Personalization Criteria for enhancing learner

engagement in MOOC platforms

Sara Assami, Najima Daoudi, Rachida Ajhoun
Smart Systems Laboratory
National School of Computer Science and Systems
Analysis (ENSIAS) –Mohammed V University
Rabat, Morocco
saraassami@gmail.com
ndaoudi@esi.ac.ma
r.ajhoun@um5s.net.ma

Abstract— The use of ICT (Information and
Communication Technology) revolutionized the education
sector with MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) becoming
a major focus for open education actors and top universities to
resolve the limited resources issue and make education
accessible worldwide. Our study focuses on the problem of
dropouts in MOOCs and how we can reduce the phenomenon
by adapting learning according to criteria that enhance
MOOC learners’ motivation. It relies on enhancing the
recommendation process of Courses according to the learner
personal expectations, preferences and cognitive learning style
among other personalization criteria. Furthermore, it suggests
a new approach to profile construction for a MOOC
recommendation system by considering external data to define
a learner’s interests.
Keywords— MOOC; Personalization; Recomender System;
Learner profile; Personalization criteria.
I. INTRODUCTION
The use of ICT (Information and Communication
Technology) revolutionized the education sector in terms of
the methods of teaching, evaluating and enhancing student’s
performance. In this context, MOOCs (Massive Open
Online Courses) have become a major focus for open
education actors and top universities to resolve the limited
resources issue and make education accessible worldwide.
Our study focuses on the problem of dropouts in MOOCs
and how we can reduce the phenomenon. The approaches
used are, first, the study of MOOCs performance assessment
and the criticisms about their quality as well as the different
requirements to ensure this quality. The second approach is
the adaptation of learning according to a MOOC learner
profile that relies specifically on enhancing the
recommendation process to increase learner’s engagement
in MOOC platforms. Hence, it’ll contribute to the
improvement of its quality. Furthermore, it investigates a
new approach to profile construction for a MOOC
recommendation system by considering external data to
describe a learner’s interest.
In order to name these interests and learner needs, in our
literature review we examined many questions, such as:
Who takes massive open online courses and why? What
personal data do MOOC platforms hold about their
learners? What criteria can be obtained from a MOOC
learner profile to recommend suitable MOOCs?
To answer all the above, the second section defines our
research main argument about the need for personalization
to ensure quality. In the third section, the paper gives an
overview of literature about personalization in MOOCs and
the fourth section summarizes the main personalization
criteria that apply to MOOC platforms. The last section
investigates the adaptive recommender system that we
propose to increase learner’s motivation.
II. QUALITY ASSURANCE IN MOOCS
In general, MOOCs are “courses designed for many
participants, that can be accessed by anyone anywhere as
long as they have an internet connection, are open to
everyone without entry qualifications, and offer a full course
experience online for free” [1]. Nonetheless, most of the
articles about this new phenomenon in online learning
environments criticize the low completion or retention rates
of MOOCs. Indeed, the high drop-out rate attains 97% in
certain MOOCs [2]. However, each stakeholder analyzes the
phenomenon by his own motivations and role in MOOCs.
A. Dropout rate critics in MOOCs
Some researchers criticize the method of calculating the
drop-out rate for several reasons [3], [4], [5], like integrating
registrants who have not actually participated in the MOOC
dropout rate [4], [5] and the poor comparison between the
retention rate in MOOCs and the success rate of traditional
courses, due to a poor understanding of the openness of
MOOCs where enrollees are free to follow or quit a course
[5].
Furthermore, [6] states that quality depends on its type
(open or for profit) and its goal and is limited to satisfying
marketing goals of financing institutions and not the
openness of higher education. However, it does not
necessarily influence the dropout rate in MOOCs since the
MOOC completion rate does not always show its quality [6]

978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1265
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
but it is still an aspect to consider when approaching the
issue of dropout rates.
In this context, a study about the quality of teaching in
76 randomly selected MOOCs [7] was developed by
reviewing the course description, resources, learning
activities and learners' interactions and reactions. Ten
principles have been suggested to analyze their quality: five
for quality of teaching and five criteria for quality of
learning resources [7].The study showed that the degree of
this quality is low. Regarding the criteria for personalization
(collaborative learning and differentiation), only 21 MOOCs
out of the 76 evaluated offered one of three personalization
options: the choice of activities, the choice of learning
resources or the choice of the content media. Additionally,
few of the 76 MOOCs had activities requiring collaboration
and none promoted the diversity in the learning group
members [7].
Another study of [8], about 379 learners enrollment in
popular MOOC platforms, explored the effect of MOOC
features on retention rates as well as the impact of
participant demographics. The study showed that MOOC
Content has a significant effect on retention rate, along with
“the interaction with the instructor” factor; it explains 79%
of the MOOC retention cases [8]. These studies show that
the quality in MOOCs depends on the quality of teaching
and the quality in course material. The latter is the focus of
our paper since it could be adapted according to learner’s
needs and interests through customization tools.
B. Quality assurance initiatives for MOOCs
Quality is a concept used in all areas where a certain
level of performance is required to confirm that an approach
or a system or a product is useful. This prompts us to
examine the different standards, practices and
recommendations about the quality of online learning, and
especially for open learning like the quality code of the UK
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the quality label of
OpenupEd.
1) The quality code of the UK QAA (Quality Assurance
Agency) is meant for higher education and developed by the
UK Quality Assurance Agency for education providers to
ensure to students a high quality educational experience [9].
The code consists of three parts. Regarding the second part
on quality, it is presented by eleven chapters for the different
aspects of academic quality including chapter B3 "Learning
and Teaching" [9]. This chapter focuses on learning
opportunities for students and staff. From this code, we have
identified four elements to consider for quality that could be
used as personalization criteria which are: course description,
learning outcomes, learner progress, and learner feedback.
2) The OpenupEd quality label elaborated by the OpenupEd
who is an open, non-profit partnership offering MOOCs to
open access to education. Through its portal, it is one of the
largest providers of MOOCs for higher education by
indexing courses from institutions around the world and
mainly in Europe [10]. OpenupEd was the first pan-
978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1266
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
European MOOCs initiative launched in April 2013 by the
European Commission and the European Association of
Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU). Therefore, a
quality label has been established to guarantee the quality of
MOOCs produced by institutions interested in becoming
members of this partnership. The label is based on the
existing quality assurance approaches in e-learning and
derives from the Excellence label applied to e-learning and
blended learning [10]. This quality label uses a comparison
process between the institution's performance and the best
practices in the field of MOOCs and open education. On a
practical level, the new institutions seeking the label carry
out a self-assessment and a review process adapted to
MOOCs using benchmarks at the level of the institution on a
regular basis and at the level of the course for each MOOC
by 8 features of assessment [10]. We have identified the
benchmark elements to consider for a better quality that are
used in learning personalization : the definition of learning
objectives and workloads, the use of social networking, the
statement of learning outcomes, the level of interaction, and
the coherence of learning.
In general, we couldn’t find standards or specifications
related to MOOCs other than the quality label of OpenupEd
but we can deduce that quality requirements related to
MOOCs and open online education could be met by the
personalization of learning depending on learner’s
characteristics and course content.
III. LEARNING PERSONALIZATION IN
MOOCS:STATE OF THE ART
As personalization is an attractive feature for any service
rendering platform, it becomes pertinent to consider it as a
decisive factor in MOOCs to favor learning for all types of
learners.
A. The concept of personalized learning
The personalization of learning is an education adapted
to the needs of the learner, according to his pace, his
learning preferences and his specific interests [11]. It
includes two facets: the configuration of resources (or
educational software) and the personalization of the
pedagogical resources [12]. However, it should be
distinguished from: individualized learning, differentiated
learning and adaptive learning:
x Individualized learning: “refers to instruction that is
paced to the learning needs of different learners.
Learning goals are the same for all students, but
students can progress through the material at different
speeds according to their learning needs.”[11].
x Differentiated learning: “refers to instruction that is
tailored to the learning preferences of different
learners. Learning goals are the same for all students,
but the method or approach of instruction varies
according to the preferences of each student or what
 research has found works best for students like
them”.[11].
x Adaptive learning: refers to a learning that
“continually takes data from students and adapts to
their learning” [11]. In the context of MOOCs, it is a
technology used to assign resources to learners based
on their specific needs.
To conclude, personalized learning includes all the three
concepts since it gives learning instructions that respect the
learner’s pace, preferences and needs or interests.
Nonetheless, adaptive learning is more suitable for MOOC
platforms since it “takes the parameter of time into account
meaning that when the learner’s learning is repeatedly
evaluated, the learner’s status adapts to the learner. So if a
system repeatedly evaluates the personalization parameters,
it will become adaptive” [11].
B. Personalized learning in MOOCs
In the context of MOOCs, The research on
personalization has produced a new type of MOOCs
entitled: “aMOOC (adaptive MOOC)” where the course
adapts to the learning preferences of the individual. Thus, its
content is provided with various strategies and intelligent
feedback [11]. Ref. [13] describes adaptive MOOCs as
MOOCs that “use the power of software to personalize and
turbo-charge the learning experience”. It involves
“Adaptivity”, where the system retrieves the learners' data
and adapts to their learning by analyzing and evaluating the
personalization parameters and “Adaptability” that offers
the learner to choose learning parameters himself.
Nonetheless, personalization is more complicated given the
lack of information on the learner profile and the
massiveness of the participants. G. Paquette [14] states that
“the big challenge of massively open online courses is
personalization, because we find ourselves in front of
thousands of students”.
The solutions of researchers and institutions for the
personalization of learning in a MOOC converge towards:
x Adaptive learning environments to provide an
intelligent feedback according to the learner’s
performance.
x Recommendation systems for learners to filter
MOOCs according to their needs.
In the following literature review, we examined most
research work related to adaptation of MOOCs in their
design as well as their delivery to learners to deduce in
section IV the criteria of personalization that could be used
for learners.
1)Adaptation of MOOC design and/or content:
For Adaptive Learning Technologies (ALT), two
environments stand out: AMOL and Cogbooks. AMOL
(Adaptive Mobile Learning) is an adaptive environment for
MOOCs, where the first aMOOC "Computational
Molecular dynamics" was created [15]. In this MOOC, the
learner would pass a test to identify his learning preference
(one among five learning strategies: inductive, deductive,
978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1267
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
incidental, discovery and apprentice) and then, through the
test results, intelligent feedback was provided to motivate,
guide and assist the learner to overcome his lack of
knowledge for a concept [15]. However, “it does not take
into account the participant’s competences, i.e. it does not
consider the prior knowledge that the learner has” [16].
CogBooks is an Adapted Learning Network System
where learning activities are stored in networks with
interrelationships. As the learner works on a subject, an
algorithm is used to identify the next most suitable object in
the network. The system inputs the learner's knowledge
profile, behavioral data, retention level, and demographic
data and uses it to output an adapted learning sequence. The
sequence is readapted based on the updated information
about the learner [17].
As for MOOC design Frameworks, [18] suggested “a
data architecture based on semantic web technologies that
support the inclusion of open educational materials in
massive online courses” [18]. The study focused on the
reuse, integration and interoperability of OER directories
using linked data techniques. The main goal was to help
users to find relevant information or resources relevant by
matching between MOOC description data and user profile
data (preferences and resources needs).
On the other hand, [11] suggested an Adaptive MOOC
design Framework (AMDF) that satisfies eleven
personalization parameters of seventeen found in his
literature review (cf. section IV for more details). The
modeled personalization parameters for MOOC design
were: Information seeking task, Learner’s level of
knowledge, motivation level, media preference, language
preference, learning style, Navigation preference, patience,
location, weather, date and time [11]. The AMDF was based
mainly on learning styles by using Felder and Silverman
learning style model (FSLSM) as a reference for learning
styles, and excluded the “learner goals and plans”, an
essential parameter for individualization of learning.
The same focus on one criterion is observed in the
framework for personalizing and adapting MOOCs of [16],
that designs MOOCs by “identifying each participant’s
competence to generate matching personalized learning”
[16]. The framework took also into account the type of
device used by the learner, but this is considered more as a
learning facility [19], like the media and language
preferences mentioned by [11].
2)MOOC Recommendation systems for learners
One of the first recommendation systems in the context
of adaptive learning for MOOCs is the work of [20] who
“proposed an improvised adaptive system, in which
adaptation is achieved by modeling the learners/participants,
as per their knowledge levels” [20] using fuzzy logic for
knowledge modeling. Thus, according to the rules of
recommendation, the learner receives a recommendation of
tasks at the end of each session of the course.
On the one hand, some researchers like [21] developed a
MOOC filter based on a single criterion: the expected
learning outcome. MOOCrank, the prototype of the interface, his knowledge, experience, competence and his
recommendation system of [4] combines learning outcomes learning objectives [26].
with MOOCs according to taxonomies developed by In a more recent research, [11] identified seventeen
reference institutions. On the other hand, others included personalization parameters for learning in his literature
different characteristics like [22] whose Framework of a review: eleven parameters widely used in e-learning
recommender system included the following features: personalization tools [cf. section III] and six parameters for
“cognitive level, knowledge background, personal education: Learning goals, participation balance for group
expectation, learning motivation and learning style” [22]. management, progress on task, waiting for feedback,
The oriented system was based on the administration of a cognitive traits and the pedagogical approach.
questionnaire to find learning expectations and machine In general, most of personalization parameters in e-
learning techniques for learning model construction to make learning are reused and adapted in MOOC adaptive
personalized recommendation. platforms.
Ref. [23] worked on the Model “Persua2MOOC” which
B. Personalization criteria in MOOCs
generates a list of links and learning objects in an
individualized learning path by analyzing the trajectories of The personalization criteria with identical or close
learners in a MOOC, i.e. their navigation traces. The study meaning were merged together to get a list of all the
aims for the prevention of learners’ demotivation by common personalization criteria from the literature. In the
recommending adapted learning activities (a personalized criteria description, we analyze the different aspects to
learning strategy). consider for a better understanding of these criteria. A
In the same frame, [24] suggested a framework for the summary of these criteria is presented in Fig. 1.
recommendation of instructional material using the learner’s We omitted the following criteria: motivation level of a
profile. It allows MOOC learners to choose their learning course, date and time and weather because of their
path based on recommended learning resources. The usefulness to instructional design of MOOCs not their
recommendation is based on two main criteria: learner recommendation.
preferences and objectives [24]. Nonetheless, the instant
personalized feedback and recommendation process relies
only on the knowledge level of the learner determined by
concept based quizzes after a new week course. The learner
preferences and learning objectives are retrieved using a
survey at registration only for the course design and
development.
Finally, a synthesis of the personalization criteria used in
earlier research is needed to define the main criteria to
enhance the learner’s engagement in MOOCs.
IV. PERSONALIZATION CRITERIA IN MOOC PLATFORMS
In this section we’ll look more closely at personalization
criteria that a recommender system can use to reduce
dropout rates among MOOC learners.
A. Personalization parameters before MOOCs
In the summit "the European eMOOCs 2014
Stakeholders Summit" the MOOCs were criticized for
lacking from a personalization approach, since "they could
benefit from 30 years of research in distance learning and a
minimum of 10 years in e-learning research "[25]. As e-
Fig. 1: Personalization criteria in MOOCs
learning platforms have progressed in personalization due to
their access to exhaustive information about learners, it Criterion n°1: Personal expectation and learning
included many personalization attributes such as:
motivation
demographic information, knowledge, competence, By learning motivation and personal expectation, we
experiences and preferences in terms of learning style, mean the reasons for a learner subscription in a MOOC.
language and content presentation, etc. In a study of [26], an Ref. [27] found that there are four main motives for signing
approach to normalize and personalize learning situations in up from a student perspective [27]:
e-learning identified the most relevant personalization x Learning about a certain topic, or increasing their
criteria based on standards and norms of distance learning. knowledge, to refresh what they had learned before,
The learner information selected for personalization criteria or learning a ‘‘just-in-time’’ topic that could help
were: personal information about the learner, his them in their work.
preferences in terms of language, type of device and

978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1268
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 x Being curious about taking a complete online course
(a MOOC).
x Having a personal challenge, such as wanting to see if
they could make it through a prestigious institution
online course.
x Winning as many course certificates as possible from
either the instructors or the MOOC providers.
Moreover, a recommender system should “identify and
distinguish the learning expectations of the participants
before they start to learn in MOOCs” [22]. Hence, it could
“identify the participants by considering their different
learning motivation and learning interest” [22].
Criterion n °2: Preferences and needs
The terms preferences and needs are used in MOOC
learning personalization as concepts that include many
attributes. Indeed, it refers to “the information relating to the
learner socio-cultural contexts (culture, languages, etc.), to
the device preferences (text, audio, video etc.), and to the
human computer interface preferences (the color choice,
fonts, etc.)” [26]. An extended definition for learner
preferences of [27] includes the preference in time of study
to adapt to the biological time of a learner.
This criterion is more related to the personalization of
MOOC design since it represents the configuration of
resources not the adaptation of content. Further, it is mostly
related to demographic data (gender, age, location, etc.) that
can be considered as learning facilitators.
Criterion n °3: Learning outcomes / Learning
objectives
For an outcome-based learning, learning outcomes are
specified for a MOOC in its description but could be used to
match them with a learner needs. Consequently, “a clear
statement of learning outcomes for both knowledge and
skills is provided” [10] to help a learner achieve specific
learning results. Ref. [21] classifies learning outcomes as
intended learning outcomes (i.e. those that a learner wishes
to get), and achieved learning outcomes (i.e. those already
acquired by the learner)”. Finally, this criterion uses “the
information related to the whole of behaviors (or
performances) that a learner must be able to demonstrate
after learning” [26].
Criterion n°4: Learning cognitive style
Felder and Silverman’s learning style model (FSLSM) is
the most commonly used for personalization [29] [11] [30]
in e-learning and MOOC context because it is “adaptable to
learning differences and individual needs” [11]. FSLSM has
four dimensions where every learner has one of the two
characteristics in each of these dimensions: Active-
Reflective, Sensory-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal and Sequential-
Global [31]. Ref. [22] used a similar model by Rayner and
Riding [22] for the framework of a MOOC recommender
system where the learning style of a learner is one of the
two cognitive styles in two dimensions: Wholist-Analytic
and the Verbal-Imagery [22].
978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1269
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Broadly, the learning styles can also reflect “the
difference in the learning strategies each learner develops
based on his/her previous learning experiences” [15]. In the
AMOL system [15], five learning styles were used:
“apprentice (learning through mentor–student interaction),
incidental (learning through case study), inductive (learning
through example), deductive (learning through application),
and discovery (learning through experimentation)” [15].
Nevertheless, if a learner is confined to a general
learning style, it’ll be more of a stereotype approach that
doesn’t take into account multiple learning styles that a
learner has according to the field of knowledge of an online
course. Thus, the measure of the cognitive level is
important to adapt the personalization parameters each time
the learner’s cognitive abilities change. “Cognition level
generally refers to the capacity of cognizing, judging and
evaluating the external knowledge, and is related to the
practical experience, thinking skills, and storage of
information of individuals” [22]. Furthermore, a learning
cognitive level “is an individual’s consistent approach to
organizing and processing information during learning”
[32]. “Therefore, it is much more pervasive, stable and deep
seated than learning styles” [33].
Criterion n°5: Level of knowledge
This criterion refers to “domain specific information that
contains the knowledge state of the user” [20], unlike the
perspective of [15], [24] and [16] for whom it refers to the
knowledge acquired during the learning situation. In fact, it
should be “used for taking the learner background when
communicating learning materials” [11] either before
subscribing to a MOOC or during the learning process.
Reference [26] states that it is “the information concerning
what the learner knows and does not know”. However, it
must be distinguished from competence and experience,
though some researchers [23] [16] include these concepts as
well. The criterion enables the adaptation of the course
content to reduce the uncertainty level of a learner in a
specific domain.
Criterion n °6: Competence and experience
In a professional scope, experience and competences are
strongly linked. Professional experience is a “source of
competence for an individual and is the result of a person’s
transformation through his work” [34]. Consequently, an
experience in a field of work is considered a component of a
person’s competence [34]. However, the competence here
refers to an operational competence related to a work
situation. In learning, the French Ministry of Higher
education and research discerns between three types of
competence: knowledge, behavioral competence and
operational Competence [35].
Hence, experience reflects operational competence and
can be defined as “information related to the learner’s past
experiences which present the learner’s know-how and the
learner’s familiarity with the system on which he/she will
work”[26] [35]. Meanwhile, competence can reflect the
prior knowledge of a learner [16] or his behavioral
competence but is “not related to specific knowledge about example, a learner of the MOOC platform Coursera
or experiences with the domain. It is acquired by the may give information about his profession, level of
learner’s past experiences and is associated with other experience, level of study, top skills, etc. Moreover,
indispensable knowledge related to the operation of the the learner, by consenting to the privacy policy,
system presented to the learner” [26]. So, we suggest enables the site to use Non-Personal Information for
integrating competence and experience in a single criterion performing statistical analyses of the collective
since they are complementary. characteristics and behavior and measuring
demographics and interests on specific areas of the
Criterion n °7: Pace of work site. Whereas it uses Personally Identifiable
Pace of work was in many studies of learner perspective Information to improve and customize the site and the
about MOOCs considered as a major factor for motivation products and services it offers [40]. Consequently, the
[19] [36] [37]. As a learner says about learning in a MOOC: MOOC recommendations made are limited to the
“it’s a new one because the students can progress at their data collected by the platform.
own speed and don’t need to keep up the speed of their class x The personalization criteria proven to be pertinent for
mates” [37]. It refers to “workloads” [10] and the amount of MOOCs up to date in a study of [19] are: working
time spent on a learning activity without having “a fixed pace and level of difficulty [19]. This study was about
timetable for accessing contents” [19]. improving completion rates of MOOCs by identifying
The adaptation of MOOCs by the learning pace can significant aspects of adaptive learning to help
teachers in designing adaptive MOOCs. The research
prevent dropouts directly by customizing the pace of the
was carried out with 475 participants in the first
course to a learner abilities but can also hinder learning
edition of the “Educational Innovation MOOC
since a learner pace of learning changes according to factors Campus” composed of four adaptive MOOCs [19]
that are difficult to define exhaustively (personal who had completed the initial survey about their
circumstances, levels of interest in a domain ,…). characteristics and their perceptions about possible
As a whole, the personalization criteria rely on the data adaptivity options to be included in future aMOOCs.
provided by a learner and the data retrieved from his Therefore, an adaptive recommendation system will be
navigation traces. Using a MOOC platform data such as log more interesting for the dropout problem in MOOCs since it
files, quizzes, knowledge diagnosis surveys,… gives an preserves the openness feature of MOOCs and can help
insight on a learner personal expectations and motivations, learners adapt their learning path. We suggest a
knowledge level related to the MOOC content, learning recommender system that includes different environments
preferences, learning style, etc. However, we’ll need other with a priority order recommendation for the learner [21]. In
sources of data such as the social and professional Fig. 2, a mapping of the approach we intend to develop in
environment of a learner to retrieve information about his our research.
competences and experiences and general learning
objectives.
V. PROPOSED ADAPTIVE RECOMMENDER SYSTEM FOR
MOOC LEARNERS
As we’ve seen in this paper, some researchers rely on
parameters used in e-learning for authoring platforms for
MOOCs to include different learner preferences during the
course construction. These parameters vary from: level of
knowledge and skills [11] [20] to goals and plans of the
learner [11] [21], to even including Date and time [11].
However, considering the current MOOC learner profile,
there are three components to shed the light on:
x MOOC enrollees that are either professionals or those
with a high level of study are the most motivated
learners for MOOCs [38] (72% of Harvardx Platform
and 63%, of MITx Platform: 63% have a Bachelor's
degree or higher [39]). Hence, a learner experience
and competence are important criteria for MOOC
personalization since they represent his professional
abilities and/or future possible professional interests.
x MOOC platforms that use two types of data to
recommend courses adapted to learners’ needs: the
data provided by learners about subjects of interests
and the data collected from log files about the
learners’ navigation on the MOOC’ platform. For Fig. 2: Content Recommendation for Adaptive learning in MOOCs

978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1270
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 We aim to enable the learner to follow adaptive MOOCs
by recommending learning resources relevant to his profile.
The recommendation is an instant feedback before during
and after a MOOC completion to decrease dropouts. In this
sense, the modeling of the learner profile used for a
personalized feedback must exploit not only the data
collected from the learner navigation in MOOC platforms
but also the exponential evolution of data available in his
social network profiles. These data can contribute to the
construction of the learning profile because the behavior of
the learner is more natural and less oriented than that on the
learning platforms.
The professional social network LinkedIn, for example,
holds data about more than 500 million of its members [41]
and has already launched its e-learning platform for job
seekers in November, 2016 [42]. In fact, the LinkedIn
complete user profile includes information about the user’s
skills, educations, certifications, interests and even the
courses followed [43]. However, there are many constraints
to social network data analysis such as the unstructured data
and the availability of personal information provided by our
targeted users. Therefore, data mining techniques applied to
learner profiles on social networks databases can enlarge the
scope of MOOC recommendation criteria. Our future
publications will detail the learner profile modeling to use
for our recommender system that exploits external data
extracted from MOOC platforms and social networks.
VI. CONCLUSION
As MOOC platforms evolve to cope with the increasing
needs of online learners, a constant adaptation is valuable
for learner satisfaction and MOOC quality enhancement.
Many research works involved several personalization
parameters in their proposed Frameworks for MOOC design
and recommendation, but this contribution is to offer a clear
overview of what could be a unique gate to MOOCs.
In this sense, we analyzed the dropout phenomenon to
deduce the importance of MOOC customization for a better
quality of learning. Afterwards, a focus on personalization
criteria in literature review was set to show the limits of
research in terms of criteria used for adaptive MOOCs and
the richness of personalization parameters of learning in
general and e-learning particularly.
Then, we proposed seven main criteria that summarize
the learner’s source of motivation and choice. These criteria
are: personal expectation and learning motivation,
preferences and needs, learning outcomes, learning
cognitive styles, competence and experience and at last:
pace of work. The combination of these criteria can be a
used in our suggested recommender system model. The
proposed model intends to use MOOC data bases from
different MOOC platforms, to match them with a learner
changing characteristics and to respond to the adaptation
criteria for MOOC recommendation.
Moreover, since MOOC enrollees are mostly interested
in career enhancement, we recommended the use of external
data retrieved from professional social networks to extend
978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1271
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
their profile for a personalized self-regulated learning
experience. We are working on extracting social network
data for the learner profile modeling and construction. This
profile will be used in the right type of recommender system
for MOOC content adaptation.
REFERENCES
[1] OpenupEd, “Definition Massive Open Online Courses (
MOOCs): Version 1.1 dated 12 March 2015”, 2015, [online]
.Available:http://www.openuped.eu/images/docs/Definition_Ma
ssive_Open_Online_Courses.pdf
[2] T. Brahimi and A. Sarirete, “ Learning outside the classroom
through MOOCs”, Computers in Human Behavior, 51, pp.
604–609, 2015.
[3] M. Cisel and R. Bachelet, “MOOC: ce que les taux d’abandon
signifient”,
2013.[Online].Available:http://blog.educpros.fr/matthieu-
cisel/2013/06/01/mooc-ce-que-les-taux-dabandon-signifient/
[4] B. Nkuyubwatsi, “ Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective “, In The 12th
European Conference on e-Learning ECEL-2013, October
2013, pp. 30-31.
[5] S. Porter, “ To MOOC or Not to MOOC », In « How Can
Online Learning Help to Build the Future of Higher
Education? “, pp.1-7, Ed.Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015.
[6] S. Hayes, “ MOOCs and Quality : A Review of the Recent
Literature “,2015.[Online].Available:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/MOOCs-and-
Quality-Literature-Review-15.pdf ,Consulté le 14/09/2016.
[7] A. Margaryan, M. Bianco and A. Littlejohn, “ Instructional
quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) “,
Computers & Education, Vol. 80, pp. 77–83, January 2015.
[8] K.S. Hone and G.R. El Said, “Exploring the factors affecting
MOOC retention: A survey study”, in Computers in Human
Behavior, vol.98, pp.157-168, 2016.
[9] QAA, “UK Quality Code for higher education: Part B Assuring
and Enhancing academic quality: Chapter B3 Learning and
Teaching”, Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education , 2016.
[10] J. Rosewell and D. Jansen, “The OpenupEd quality label:
benchmarks for MOOCs “, in The International Journal for
Innovation and Quality in Learning, pp. 88-100, 2014.
[11] A. Kahaei, “Design of Personalization of Massive Open
Online”, M. Thesis in informatique, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Finlande, 2015.
[12] J.-C. Marty and A. MILLE, “ Analyse de traces et
personnalisation des environnements informatiques pour
l'apprentissage humain “, Traité IC2 : Informatique et systèmes
d’information, Hermès Sciences, 2009, In M. Lefevre and al.,
“Personnalisation de l’apprentissage : confrontation entre
besoins et approches”, STICEF, 19, pp.1-23, 2012.
[13] D. Clark . “Adaptive MOOCs”, Cogbooks, 2013.
[14] G. paquette, “ Présentation de Mr. Gilbert Paquette – Semaine
2 “,2014.[Online].Available :http://rel2014.mooc.ca/assets/docs/
Semaine2_GilbertPaquette.pdf
[15] N. Sonwalkar, “The First Adaptive MOOC: A Case Study on
Pedagogy Framework and Scalable Cloud Architecture - Part I”,
MOOCs Forum, pp. 22–29, 2013.
[16] A. Teixeira, J. Mota, A. Garcia-Cabot, E. García-Lopéz, and L.
de-Marcos, “A new competence-based approach for
personalizing MOOCs in a mobile collaborative and networked
environment” in RIED: Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a
Distancia, vol. 19 (1), pp. 143-160.
[17] J. Thompson, “Types of Adaptive Learning”, Cogbooks, 2013.
[18] N. Piedra, J. A. Chicaiza, J. López and E. Tovar, “ An
Architecture based on Linked Data technologies for the
Integration and reuse of OER in MOOCs Context”, in Open
Praxis, vol.6(2), pp.171–187,2014.
 [19] D. Lerís, M. L. Sein-Echaluce, M. Hernandez and C. Bueno, [37] K. A. Tan et al., “Etude des Massive Open Online Courses
“Validation of indicators for implementing an adaptive platform (MOOCs)”, France: Université Paris 13- Master 1 Innovations
for MOOCs”, in Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 72, en Communication, 2014.
pp.783-795, 2017. [38] Zhenghao C. , Alcorn, B. , Christensen, G. et al., “Who’s
[20] N. Bansal, “Adaptive recommendation system for MOOC”, Benefiting from MOOCs, and Why”, Harvard Business
Phd. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, 2013. Review., 2015.
[21] I. Gutiérrez-Rojas, C. Alario-Hoyos, M. Pérez-Sanagustín, D. [39] A. D. Ho, J. Reich, S. Nesterko, D. T. Seaton, T.Mullaney, J.
Leony and C. Delgado-Kloos, ”Towards an Outcome-based Waldo and I. Chuang, “HarvardX and MITx: The first year of
Discovery and Filtering of MOOCs using moocrank “, open online courses”, in HarvardX and MITx Working Paper,
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, No. 1,2014.
pp.50–57,2014. [40] Coursera, “Privacy Policy”. Available:
[22] D. Fu, Q. Liu, S. Zhang and J. Wang, “The Undergraduate- https://www.coursera.org/about/privacy
oriented Framework of MOOCs Recommender System“, in [41] Lesechos.fr, “LinkedIn poursuit son ascension et franchit le cap
2015 International Symposium on Educational Technology, des 500 millions de members”, 2017. Available :
pp.115–119, 2015. https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/hightech/0212012114562-
[23] F. Clerc, M. Lefevre, N. Guin and J. C. Marty, “Mise en place linkedin-atteint-les-500-millions-dutilisateurs-
de la personnalisation dans le cadre des MOOCs,” in 7ème 2082361.php#q2UexZahXPkg73RT.99
Conférence sur les Environnements Informatiques pour [42] Arobasenet, “Linkedin Learning propose des cours gratuits en
l'Apprentissage Humain (EIAH), Agadir, Morocco, 2015. ligne grâce à Lynda.com”, 2016. Available:
[24] D. F. O. Onah and J. Sinclair, “Massive open online courses: an http://www.arobasenet.com/2016/09/linkedin-learning-
adaptive learning framework”, in: 9th International Technology, formation-en-ligne-3354.html
Education and Development Conference, Madrid, Spain, pp.2-4 [43] LinkedIn Developers. “LinkedIn profile field descriptions”,
Mar 2015 (Published in: INTED2015 Proceedings pp. 1258- 2017. Available: https://developer.linkedin.com/docs/fields
1266).
[25] E. Ossiannilsson, “Lessons learned from the Europen eMOOCs
2014 Stakeholders Summit” In C. M. Stracke, U. - D Ehlers, A.
Creelman and T. Shamarina-Heidenreich, “Changing the
trajectory: Quality for opening up education”, pp109-116, Crete,
Greece, 2014.
[26] M. Abik, and R. Ajhoun,” Normalisation et Personnalisation des
situations d’apprentissage”, Phd Thesis in Informatique, Ecole
Nationale Supérieure d’Informatique et d’Analyse des
Systèmes, Rabat, 2009.
[27] K. F. Hew and W. S. Cheung, “Students’ and instructors’ use of
massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and
challenges”, in Educational Research Review vol.12, pp. 45–58,
2014
[28] X. Wei and J. Yan, “Learner profile design for personalized e-
learning systems”, in International Conference on
Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (CiSE ),
pp. 1-4 Wuhan China: IEEE, 2009.
[29] D. El-Hmoudova , “MOOCs Motivation and Communication in
the Cyber Learning Environment” in Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences vol.131, pp. 29 – 34, 2014.
[30] R. Haddaji, F. Essalmi , S. Hamzaoui and A. Tlili, “Toward the
selection of the appropriate e-learning personalization strategy”,
in “ Innovations in Smart Learning”, Lecture Notes in
Educational Technology (LNET), Springer, 2017.
[31] S. Graf, S. R. Viola, T. Leo and Kinshuk, “In-depth analysis of
the felder-silverman learning style dimensions” in Journal of
Research on Technology in Education vol.40, n°1, pp. 79- 93,
2007.
[32] S. Messick, “The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and
promise in educational practice”, Educational Psychologist
19(2), pp. 59-74, 1984, in A. Kahaei, “Design of Personalization
of Massive Open Online”, M. Thesis in informatique,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finlande, 2015.
[33] R. J. Riding and E. Sadler-Smith, “Cognitive style and learning
strategies: Some implications for training design”, International
Journal of Training and Development vol. 1(3), pp. 199-208,
1997, in A. Kahaei, “Design of Personalization of Massive
Open Online”, M. Thesis in informatique, Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Finlande, 2015.
[34] J. Vinces, “Définir l’expérience professionnelle”, in Travail et
Emploi, vol. 85, pp. 21-34,January 2001.
[35] France - Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la
recherché, “dictionnaire des compétences”, 2011.
[36] M. Zhou, “Chinese university students' acceptance of MOOCs:
A self- determination perspective”, in Computers & Education,
vol. 92-93, pp. 194-203, 2016.

978-1-5386-2957-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 1272
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Peshawar. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 11:28:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.