skip to main content
10.1145/3506860.3506917acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open Access

Hybrid Human-AI Curriculum Development for Personalised Informal Learning Environments

Published:21 March 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Informal learning procedures have been changing extremely fast over the recent decades not only due to the advent of online learning, but also due to changes in what humans need to learn to meet their various life and career goals. Consequently, online, educational platforms are expected to provide personalized, up-to-date curricula to assist learners. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Crowdsourcing based approach to create and update curricula for individual learners. We show the design of this curriculum development system prototype, in which contributors receive AI-based recommendations to be able to define and update high-level learning goals, skills, and learning topics together with associated learning content. This curriculum development system was also integrated into our personalized online learning platform. To evaluate our prototype we compared experts’ opinion with our system’s recommendations, and resulted in 89%, 79%, and 93% F1-scores when recommending skills, learning topics, and educational materials respectively. Also, we interviewed eight senior level experts from educational institutions and career consulting organizations. Interviewees agreed that our curriculum development method has high potential to support authoring activities in dynamic, personalized learning environments.

References

  1. Hamdan Alamri, Victoria Lowell, William Watson, and Sunnie Lee Watson. 2020. Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 52, 3 (2020), 322–352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Naomi Berman. 2020. A critical examination of informal learning spaces. Higher Education Research & Development 39, 1 (2020), 127–140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Andrew Cross, Mydhili Bayyapunedi, Dilip Ravindran, Edward Cutrell, and William Thies. 2014. VidWiki: Enabling the crowd to improve the legibility of online educational videos. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1167–1175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Alireza Farasat, Alexander Nikolaev, Suzanne Miller, and Rahul Gopalsamy. 2017. Crowdlearning: Towards collaborative problem-posing at scale. In Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 221–224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hamed Jelodar, Yongli Wang, Chi Yuan, Xia Feng, Xiahui Jiang, Yanchao Li, and Liang Zhao. 2019. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Topic modeling: models, applications, a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78, 11 (2019), 15169–15211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Yuchao Jiang, Daniel Schlagwein, and Boualem Benatallah. 2018. A Review on Crowdsourcing for Education: State of the Art of Literature and Practice.. In PACIS. 180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbara B Lockee. 2021. Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics 4, 1 (2021), 5–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mohammadreza Molavi, Mohammadreza Tavakoli, and Gábor Kismihók. 2020. Extracting Topics from Open Educational Resources. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 455–460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Elham Mousavinasab, Nahid Zarifsanaiey, Sharareh R. Niakan Kalhori, Mahnaz Rakhshan, Leila Keikha, and Marjan Ghazi Saeedi. 2021. Intelligent tutoring systems: a systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods. Interactive Learning Environments 29, 1 (2021), 142–163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Vineet Pandey, Amnon Amir, Justine Debelius, Embriette R Hyde, Tomasz Kosciolek, Rob Knight, and Scott Klemmer. 2017. Gut instinct: Creating scientific theories with online learners. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 6825–6836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311–318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahantesh K Pattanshetti, Sanjay Jasola, Vivek Gupta, and Akshay Rajput. 2018. The open corpus challenge in eLearning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 10, 1(2018), 67–85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mahantesh K Pattanshetti, Sanjay Jasola, Akshay Rajput, and Vishal Pant. 2021. Proposed eLearning Framework using Open Corpus Web Resources. In 2021 International Conference on Advances in Electrical, Computing, Communication and Sustainable Technologies (ICAECT). IEEE, 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Juan Ramos 2003. Using tf-idf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, Vol. 242. Citeseer, 29–48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michael Röder, Andreas Both, and Alexander Hinneburg. 2015. Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. 399–408.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Arturo Rojas-López and Francisco José García-Peñalvo. 2022. Personalized education for a programming course in higher education. In Research Anthology on Computational Thinking, Programming, and Robotics in the Classroom. IGI Global, 344–367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rick L Shearer, Tugce Aldemir, Jana Hitchcock, Jessie Resig, Jessica Driver, and Megan Kohler. 2020. What students want: A vision of a future online learning experience grounded in distance education theory. American Journal of Distance Education 34, 1 (2020), 36–52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M Somasundaram, P Latha, and SA Saravana Pandian. 2020. Curriculum Design Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) Back Propagation Method. Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020), 134–138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Osamuyimen Stewart, David Lubensky, and Juan M Huerta. 2010. Crowdsourcing participation inequality: a SCOUT model for the enterprise domain. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation. 30–33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Mohammadreza Tavakoli, Mirette Elias, Gábor Kismihok, and Sören Auer. 2020. Quality Prediction of Open Educational Resources - A Metadata-based Approach. International conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mohammadreza Tavakoli, Mirette Elias, Gábor Kismihók, and Sören Auer. 2021. Metadata Analysis of Open Educational Resources. In LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 626–631.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mohammadreza Tavakoli, Ali Faraji, Stefan T Mol, and Gábor Kismihók. 2020. OER Recommendations to Support Career Development. IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE)(2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mohammadreza Tavakoli, Gabor Kismihok, and Stefan T Mol. 2020. Labour Market Information Driven, Personalized, OER Recommendation System for Lifelong Learners. International conference on Computer Supported Education-CSEDU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christian Vom Lehn. 2020. Labor market polarization, the decline of routine work, and technological change: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics 110 (2020), 62–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Daniel S Weld, Eytan Adar, Lydia Chilton, Raphael Hoffmann, Eric Horvitz, Mitchell Koch, James Landay, Christopher H Lin, and Mausam Mausam. 2012. Personalized online education—a crowdsourcing challenge. In Workshops at the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Keng Yang and Hanying Qi. 2021. The Nonlinear Impact of Task Rewards and Duration on Solvers’ Participation Behavior: A Study on Online Crowdsourcing Platform. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 16, 4(2021), 709–726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Ling Zhang, James D Basham, and Sohyun Yang. 2020. Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis. Educational Research Review(2020), 100339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK22: LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
    March 2022
    582 pages
    ISBN:9781450395731
    DOI:10.1145/3506860

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 21 March 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format