Generation For Context Aware E. T. Cochin. M. Das. 1245-1253. Dr. Vol. 2010. Chithralekha. pp. 4. CONFERENCES 1.

Das. Siva Sathya.M. Minu. India. Government Engineering College. March 24-26. Kerala. Thrissur. 55 . S.2. Dr. “Learning Objects in ELearning”. Chithralekha. Dr. Proceedings of the National Conference on Emerging Trends in Computing (NCETIC). T.

56 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.