Soft Computing (2020) 24:4427–4439

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04205-x (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

METHODOLOGIES AND APPLICATION

Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning

networks
Hong Liu1 • Xiaojun Li2

Published online: 8 July 2019

 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Discovering useful hidden learning behavior pattern from learning data for online learning platform is valuable in edu-
cation technology. Studies on learning path recommendation to recommend an appropriate resource for different users are
particularly important for the development of advanced online education. However, it may suffer from low recommen-
dation quality for beginners or learner with low participation. In order to improve the recommendation quality, a learning
path combination recommendation method based on the learning network (LPCRLN) is proposed. In LPCRLN, it intro-
duces complex network technology. Based on the characteristics of courses and learners, the course network and learner
network, respectively, are constructed, and then learners are divided into three types. Finally, the recommendation is made
in different scenarios according to the learner’s learning records. In this study, a series of experiments have been carried
out. By comparisons, experimental results indicate that our proposed method is able to make sound recommendations on
appropriate courses for different types of learners with significant improvement in terms of accuracy and efficiency.

Keywords Learning path combination recommendation  Learning network  MOOC  Scenarios

1 Introduction
In recent years, domestic and overseas universities and
enterprises launched amount of high-quality video open
courses, resource-sharing courses and large-scale open
online courses, accompanied by the emergence of some
web-based learning platforms, such as massive open online
course (MOOC). Due to the recent unprecedented prolif-
eration of information and communication technologies,
the digital learning resource is becoming sufficient, and
more and more people can obtain information through
online courses. However, for MOOC, according to the
survey conducted, online courses showed low pass rate and
high dropout rate (Jordan 2014), and the reasons are listed
as follows (Hua and Zhang 2014): (1) course resources on
Communicated by V. Loia.
& Hong Liu
LLH@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
1
Computer and Information Engineering College, Zhejiang
Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China
2
School of Management and E-Business, Zhejiang Gongshang
University, Hangzhou, China
the MOOC platform are very abundant, but the courses
have no obvious prerequisite relations, so the learner’s
selection is quite random; (2) learner’s diversity and
knowledge pattern and basis make it hard to balance the
degree of difficulty for learning courses. Therefore, how to
meet the learning needs of different learners’ professional
types and learning characteristics, as well as the general
learning needs of learners, and how to help learners find
their own learning resources become the important
research aim of online learning recommendation.
The sequence and path of learning activity are called a
learning path (Hwang et al. 2010). According to the
learning objectives, content, environment and basis, a
series of learning activities are combined to form the
learning path under the guidance of a certain learning
strategy. At present, a lot of research work has been done
on the online learning path recommendation, which pre-
sented several ways to solve this type of related or similar
problem. One way of choosing a learning path is based on
graph theory. Brusilovsky and Maybury (2003) proposed
the first learning object sorting method, in which he con-
sidered the learner’s knowledge level and learning objec-
tives. Many types of researches further improved and
supplemented this method afterward. Alian and Jabri

123
4428
(2009) defined the best learning path as the learning pro-
cess with the least time and efforts, and their research
discussed how to select the shortest learning paths of
course graph to learn the target knowledge. Essalmi et al.
(2010) suggested finding a suitability function to select a
more appropriate path. Durand et al. (2013) proposed a
learning path recommendation model based on graph the-
ory, which considered the interdependence relation
between learning objects and recommended learning paths
from the community’s viewpoint.
Another way of choosing a learning path is based on
artificial intelligence with the application of soft computing
methods. Berg et al. (2006) suggested a swarm intelligence
based on learning path recommendation method. The core
idea is that if a learning path is frequently used, other
learners are more likely to adopt the same learning path.
The method did not directly measure the matching degree
between learning object and learner’s demands but used the
information of the reference group to generate a recom-
mendation. Chen et al. (2006) proposed a personalized web
information search system, which constructed a suit-
able learning path based on item response theory. Chen
(2008) used a genetic algorithm to realize a personalized
learning path recommendation, which considered the
learner’s ability, the difficulty coefficient of learning
objects and conceptual continuity. Chen et al. (2009)
adopted the ontology concept map to realize the person-
alized learning path recommendation. At first, the method
constructs the learner’s concept map based on the results of
previous tests, then the relationship between concepts is
determined by the conceptual relationship measurement
and fuzzy clustering method, and finally learning path
recommendation is realized by applying the genetic algo-
rithm based on the concept map. Yang and Wu (2009)
classified the learners’ learning styles and measured the
frequency of a certain learning path learned by a particular
learning style user, so as to improve the efficiency and
accuracy of the swarm intelligence algorithm. Carchiolo
et al. (2010) studied the best-personalized learning path in
a trusted and recommended environment. This approach
searched trusted peers because they provide useful
resources to meet other similar problems and preferences.
Cheng (2011) proposed using extensive ant colony algo-
rithm to solve the problem of learning path recommenda-
tion, which made a comprehensive reference to learners’
learning path evaluation, the characteristics of the knowl-
edge level and learning style of target users. Tam et al.
(2014) presented an explicit semantic analysis, followed by
enhancing the ontology analysis through concept cluster-
ing, and applied an optimizer to find an optimal learning
path of involved concepts or modules. Tseng et al. (2016)
constructed the concept map for adaptive learning and
provided educational recommender for individual students.
123
H. Liu
Yang and Dong (2017) proposed a learning path model that
allows learning activities and the assessment criteria of
their learning outcomes to be explicitly formulated by
Bloom’s taxonomy learning path for learners. Dwivedi
et al. (2017) present an effective learning path recom-
mendation system (LPRS) for e-learners through a variable
length genetic algorithm (VLGA) by considering learners’
learning styles and knowledge levels. Bendahmane et al.
(2017) presented a competence-based approach (CBA)
derived from learning data learner’s characteristics and
their expectations, in which learners were clustered and
traced for getting the proper learning paths. Zhao et al.
(2017) proposed an approach of recommending micro-
learning path based on improved ant colony optimization
algorithm, in which learner’s learning transitions of
knowledge level, knowledge area and learning goal can be
detected according to the operation of the learner. Zhu
et al. (2018) presented a new multiconstraint learning path
recommendation algorithm based on knowledge map,
which divided the e-learning process into four different
learning scenarios, and included eight kinds of constraint
learning paths and their corresponding constraint factors.
Wan and Niu (2018) incorporated a learning object (LO)-
oriented recommendation mechanism to learner-oriented
recommender systems and proposed a LO self-organiza-
tion-based recommendation approach (self). The other
example of the static learning path, using the swarm
intelligence approach, can be found in Wang et al. (2008),
Yang and Wu (2009), Wan (2011), Abualigah and
Hanandeh (2015) and Abualigah and Khader (2017).
What’s more, for MOOC and e-learning, the filtering-
based approach is often used in the research of learning
path. Salehi and Kamalabadi (2014) proposed a new
material recommender system framework based on
sequential pattern mining and multidimensional attribute-
based collaborative filtering (CF). Ding et al. (2016) pre-
sented a group recommender system for online course
study, which used the historical information about course
ratings and former learners. Hou et al. (2016) proposed a
big data-supported, context-aware online learning-based
course recommender system, which took the personal
preferences into consideration, making the recommenda-
tion suitable for people with different backgrounds. The
other works of recommending courses utilize adaptive
learning (Li et al. 2005; Alzaghoul and Tovar 2016; Qazdar
et al. 2015).
The above-mentioned existing methods considered
some contents such as the learning style (Yang and Wu
2009; Cheng 2011) and frequency of a certain learning path
learned (Berg et al. 2006; Yang and Wu 2009). However,
due to insufficient consideration of the characteristics of
online learning as diversity of learning styles, learning
randomness and unobvious prerequisite relations between
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks 4429

learning resources, the above methods cannot precisely

match the learners’ needs, especially for beginners or
Data Data
learners with low participation. Therefore, there is a need
crawl preprocess Topology
to create an effective recommendation approach that con- Online learning structure
siders the different learning scenarios, including for platform
beginners, learner with low participation and activists.
This paper proposes the learning path combination Course- Learner-
recommendation method based on the learning network course learner
network network
(LPCRLN), from the objective angle of some learning
information, such as learning frequency and learner par-
Scenario
ticipation. This model firstly constructs a course–course Structure
analysis
analysis
network according to the current cases of learner’s course,
which represents the abstract relationship between learners Learning path recommention
of any two arbitrary courses. For a specific course, we
construct a learner–learner network to represent the
abstract relationship of two arbitrary learners. Secondly,
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
we adopt the complex network theory to analyze the
characteristic of network structure. Finally, we propose an
algorithm of learning path combination recommendation to Top-K
recommend the learning path for learners in different
scenarios. Fig. 1 Framework of LPCRLN method
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2
introduces the construction of the learning network. The 2.1 Data acquisition and processing
related definitions and description of the LPCRLN method
are presented in Sect. 3. Experiments and discussions are This paper uses network robot to crawl the learning records
described in Sect. 4. Finally, this paper is concluded in on MOOC platform. The original online learning-related
Sect. 5. information, such as course name, category and evaluation,
may contain some noise, such as spelling errors, content
repetition and information asymmetry. So preprocessing is
2 The construction of the learning network necessary, such as web page cleaning to remove pages with
noise and automatic filtering to delete the repeated
With the continuous increase in online learning resources, resources to save storage space. After preprocessing, the
people gradually realize that to improve learning effi- information is transformed into relational data structures
ciency, quickly locating the appropriate resources for their and stored in a local database. The specific data structure
study is the key factor. Based on learning history and for this experiment includes: course information (course
learners’ similarity, the LPCRLN method constructs the categories, course id, course name in English, course name
learning network. For courses, the relationship between in Chinese, the number of learners concerned, course
course and learner is extracted. For learners, the similarity interestingness), learner information (learner id, education
between learners is constructed to guide the learning path level, learner name, number of comments, number of notes,
recommendation. Figure 1 shows the basic framework of number of posts, number of favorites, number of topics),
the LPCRLN method. Firstly, we collated the leaning data learning information (learner id, course id, learner URL,
from online learning platform; secondly, we preprocessed course pass) and learner evaluation (learner id, course id,
these data to construct the course–course network and the course mark).
learner–learner network; finally, based on these two net-
works, we present the learning path combination recom- 2.2 The definition of the learning network
mendation algorithm to recommend the appropriate
courses to different types of learners. The following sec- After data acquisition and processing, two kinds of
tions will describe each component of the framework and weighted networks can be built, course–course network
define relevant concepts. (CCN) and learner–learner network (LLN). Of which LLN
mainly cooperates with the CCN network to recommend
learning paths. In this subsection, we will first give the
formal description of CCN and LLN.

123
4430 H. Liu

Input(L i,k,len)

Scenarios of L i

Algorithm 1
Learning data Generate course- Scenario 1 :for a new learner
course network G(C) learned no course
Data extraction and Call Algorithm 2 C1 C2 C3
preprocessing
Generate learner- C1 C2 C3
learner network G(L) Scenario 2 :for a learner
learned only a course C3 C1 C2
Call Algorithm 3
Generate the recommended
Stored as the adjacent Scenario 3 :for a learner learning path
matrix learned more than two courses
Call Algorithm 4

Fig. 2 Architecture of learning path combination recommendation algorithm based on the learning network

Definition 1 Course–course network (CCN): The CNN Definition 2 Learner–learner network (LLN): The LLN
structure can be defined as CCN = (V, E), where V = (C1, structure can be defined as LLN = (V0 , E0 ), where V0 = (L1,
C2, C3,…, Cn) is the set of course L2, L3,…, Ln) is the set of learner nodes and E’ is the set of
nodes;E ¼ fðCi ; Cj ÞjCi ; Cj 2 Vg is the set of undirected undirected edges, denoting the relations of any two learners
edges denoting the learners’ learning relations for two learning the same course, i.e., if both learner Li and learner
arbitrary courses, i.e., if a learner Li which is defined in Lj learned course Ci, there will be an edge from the node Li
definition 2, learns courses Ci and Cj, there will be an edge to the node Lj. And the weight of each undirected edges
from the node Ci to the node Cj. And the weight of each denotes the learning course situation between learners,
undirected edges denotes the situation of learners passing which can be represented as the adjacency matrix:
courses, which can be represented as the adjacency matrix:  0
w ; ðLi ; Lj Þ 2 E0
8
Xm u0 = f u0ij ¼ g ð2Þ
> 0; otherwise
< wij ¼ lki  lkj ; ðCi ; Cj Þ 2 E
u¼fuij ¼ k¼1 g ð1Þ where u0 represents an n0 *n0 matrix, and n0 = |V0 | is the
>
:
0; otherwise number of network nodes. If u0ij ¼ w0 , then it means both
learner Li and learner Lj learn the same courses, and the
where u represents the adjacency matrix of n*n, n = |V| is
number of courses taken is w0 .
the total number of nodes and m = |E| is the total number of
edges in the network. If uij ¼0, then there is no edge
2.3 The characteristics of learning network
between Ci and Cj. If not, the weight of uij will take the
nodes
learners both learning courses Ci and Cj into consideration.
lki 2 f0:5; 1g represents the learning situation of learner k; The research of complex network has become a heated
if learner k passes course i, then lki ¼ 1; otherwise, lki is set topic recently. By granting different weights to each net-
to 0.5. work link, a weighted network is formed to provide a more
comprehensive description of network structure and
behavior. In this paper, the complex network technology
based on the improved node weight indicator which is
Table 1 Scenarios of LPCRLN defined as follows is used to analyze CCN network char-
Learning scenarios acteristics and to mine the learning relations of single
courses and the learning relations between courses and
1 The learner hasn’t learned any courses
courses.
2 The learner has learned only one course Ci
3 The learner has learned n (n C 2) courses Definition 3 Node weight (S): In the weighted complex
network, the node weight is generally defined as the sum of
associated edge weights. In CCN, there are two types of

123
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks 4431

nodes: isolated nodes and non-isolated nodes. This paper most well-known method for similarity calculation, which
sets the weight of isolated node Ci to the sum of lki. The is used to calculate the similarity of any two learners in the
detailed definition is expressed as: paper. Since each feature corresponds to one dimension, an
8X N-dimensional space vector can be constructed:
< wij ; Ci is a non  isolated node and ðCi ; Cj Þ 2 E
j2N
si ¼ Xi Fi ¼ ðf1;i ; f2;i ; . . .; fN;i Þ ð4Þ
: Lki ; Ci is an isolate node; Lk is the kth learner
k2N 0
where Fi is the spatial vector of learner i; N represents the
ð3Þ
number of learner’s features; and fj,i is the quantized value
Definition 4 Learners’ similarity: For beginners, the of feature j. After the construction of learners’ vector
courses of similar learners are recommended. The simi- space, the cosine coefficient is used to represent the simi-
larity of any two learners is obtained mainly through their larity between learners as:
characteristics, including basic attributes and behavior
SimðLi ; Lj Þ ¼CosðLi ; Lj Þ
features. The vector space model (Salton et al. 1975) is the
PjFj
k¼1 fk;i  fk;j ð5Þ
¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PjFj 2 PjFj 2 ffi
k¼1 fk;i  k¼1 fk;j
Algorithm 1 Learning path combination
recommendation algorithm based on learning where SimðLi ; Lj Þ represents the similarity between learn-
network. ers Li and Lj ; CosðLi ; Lj Þ is the cosine coefficients between
p=RecommendPath(C,L,Li, Clearn ,k,len) learners Li and Lj ; F is the feature set and jFj refers to the
Input number of features.
C:The course set;
L:The learner set; Definition 5 Learning path: Learning path is a sequence
Li :The target Learner; of multiple courses, between which there is no clear pre-
Clearn :The course set learned by Li; requisite relationship, and is denoted by p = {Ci,Cj,…,Cn}.
k:The number of courses on the recommended
learning paths;
len: The number of nodes on the path;
Output
The Learning path combination
Algorithm 2 Learning path recommendation for
recommendation p={ Crem };
newly registered learners.
Apply the function G(C)=GetCNN(C) to
p=RemPathofNewL(G(C), G(L), Li , k)
generate adjacency matrix of course-course
network using Eq.(1); Input:
Apply the function G(L)=GetLNN(L) to G(C):The course-course network;
generate adjacency matrix of learner-learner G(L):The learner-learner network;
network using Eq.(2); Li :The target Learner;
Apply the function num=GetCNumofL(G(L), k:The number of courses on the recommended
Li) to calculate the number of courses learned by learning paths;
Li; Output:
Apply the function Clearn=GetCourses(Li) to The Learning path combination
get all the courses of learner Li learning; recommendation p={ Crem };
if num==0 then Apply the function S(Li)=GetSimilarity(G(L),
call the function Li) to compute the similarity between Li and the
p=RemPathofNewL(G(C),G(L),Li, k) ; other learners using Eq.(5), from which find the
else if num==1 then nearest neighbors similar learner Lj;
call the function Apply the function C(Li)=GetCourses(Li) to
p=RemPathofOneCourseL(G(C),G(L),Li,Cle get all the courses of learner Lj learning, sort
arn, k); them in descending order based on their node
else weight;
call the function Apply the function
p=RemPathofOtherL(G(C),Li,Clearn,k,len); p(Crem)=RecommendPath(G(C),k,C(Li)) to
end if choose the node-weight top-k courses in CCN;
return the learner’s learning recommendation return p(Crem)=all the k recommendation
path p. courses.

123
4432 H. Liu

Algorithm 3 Learning path recommendation for Algorithm 4 Learning path recommendation for
the learner who has learned a single course. learner learned more than one course.
p=RemPathofOneCourseL(G(C), G(L), Li,Clearn, p=RemPathofOtherL(G(C),Li,Clearn, k,len)
k) Input:
Input: G(C):The course-course network G(C);
G(C):The course-course network; Li :The target Learner;
G(L):The learner-learner network; Clearn={Cj}:The course set learned by Li;
Li :The target Learner; k:The number of courses on the recommended
Clearn={Ci}:The course set learned by Li; learning paths;
k:The number of courses on the recommended len(len>=3):The number of nodes on the path;
learning paths; Output:
Output: The Learning path combination
The Learning path combination recommendation p={ Crem };
recommendation p={ Crem }; While choose any node combination (Cj,Ck)
for all the Ci ,i=0…m do from Clearn do
if ϕ ij ==0 ,j=0…n then apply the function
apply the function Ctemp(len)=GetCofAllPath(G(C),Cj,Ck,len)
L(Ci)=GetLearner(G(L), Ci) to get the to get all the course of the paths on which
Cj is the start point, Ck is the endpoint, and
learners learning course Ci;
the path length is len, or len-1,…,or 3.
apply the function
And categorize Ctemp according to the path
ML(Li)=GetL(G(L),L(Ci)) to choose Lj
length;
related to Li with the maximum node
for m==3,m<=len do
weight;
apply the function
apply the function
p(Crem)=RecommendPath(G(C),k,Ctemp
p(Crem)=RecommendPath(G(C),k,C(Lj))
(m) to choose the edge weight top-k
to choose the relevant Cj of Lj in CCN
courses in CNN;
and get the node-weight top-k courses;
end for
else
end while
apply the function C(Ci)=GetCourses(Ci)
return p(Crem)=all the k recommendation
to get all the relevant courses of Ci; courses.
apply the function p(Crem)=
RecommendPath(G(C),k,C(Ci)) to
choose the edge weight top-k courses in
CNN; 3 Learning path combination
end if recommendation algorithm
end for
if Crem == φ then According to the model proposed in Sect. 2, we design and
apply the function realize the learning path combination recommendation
p(Crem)=RecommendPath(G(C),k,C) to algorithm based on learning network, the description of
choose the node-weight of top-k courses in which is shown in Algorithm 1, and Fig. 2 shows the
CCN; architecture of the LPCRLN method.
end if
(1) Use two adjacent matrices to represent CNN and
return p(Crem)=all the k recommendation
LNN
courses.
According to the learning records crawled on the
MOOC platform, we use two adjacent matrices to
represent the course’s learned network, denoted as
G(C), and the learner’s learned network, denoted as
G(L). The network weights are given in Eqs. (1) and
(2).
(2) The scenarios of LPCRLN
The scenarios of LPCRLN can be divided into
three types, as shown in Table 1.

123
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks 4433

For newly registered learners, who don’t learn any
courses, LPCRLN firstly selects their similar learners
of the nearest neighbors, then the courses learned by
these learners are sorted in descending order based
on their node weight, and finally the top-k courses to
be recommended to the new learners are chosen,
whose realization algorithm is shown in Algorithm 2.
If the learner has learned only one course Ci,
LPCRLN discusses two cases about Ci as follows:
(1) Ci is an isolated node in CCN, which have no
adjacent nodes; (2) Ci is a non-isolated node in CCN,
whose specific process is shown in Fig. 3 and the
realization algorithm is shown in Algorithm 3.
For learners who have already learned n (n  2)
courses, the problem of learning path recommenda-
tion is on how to find the network path in CCN
containing all these nodes, whose specific process is
shown in Fig. 4 and the realization algorithm is
shown in Algorithm 4.
4 Experimental evaluations
This section describes our experiment, its design and
results to verify the hypotheses we have proposed and
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of LPCRLN. We
get the online learning record on the MOOC platform
(http://mooc.guokr.com) from 2014 to 2017 as the
experimental subjects. According to the data, the number
of learners is 5769 and the number of courses is 2312.
Python 3.6 is used as the analytical tool and Sqlser-
ver2008R is used for data storage.
4.1 Node weight analysis of course
The data obtained are processed to construct CCN network,
which has 2312 nodes including 1061 non-isolated nodes
and 1251 isolated nodes, and 74,692 edges, while the edge
weight w is within the range of [0.25, 17.25]. If we draw
the CCN network graph based on all nodes and edges, the
graph between and among nodes may be very dense, so we
choose only nodes and edges with a weight greater than or
equal to 3, whose graph is shown in Fig. 5, of which iso-
lated nodes will appear (i.e., the node not associated with
any other nodes), such as nodes 364, 1260, 698 and 572.
In order to analyze Scenario 1, the improved node
weight indicator is adopted to analyze the node charac-
teristics in CCN. Figure 6 shows the ratio of the number of
courses with a certain weight. It is found that most courses
have small node weights, 83.6% of which has a weight less
than or equal to 50 and the average node weight is 56.73,
while only 12.16% nodes surpass the average. This shows
that most learners concentrate on several courses on the
platform, while the majority of courses are learned by few
learners.

CCN LLN
C1 C1
L1 L2
2
C1 C1 1
C1
C1 3
1 3 L3
1 wL1=9
L4
2 wL2=3
Input(G(C),G(L), L5 4 2 wL3=7
L7,C1,k) 4 wL4=10 Generate the recommended
L6
CCN wL5=7 learning path

C5 3.5 C2 L5 k=1 {C5}

k=2 {C5,C2}
wC5=6.5 3 2 k=3 {C5,C2,C3}
wC2=5.5
wC3=4 C1 C5
wC4=3 C3 1 C4 ………

CCN
C1 3.5 C2

k=1 {C2}
2.5 k=2 {C2,C3}
………
C3
wC1C2=3.5
wC1C3=2.5

Fig. 3 Processing flow for Scenario 2

123
4434 H. Liu

CCN
Generate the recommended learning path
C1 2 C2
1
1 3 3.5
Input(G(C), C3
len=3 1 k=1 {C4}
L2,{C1,C3},k,len) C4 k=2 {C4,C2}
2
C5 4.5 2 ………
R(C1,C2,C3)=3
4
C6 R(C1,C4,C3)=4
k=1 {C4,C6}
k=2 {C4,C6,C2}
CCN k=3 {C4,C6,C2,C5}
C1 2 C2
1 len=4 k=1 {C4}
len=4 1 3 3.5 R(C1,C4,C6,C3)=9.5 k=2 {C4,C6,C2}
C3 R(C1,C5,C4,C3)=4 k=3 {C4,C6,C2,C5}
1
2
C4 R(C1,C5,C6,C3)=7 ………
C5 4.5 2 len=3
4 R(C1,C2,C3)=3
C6 R(C1,C4,C3)=4

CCN
Generate the recommended learning path
C1 2 C2
1
1 3 3.5
Input(G(C), C3
len=4 1
L2,{C1,C2,C3},k,len) C4
2 k=1 {C4}
C5 4.5 2
R(C1,C4,C3)=3
4
R(C1,,C2)=null
C6
R(C2,,C3)=null k=1 {C4,C6}
k=2 {C4,C6,C5}
CCN
C1 2 C2 len=4
R(C1,C4,C3)=3
1 k=1 {C4,C6}
len=5 1 3 3.5
k=2 {C6,C4,C5}
C3 len=5 k=3 {C4,C6,C5}
1
R(C1,C4,C6,C3)=9.5
2
C4 ………
R(C1,C5,C6,C3)=7
C5 4.5 2
R(C1,C5,C4,C3)=4
4
R(C1,,,C2)=null
C6
R(C2,,,C3)=null

Fig. 4 Processing flow for Scenario 3

4.2 Experimental result ncorrect

P¼  100%
nrecall
ncorrect ð6Þ
In this paper, the precision and recall indicators are used to R¼  100%
analyze the effectiveness of LPCRLN method, which are nall
widely used evaluation metrics to evaluate the quality of where ncorrect is the number of correctly recommended
recommendations (Sarwar et al. 2000). The precision and courses, nrecall is the number of all recommended courses
recall indicators are defined as: and nall is the number of all sample courses. In the
experiments, we use part of the courses learners have
learned as the right course to recommend, i.e., if a learner

123
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks
Fig. 5 CCN structure of nodes and edges with w [ 3
Fig. 6 Node weight of courses
has learned two courses C1 and C2, we choose either of the
two courses C1 and C2 as the recommended correct course
and then apply Algorithm 3 to get the recommended
course.
In the experiment, CCN is constructed based on all the
data. For Scenario 1, this paper selected the following
learner characteristics as education level, number of com-
ments, notes, postings, collections and topics. For educa-
tion level, integers in the range of [0, 6] are used to
represent others, middle school, associate degree, bachelor,
master, Ph.D. and blank.
We firstly do some experiments for different scenarios,
data size and k values. Every experiment runs for ten times
and gets the average result. And then the courses recom-
mended by LPCRLN method are compared with the
4435
courses actually learned. In the experiments, the learners
who have learned only one course are used to test Scenario
1, the learners who have learned two courses are used to
test Scenario 2, and the other learners are used to test
Scenario 3, in all of which we randomly choose a course as
a testing result. The experiments’ results of LPCRLN are
shown in Table 2, of which data size is set the value of
{50,100,150,200}, the k value is set to [1,3] and the len is
set to 3.
Based on the above data result, LPCRLN results with a
variety of different learner numbers and k values are
combined. Figure 7a shows that P&R varies in different
scenarios with the number of learners, and Fig. 7b shows
that the P varies in different learner numbers with different
k values.
From the table above, the recommendation under Sce-
nario 3 is better. For example, when k value is 1 and the
learner number is 100, the precision rate of recommenda-
tion is 93.33%. And the recommendation under Scenario 1
is relatively worse because only one of the learner char-
acteristics, education level, is used to get the learner sim-
ilarity. If the new learner has more characteristics, the
recommendation result under Scenario 1 will be improved.
From this, the LPCRLN method can solve the cold start
problem to some extent.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of LPCRLN, some
experiments are performed to analyze different methods
including LPCRLN, top-k (Mukund and George 2004),
learner-based CF and course-based CF (Sarwar et al. 2000).
In Fig. 8a–e, experiments with various sizes but same
k value are performed to examine the impact on the per-
formance. In which, the training data are increased from
150 to 500 with an increment of 150. And from which, we
can see that LPCRLN is more robust than the other three
algorithms in case of the same training set size and k value.
Figure 8f presents the precision and recall curves for the
four algorithms, and the corresponding data results are
shown in Table 3. In the experiments, 300 data are ran-
domly selected as a testing set, which means the learners’
number of Scenario 1, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 is,
respectively, 100, while the k values are in the range of
[1,3], and the path length is set to 3. The result shows that
the proposed LPCRLN has a better performance than the
other three algorithms because the top-k algorithm only
took the weight of nodes in the CCN into account, the
learner-based CF and course-based CF only took the case
of learner’s learning and passing the courses into account
and the LPCRLN provides network analysis, learners’
analysis and learners’ learning information. Overall, the
proposed LPCRLN method outperformed the other algo-
rithm in terms of accuracy.
123
4436 H. Liu

Table 2 LPCRLN results of the

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
different scenarios, different
data sizes and different k values k Learner P R P R P R
number

1 50 3.13% 2.00% 23.53% 5.97% 75.00% 8.11%

100 6.06% 2.00% 12.90% 3.28% 93.33% 10.61%
150 9.09% 2.00% 13.33% 3.59% 88.89% 10.32%
200 17.65% 3.00% 12.50% 3.59% 85.19% 11.86%
2 50 1.92% 2.00% 17.86% 7.46% 40.00% 8.11%
100 3.70% 2.00% 21.43% 7.38% 72.73% 12.12%
150 5.56% 2.00% 19.64% 6.59% 69.23% 11.61%
200 10.71% 3.00% 23.88% 8.21% 79.41% 13.92%
3 50 2.74% 4.00% 17.50% 10.45% 40.00% 10.81%
100 6.58% 5.00% 23.53% 9.84% 75.00% 20.45%
150 7.89% 4.00% 27.27% 10.78% 72.50% 18.71%
200 11.39% 4.50% 34.62% 13.85% 85.42% 21.13%

Bold indicates best P or R values in experiments with a different number of learners under the same K value
in the same scenario

Fig. 7 LPCRLN results with different learner numbers and k values

5 Conclusions the proposed method. What’s more, the method considers

From different angles, this paper analyzes online learning
relations between course and learners and constructs the
course–course network and the learner–learner network,
which describes the relationships between any two arbi-
trary courses or learners, respectively. With complex net-
work theory, characteristics of these two networks are
mined and a learning path combination recommendation
method is proposed. The method considers three learning
scenarios and recommends appropriate learning paths for
different learners, and the experimental analysis of the real
data of MOOC verified the feasibility and effectiveness of
the facts that newly enrolled learners do not have any
online learning experience and the relationship among
courses in the online platform is not so obvious.
Additionally, there are some limitations that require
further improvement. We will continue our research work
in the following two aspects: (1) We will apply the
LPCRLN method with more real data so as to further verify
its feasibility and validity; (2) we will try to improve its
effectiveness through combining the LPCRLN method
with existing recommendation method and considering
more characteristic of learners and courses.

123
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks 4437

Fig. 8 Performance comparisons using LPCRLN, top-k, learner-based CF and course-based CF in terms of the precision and recall

123
4438
Table 3 Data results
LPCRLN
corresponding to Fig. 8f
k P R P
1 25.32% 5.65%
2 22.88% 7.63%
3 26.99% 12.43%
Bold indicates best P or R values in experiments with a different number of learners under the same K value
in the same scenario
Acknowledgments This work is supported by the National Social
Sciences Foundation Project (Grant Nos. 17BTQ069, 18BGL101) and
the Zhejiang Natural Science Foundation Project (Grant No.
LY19F020007).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest to this work.
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
Abualigah LMQ, Hanandeh ES (2015) Applying genetic algorithms
to information retrieval using vector space model. Int J Comput
Sci Eng Appl 5(1):19–28
Abualigah LM, Khader AT (2017) Unsupervised text feature
selection technique based on hybrid particle swarm optimization
algorithm with genetic operators for the text clustering. J Super-
comput 73(11):4773–4795
Alian M, Jabri R (2009) A shortest adaptive learning path in
eLearning systems: mathematical view. J Am Sci 5(6):32–42
Alzaghoul A, Tovar E (2016) A proposed framework for an adaptive
learning of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In: Interna-
tional conference on remote engineering and virtual instrumen-
tation, pp 127–132
Bendahmane M, Falaki BE, Benattou M (2017) Individualized
learning path through a services-oriented approach. Springer,
Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46568-5_10
Berg BVD, Tattersall C, Janssen J, Brouns F, Kurvers H, Koper R
(2006) Swarm-based sequencing recommendations in e-learning.
Int J Comput Sci Appl 3(3):1–11
Brusilovsky P, Maybury MT (2003) From adaptive hypermedia to the
adaptive web. Commun ACM 45(5):30–33
Carchiolo V, Longheu A, Malgeri M (2010) Reliable peers and useful
resources: searching for the best personalized learning path in a
trust and recommendation-aware environment. Inf Sci
180(10):1893–1907
Chen CM (2008) Intelligent web-based learning system with person-
alized learning path guidance. Comput Educ 51(2):787–814
Chen CM, Liu CY, Chang MH (2006) Personalized course sequenc-
ing utilizing modified item response theory for web-based
instruction. Expert Syst Appl 30(2):378–396
Chen CM, Peng CJ, Shiue JY (2009) Ontology-based concept map for
planning a personalized learning path. Br J Edu Technol
40(6):1028–1058
Cheng Y (2011) A method of swarm intelligence-based learning path
recommendation for online learning. J Syst Manag
20(2):232–237
123
H. Liu
Top-k Learner-based CF Course-based CF
R P R P R
1.00% 0.85% 2.27% 1.98% 0.57% 0.28%
3.33% 2.82% 2.14% 3.67% 0.63% 0.57%
10.00% 8.47% 1.84% 4.24% 0.90% 1.13%
Ding YH, Wang DQ, Zhang YX, Li L (2016) A group recommender
system for online course study. In: International conference on
information technology in medicine and education, pp 318–320
Durand G, Belacel N, Laplante F (2013) Graph theory based model
for learning path recommendation. Inf Sci 251(4):10–21
Dwivedi P, Kant V, Bharadwaj KK (2017) Learning path recom-
mendation based on modified variable length genetic algorithm.
Educ Inf Technol 6:1–18
Essalmi F, Ayed LJB, Jemni M, Kinshuk Graf S (2010) A fully
personalization strategy of E-learning scenarios. Comput Hum
Behav 26(4):581–591
Hou YF, Zhou P, Wang T, Hu YC (2016) Context-aware online
learning for course recommendation of MOOC big data. eprint
arXiv:1610.03147v2
Hua YF, Zhang LG (2014) Research on construction and application
of multiplex and concentric learning analytics model based on
MOOCs. J Distance Educ 5:104–112
Hwang GJ, Kuo FR, Yin PY, Chuang KH (2010) A heuristic
algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context-
aware ubiquitous learning. Comput Educ 54(2):404–415
Jordan K (2014) Initial trends in enrolment and completion of
massive open online courses. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn
15(1):133–160
Li YH, Zhao B, Gan JH (2005) Make adaptive learning of the MOOC:
the CML model. In: International conference computer science
and education (ICCSE), pp 1001–1004
Mukund D, George K (2004) Item-based top-N recommendation
algorithms. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 22(1):143–177
Qazdar A, Cherkaoui C, Battou A, Mezouary AEE (2015) A model of
adaptation in online learning environments (LMSs and MOOCs).
In: International conference on intelligent systems: theories and
applications (SITA), pp 1–6
Salehi M, Kamalabadi IN (2014) Personalized recommendation of
learning material using sequential pattern mining and attribute
based collaborative filtering. Educ Inf Technol 19(4):713–735
Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1975) A vector space model for
automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620
Sarwar B, Karypis G, Konstan J, Riedl J (2000) Analysis of
recommendation algorithms for e-commerce. In: Proceedings
of the second ACM conference on electronic commerce,
pp 158–167
Tam V, Lam EY, Fung ST (2014) A new framework of concept
clustering and learning path optimization to develop the next-
generation e-learning systems. J Comput Educ 1(4):335–352
Tseng HC, Chiang CF, Su JM, Hung JL, Shelton BE (2016) Building
an online adaptive learning and recommendation platform. In:
International symposium on emerging technologies for educa-
tion. SETE 2016: emerging technologies for education,
pp 428–432
Wan FH (2011) Personalized recommendation for web-based learning
based on ant colony optimization with segmented-goal and meta-
control strategies. IEEE Int Conf Fuzzy Syst 39(7):2054–2059
Learning path combination recommendation based on the learning networks
Wan SS, Niu ZD (2018) An e-learning recommendation approach
based on the self-organization of learning resource. Knowl
Based Syst 160:71–87
Wang TI, Wang KT, Huang YM (2008) Using a style-based ant
colony system for adaptive learning. Expert Syst Appl
34(4):2449–2464
Yang F, Dong ZH (2017) Learning path construction in E-learning.
Lecture notes in educational technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-10-1944-9
Yang YJ, Wu C (2009) An attribute-based ant colony system for
adaptive learning object recommendation. Expert Syst Appl
36(2):3034–3047
4439
Zhao Q, Zhang YQ, Chen J (2017) An improved ant colony
optimization algorithm for recommendation of micro-learning
path. In: IEEE International conference on computer and
information technology, pp 190–196
Zhu HP, Tian F, Wu K, Shah N, Chen Y, Ni YF, Zhang XH, Chao
KM, Zheng QH (2018) A multi-constraint learning path
recommendation algorithm based on knowledge map. Knowl
Based Syst 143:102–144
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123