CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING SYSTEM WITH

DYNAMICALLY COMPOSABLE LEARNING OBJECTS

PROJECT REPORT

A report submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

By
MINU. M. DAS

(Reg. No: 1082308)

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY
PUDUCHERRY – 605 014

JUNE 2010
 CERTIFICATE

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

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

GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

DR. S. SIVASATHYA DR.R. SUBRAMANIAN

Senior Lecturer, Professor and Head,

Department of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science,
School of Engineering and Technology School of Engineering and Technology
Pondicherry University Pondicherry University

Submitted for the University Examination held on _________________

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge my sense of gratitude to my guide Dr. S. Siva Sathya, Senior

Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, and Dr. T. Chithralekha, Reader,
Department of Banking Technology Pondicherry University who made valuable
guidance, contributions, centering effort, timely advices, and creative support in
organizing and implementing phase of this project.

I express my special thanks to Dr. A. M. S. Ramaswamy, Professor and Dean,

Ramanujan School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Pondicherry
University for his continuous support, advice and encouragement.

I extend my humblest thanks to kind, ambitious, helpful head of the department

Dr. R. Subramanian, Professor and Head of the Department, Department
of Computer Science, Pondicherry University for her guidance, and support in
undergoing this project.

I like to express my profound gratitude to all faculties and non- teaching staff of
Department of Computer Sciences, Pondicherry University for supporting me in
fulfilling the projected targets.

I would be failing in my duty, if I do not thank my classmates who have helped me in

many other ways in completion of my project work. I also acknowledge the help of
others who were involved in this project in one way or other.

Last but not the least I acknowledge the blessings of my parents, which had constantly
supported me in many ways throughout development of this project. I am grateful for
the providence of the grace provided by the LORD ALMIGHTY.

- Minu. M. Das

ii
 ABSTRACT

Context aware E-Learning systems provide learning content according to a learner‟s

context. In the existing context aware E-Learning systems there is no standardized set
of context parameters considered and content is adapted based on a randomly
considered set of parameters.

In this work, a standardization of context model for context aware E-learning has
been proposed. The design of the standardized context model requires that a learning
object should not have a static monolithic structure but be flexible enough to be
dynamically composed based on a learner‟s context. Hence, a flexible learning object
model and its representation are defined in this paper. A content management system
which stores these flexible learning object constituents and assembles them
dynamically based on a learner‟s context is also described.

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page
No
Figure 2.1 Learnativity Content Models 21
Figure 2.2 SCORM Content Aggregation Model 22
Figure 2.3 CISCO RLO/RIO Model 23
Figure 2.4 NETg Learning Object Model 24
Figure 2.5 Hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content 25
Models
Figure 2.6 Learning Content Management System Components 28
Figure 4.1 Formalized way of representing standardized context model 33
Figure 4.2 Different levels of abstraction 35
Figure 4.3 Three dimensional representation of learning object chunks 37
Figure 4.4 Hierarchical representation of learning objects 37
Figure 4.5 Architecture of proposed context aware E-Learning system. 39
Figure 5.1 User interface of proposed system 41
Figure 5.2 Learner‟s context for generating learning content 41
dynamically
Figure 5.3 Dynamically composed adaptive learning object 42
Figure 5.4 Graphical representation of evaluation of existing E- 44
Learning systems against proposed E-Learning system

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page
No.
Table 2.1 List of context parameters 13
Table 4.1 Structured set of contexts 31
Table 4.2 Learning object structure based on the learner‟s preferences and 36
intentions
Table 5.1 Fulfillment of context aware requirements by the proposed system 42

Table 5.2 Comparison of proposed system with existing context aware E- 43

Learning systems

v
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning

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

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1 E-Learning
1.2 Personalized E-Learning
1.3 Context Aware E-Learning
1.4 Problems in existing Context Aware E-Learning
1.5 Proposed System
1.6 Organization of the report

2. LITERATURE SURVEY 4- 28

2.1 Context Aware E-Learning

2.2 Learning Objects
2.3 Learning Object Content Models
2.4 Learning Content Management Systems
2.5 Summary

3. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED SYSTEM 29

4. PROPOSED SYSTEM 30- 39

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Architecture of the Proposed System
4.3 Summary

vii
5. CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS 40- 45

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Case Study- GURUDEV
5.3 Analysis
5.4 Summary

6. CONCLUSION AND FORESEEABLE ENHANCEMENT 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY 47- 53

PUBLICATIONS 54-55

viii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 E-LEARNING

E-Learning or electronic learning refers to a wide range of applications and processes

designed to deliver instruction through electronic means. Usually this means over the
Web, however it also can include CD-ROM or video-conferencing through satellite
transmission. The definition of E-learning is broader than, but includes, online
learning, Web-based training, and computer-based training which focus on delivery of
learning, training or education program by electronic means.

E-Learning uses network technology to design, deliver, select, administer and extend
learning. Using the network, students can learn the contents anytime and any where.
E-Learning can be self- paced, instructor led or self study with an expert. E-Learning
is the process of delivering formal and informal learning and training activities and
events through the use of all electronic media such as Internet, intranet, extranet, CD-

ROM, video tape, TV, Cell phones, personal organizers, computer technology, etc. M

Plain E-Learning systems cannot adapt to a learner‟s learning requirements. Hence, E-

Learning systems evolved and personalized E-Learning systems which enable
customized E-Learning for every learner came into existence.

1.2 PERSONALIZED E-LEARNING

In (Thyagharajan & Ratnamanjari, 2007) personalized E-Learning is described as a

unique, blended educational model that is tailored to the individual learner‟s needs
and interests. Personalized learning can be used for developing the individual learning
programs and also engage these learners into the learning process so that learner‟s
learning potentials and success can be optimized. Personalized learning should not be
restricted by time, place and learner‟s other requirements. Personalized E-Learning is
mostly focusing on learner‟s preferences and current state of a learner to provide the
learning content correctly. It does not focus on the learner‟s situation. Hence,
context- aware E-Learning systems which consider a learner‟s situation also were
developed. These came to be called as context-aware E-Learning systems.

1
1.3 CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING

A context aware E-Learning system considers many parameters that contribute for a
learner‟s contexts. By using these context parameters, the system will give
customized information to the user. The definition of context given by ubiquitous
computing community as “Context is any information that can be used to
characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is
considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the
user and applications themselves.”

Context aware E-Learning systems select or filter the learning resources in order to
make the E-Learning content more relevant and suitable for the learner in his/her
situation. The selection or filtering of the e-learning resources is done by considering
the learner‟s personal information, learning style preferred by him, learner‟s
situation, etc. These parameters constitute for the learner‟s context.

1.4 PROBLEMS IN EXISTING CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING SYSTEM

Existing context aware E-Learning system uses only some of the context parameters
or sub context parameter values. These systems do not capture the learner‟s context
fully since it uses only some of the context parameters. There is no standardized
context model for capturing the learner‟s context fully.

The learning objects structures in the existing context aware E-Learning systems are
monolithic and do not support to provide learning content based on the complete
context of the learner.

1.5 PROPOSED SYSTEM

From the study of the existing works in context aware E-Learning, it is obvious that
different subsets of the context parameters are considered for capturing the learner‟s
context. Each of them helps to capture certain aspects of the learner‟s context. But
they are incomplete in certain aspects. Hence, there is a need to define a standardized
context model which can completely capture the learner‟s context. Also, to provide
the learning content based on a learner‟s context, a learning object have to be
available at different levels of abstraction and media types which is termed as learning

2
chunks. These learning chunks have to be composed dynamically and constitute for a
learning object to be delivered to the learner.

At present, the structure of learning objects are monolithic and do not support to
provide learning content based on the complete context of the learner. Hence, there is
a need to define the modular structure of a learning object that helps to realize a
learning object based on complete learner‟s context. Since a new learning object
structure is defined, a suitable representation for the same also has to be proposed. In
addition, a content management system for storing the learning chunks and
dynamically composing them to form a learning object based on a leaner‟s context has
to be defined.

In this project, the following have been carried out to develop a context aware E-
Learning system

 Standardization of Context Model

 Definition of Learning Object Model

 Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation

 Design and development of Content Management System

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The report is organized as follows.

Chapter 2 Describes the literature survey.

Chapter 3 Gives the need for proposed system.

Chapter 4 Explains the proposed context aware E-Learning system.

Chapter 5 Case study and analysis.

Chapter 6 Gives the conclusion and foreseeable enhancements.

3
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1. CONTEXT AWARE E-LEARNING

2.1.1 Context and Context Aware Computing

Context is a set of constraints that can influence the behavior of a system in a given
task (Schmidt, 2007). The most generally accepted definition in the community of
ubiquitous computing as given by (Dey, 2001) is “Context is any information that can
be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object
that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application,
including the user and application themselves.” In (Schmidt, 2006) the situation of a
user is defined as a relevant subset of the state of the world at a given point in time
including the respective knowledge of history and expectations for the future at that
point in time. According to (Schmidt, 2005) there are two aspects of context
awareness. They are

 Knowing about the user.

 Adapting system behavior to this context.

Context-aware computing refers to a general class of mobile systems that can sense
their physical environment, i.e., their context of use, and adapt their behavior
accordingly. Three important aspects of context are:

 Where you are

 Who you are with
 What resources are nearby

Although location is a primary capability, location-aware does not necessarily capture

things of interest that are mobile or changing. Context-aware in contrast is used more
generally to include nearby people, devices, lighting, noise level, network availability,
and even the social situation; e.g., whether you are with your family or a friend from
school.

4
The term „context-aware' can be described as a model of computing in which users
interact with many different mobile and stationary computers and classify a context-
aware systems as one that can adapt according to its location of use, the collection of
nearby people and objects, as well as the changes to those objects over time over the
course of the day.

Context defines some rules of inter-relationship of features in processing any entities

as a binding clause. Some common understanding is the segregation of four
categories. They are the following

 Location

 Identity

 Activity

 Time

In computer science it refers to the idea that computers can both sense, and react
based on their environment. Devices may have information about the circumstances
under which they are able to operate and based on rules, or an intelligent stimulus,
react accordingly. The term context-awareness in ubiquitous computing was
introduced by (Schilit, 1994). Context aware devices may also try to make
assumptions about the user's current situation. (Dey, 2001) define context as "any
information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity."

According to (Cristiana et. al., 2007) context are used in context-aware applications to

 Adapt interfaces

 Tailor the set of application-relevant data

 Increase the precision of information retrieval

 Discover services

 Make the user interaction implicit

 Build smart environments.

5
A context adaptive system typically enables the user to maintain a certain application
(in different forms) while roaming between different wireless access technologies,
locations, devices and even simultaneously executing everyday tasks like meetings,
driving a car etc.

2.1.2 Characteristics of Context Aware E-Learning

Context aware E-Learning system is equivalent to some form of simple mobile

learning, e.g. that learning environments can be accessed in various contexts and
situations. According to Ogata & Yano (2003) based on Chen (2002) and Curtis
(2002), the main characteristics of ubiquitous learning are the following:

 Permanency: Learners never lose their work unless it is purposefully deleted.

In addition, all the learning processes are recorded continuously everyday.

 Accessibility: Learners have access to their documents, data, or videos from

anywhere. That information is provided based on their requests. Therefore, the
learning involved is self-directed.

 Immediacy: Wherever learners are, they can get any information

immediately. Thus, learners can solve problems quickly. Otherwise, the
learner can record the questions and look for the answer later.

 Interactivity: Learners can interact with experts, teachers, or peers in the form
of synchronies or asynchronous communication. Hence, the experts are more
reachable and the knowledge becomes more available.

 Situating of instructional activities: The learning could be embedded in our

daily life. The problems encountered as well as the knowledge required are all
presented in their natural and authentic forms. This helps learners notice the
features of problem situations that make particular actions relevant.

 Adaptability: Learners can get the right information at the right place with the
right way.

6
2.1.3 Context parameters in existing context aware E-Learning systems

This section gives an overview of the context parameters used in the various context-
aware E-Learning systems. The following are the various context parameters
considered.

 Learner personal profile

 Level of Expertise
 Learning Style
 Learner Preferences or Learner Approach
 Learner Intention
 Learner Situation
 Quality of Learning Service (QoLS)
 Network
 Device
 Learning Pace
 Learning State
 Comprehension Level
 Personality Type

Learner personal profile

This is described in (Carla et al., 2008; Enrico et al., 2004; Srimathi & Srivatsa; IMS,
2003; Jeongwoo et al., 2006; Jovanovic et al., 2007; Kawanish et al.,
2006;Thyagharajan & Nayak, 2007; Maria, 2009; Mingfei et al., 2007; Peng et al.,
2007; Stefan et al., 2007; Sun Microsystems , 2003; Tzone et al., 2008; Xinyou et al.,
2008; Yang , 2006a; Yevgen et al., 2009). Learner‟s personal profile contains
learner‟s personal details such as name, ID, Date of Birth, Knowledge of the learner
etc. The knowledge of the person is the prior knowledge and that is described in
(Adriana & Francisco; IMS, 2003; Jeongwoo et al., 2006; Thyagharajan & Nayak,
2007).

Learner’s Level of Expertise

This is described in (Andreas & Claudia, 2004; Srimathi & Srivatsa; IMS, 2003;
Jeongwoo et al., 2006; Koun & Hsin, 2008; Mingfei et al., 2007). Level of expertise

7
is used to indicate whether the person is a beginner or that learner has some pre-
knowledge about a topic or the learner is an expert in that topic.

Learning Style

Learning Style (ADLI, 2003;Adriana & Francisco; Andreas & Claudia, 2004; Darrel,
2009; Enrico et al., 2004; Srimathi & Srivatsa; IMS, 2003; Jeongwoo et al., 2006;
Jose et al., 2008; Thyagharajan & Nayak, 2007; Peng et al., 2007; Sun Microsystems,
2003; Yuan et al., 2007)corresponds to video, audio, textual, animation media used
by the learner for learning his lessons.

Learner’s Preferences

Most of the existing systems are focusing on Learner‟s preferences (Adriana &
Francisco; Carla et al., 2008; IMS, 2003; Jeongwoo et al., 2006; Jovanovic et al.,
2007; Kawanishi et al., 2006; Thyagharajan & Nayak, 2007; Koun & Hsin, 2008;
Maria, 2009; Mianxiong et al., 2007; Mingfei et al., 2007; Stefan et al., 2007; Sun
Microsystems, 2003; Tzone et al., 2008; Xinyou et al., 2008; Yang, 2006a; Yevgen et
al., 2009). Learner‟s preferences described in these papers correspond to the
conceptual, example-oriented, case study or problem-oriented, demonstration,
simulation approaches preferred by the learner for learning the e-content.

Learner’s Intention

Learner‟s intention (Enrico et al., 2004; IMS, 2003; Thyagharajan & Nyak, 2007;
Yang, 2006a; Yang, 2006b) means in what intention the learner is coming for E-
Learning site. The learner can come for research purpose or survey purpose or
interview purpose or just to learn the concept etc.

Learner’s Situation

Learner‟s situation (Bill et al., 1994; Carla et al., 2008; Jovanovic et al., 2007;
Kawanishi et al., 2006; Koun & Hsin, 2008; Maria, 2009; Mingfei et al., 2007)
defines the situation of the learner. The learner might be driving some vehicle or
he/she might be in private place or in public place etc. The learner‟s location details
are also included in learner‟s situation.

8
Quality of Learning Service (QoLS)

QoLS (Bill et al., 1994; Carla et al., 2008) contains functional and non functional
quality requirements. The functional requirements are network bandwidth and
response time. Non- functional requirements are reliability, availability and cost.

Network

Network (Bill et al., 1994; Carla et al., 2008; Howe, 2006; Jovanovic et al., 2007;
Kawanishi et al., 2006; Mianxiong et al., 2007; Mingfei et al., 2007; Yevgen et al.,
2009; Yuan et al., 2007; Zhu, 2009) can be wired network or wireless network.

Device

The device (Bill et al., 1994; Carla et al., 2008; Howe, 2006; Jovanovic et al., 2007;
Kawanishi et al., 2006; Koun & Hsin, 2008; Maria, 2009; Mianxiong et al., 2007;
Mingfei et al., 2007; Yuan , 2007; Zhu, 2009) used by learner can be mobile, PC,
Laptop, PDA etc.

Learning Pace

Learning pace (IMS, 2003; Jovanovic et al., 2007) means the speed of learning the
subject. This is determined by conducting some test for the learner. The learner can
be a fast learner, medium learner or slow learner.

Learning State

Learning state (Bill et al., 1994; Darrel, 2009; Srimathi & Srivatsa; Jose et al., 2008;
Jovanovic et al., 2007; Thyagharajan & Nayak, 2007; Xinyou et al., 2008; Yuan et
al., 2007; Zhu, 2009) can take the following values.

„Studied‟ – if the learner has gone through each and every lesson and in test he/she
has not performed well then this value is considered.

„To Be Studied‟ – if the learner skipped some lesson then this value is considered.

„To Be Revised‟ – if the learner has not performed well in test, then this value is
considered.

9
Comprehension Level

Comprehension level (Jose et al., 2008; Thyagharajan & Nayak, 2007; Tzone et al.,
2008) means whether the person understood the e-content well, or understood
completely or understood a little, or not understood. Table 1 gives a list of context
parameters.

Personality Type

The learners are of different personality type. Some of the personality types include
the following.

 Extrovert
 Introvert
 Sensate
 Intuitive
 Feeler
 Thinker
 Judger
 Perceiver

Extrovert

60% of the populations are in extrovert personality type category. The following are
the characteristics of extrovert personalities.

 Learns best from doing.

 Is more at ease and confident socially.
 Likes to know how others are doing it.
 Gets energized from socializing.
 Readily volunteers and offers opinions.
 Idea starts from the outside in.

Introvert

40% of the populations are in introvert personality type category. Some of the
characteristics of introvert personalities are given below.

10
  Likes to watch before doing.
 Prefers working alone or with one other.
 Sets own standards when possible.
 Likes quiet space to work.
 Seems deep and hard to understand.
 Idea starts from inside out.

Sensate

Population‟s 65% is in sensate personality type category. Characteristics of sensate

personalities are given below.

 Is more realistic and practical.

 Is more steady and patient.
 Uses his/her experience and common sense.
 Likes routines and order.
 Looks more for what is actual and sensible.
 Lives in the here and now.

Intuitive

35% of the populations are from this personality type category. Intuitive people
characteristics are given below.

 Is more imaginative and abstract.

 Likes new challenge and works in spurts.
 Trusts what makes sense to her/him.
 Dislikes routine and detail work.
 Looks more for what is possible.
 Lives towards her/his vision of the future.

Feeler

From the entire population 65% of females and 45% of males are from feeler
personality category. Characteristics of these personality types are given below.

 Is more interested in people than idea.

11
  Focuses more on personal relationships.
 Is tuned into others feelings.
 Is warm and arouses enthusiasm.
 Makes decisions based on his/ her heart.

Thinker

55% of males and 35% of females from the population are in this personality type
category. The characteristics of thinker personality types are given below.

 Is more interested in fascinating ideas.

 Wants things to be fair and reasonable.
 Stands- up for what he/ she think.
 Is tuned in to logical consistency.
 Is cool- headed and impartial in conflict.
 Makes decisions based on rational thoughts.

Judger

45% of populations are from this category. Characteristics of judger personality type
category are given below.

 Is more decisive than curious.

 Likes planned and scheduled activities.
 Has very set opinion.
 Feels good when things are completed.
 Likes order and organization.
 May make decisions too quickly.

Perceiver

55% of populations are from perceiver personality type. Perceiver‟s characteristics

are given below.

 Is more curious than decisive.

 Likes the spontaneous and unplanned.
 Is flexible, adaptable and tolerant.

12
  Likes to keep opinions open.
 Seeks more to understand than manage things.
 May have trouble making up his/ her mind.

Table 2.1 gives the list of context parameters which are used by the existing systems.

Table 2.1: List of context parameters

Context Parameters Compiled set of Sub

Considered Context Parameters Existing Systems

Name Carla et al., 2008;

ID Enrico et al., 2004;

DOB Srimathi & Srivatsa;

Gender IMS, 2003;

Address Jeongwoo et al., 2006;

E -mail ID Jovanovic et al., 2007;

Learner Profile Phone Number Kawanish et al., 2006;

Technologies Known Thyagharajan, 2007;

Knowledge Level Maria, 2009;

OS Experience Mingfei et al., 2007;

Internet Usage Peng et al., 2007;

Stefan et al., 2007;
Sun Microsystems , 2003;

Tzone et al., 2008;

Xinyou et al., 2008;
Yang, 2006a;
Yevgen et al.

Beginner Andreas, 2004;

Level of Expertise Practitioner Srimathi & Srivatsa;

Expert IMS, 2003;

13
 Jeongwoo et al., 2006;
Koun & Hsin, 2008;
Mingfei et al.

Video ADLI, 2003;

Learning Style Audio Adriana & Francisco;

Text Andreas & Claudia, 2004;

Animation Darrel, 2009;

Slides Enrico et al., 2004;

Srimathi & Srivatsa;

IMS, 2003;
Jeongwoo et al., 2006;
Jose et al., 2008;
Thyagharajan, 2007;
Peng et al., 2007;

Sun Microsystems, 2003;

Yuan et al., 2007

Conceptual Adriana & Francisco;

Learning Preference Example-Oriented Carla et al., 2008;

Case Study IMS, 2003;

Simulation Jeongwoo et al., 2006;

Demonstration Jovanovic et al., 2007;

Kawanishi, 2006;
Thyagharajan, 2007;
Koun & Hsin, 2008;
Maria, 2009;

Mianxiong et al., 2007;

Mingfei et al., 2007;

14
 Stefan et al., 2007;
Sun Microsystems, 2003;
Tzone et al., 2008;

Xinyou et al., 2008;

Yang, 2006a;
Yevgen et al.

Research Enrico et al.,2004;

Learning Intention Survey/ Overview IMS, 2003;

Quick Reference Thyagharajan, 2007;

Basic Introduction Yang, 2006a;

Project Yang, 2006b

Assignment

Seminar

Private Bill et al., 1994;

Learner Situation Public Carla et al., 2008;

Driving Howe, 2006;

Jovanovic et al., 2007;

Kawanishi et al., 2006;

Koun & Hsin, 2008;
Maria, 2009;
Mingfei et al., 2007

QoLS Functional Bill et al., 1994;

Requirement Carla et al., 2008;

Non- Functional Howe, 2006

Requirement

Wired Bill et al., 1994;

Network Wireless Carla et al., 2008;

15
 Howe, 2006;
Jovanovic et al., 2007;
Kawanishi et al., 2006;

Mianxiong et al., 2007;

Mingfei et al., 2007;
Yevgen et al., 2009;
Yuan et al., 2007;
Zhu, 2009

Mobile Bill et al., 1994;

Device PC Carla et al., 2008;

Laptop Howe, 2006;

PDA Jovanovic et al., 2007;

Kawanishi et al., 2006;
Koun & Hsin, 2008;

Maria, 2009;
Mianxiong et al., 2007;
Mingfei et al., 2007;
Yuan et al., 2007
Zhu, 2009

Slow IMS, 2003;

Learning Pace Medium Jovanovic et al., 2007

Fast

Studied Bill et al., 1994;

Learning State To be Studied Darrel, 2009;

To be Revised Srimathi & Srivatsa;

Jose et al., 2008;
Jovanovic et al., 2007;

16
 Thyagharajan, 2007;
Xinyou et al., 2008;
Yuan et al., 2007

Zhu, 2009

Not Understood Jose et al., 2008;

Comprehension Level Understood a Little Thyagharajan, 2007;

Understood Well Tzone et al., 2008

Understood Completely

2.2 LEARNING OBJECTS

Learning Objects (LO) are modular building block of E-Learning content. Learning
objects can be defined as individual elements of learning or basic unit of training.
Each learning object is designed to teach or test a series of specific objectives. Each
learning object is a standalone entity. It does not rely on other learning object to
function and does not specifically refer to other learning objects. A learning object is
a resource, usually digital and web-based, that can be used and re-used to support
learning. Learning objects offer a new conceptualization of the learning process:
rather than the traditional several hour chunks, they provide smaller, self-contained,
re-usable units of learning. They will typically have a number of different components
that range from descriptive data to information about rights and educational level. At
their core, however, will be instructional content, practice, and assessment. A key
issue is the use of metadata. Learning object design raises issues of portability, and of
the object's relation to a broader learning management system. Learning objects
contents can be audio, video, text, animation etc. these learning objects can be a short
video or complete lesson. Learning objects can be used for the following.

 Introduce a new concept or idea

 Give students practice with something they are learning

 Give students a new experience of a familiar idea

17
  Pose problems for students to solve

 Provide a backup resource

 Give students practice at something they are having difficulty with

 Provide students with a variety of experiences in a learning sequence

 Assess student knowledge and / or understanding

2.2.1. Definitions of learning objects

Different definitions given for learning objects are:

“Any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during
technology supported learning.” – Learning Object Metadata Working Group of the
IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)

“The main idea of „learning objects‟ is to break educational content down into small
chunks that can be reused in various learning environments, in the spirit of object
oriented programming.” – David Wiley

“Learning Objects are small or large resources that can be used to provide a learning
experience. These assets can be lessons, video clips, images, or even people. The
Learning Objects can represent tiny „chunks‟ of knowledge, or they can be the whole
courses.” – Claude Ostyn, Click2Learn

2.2.2 Characteristics of Learning Objects

The following are some of the characteristics of the learning objects and their
description.

 Digital - Contents are digitized.

 Are tagged with Metadata - Every learning object are descriptive information
allowing it to be easily found out by a search.
 Interoperable - It must be operable in different kind of hard wares and soft
wares.
 Granular in nature – Smaller in size

18
  Reusable – A single learning object may be used in multiple contexts for
multiple purposes.
 Accessible - It refers to the capability to have been found and became
available to learners and developers anywhere.
 Durable - It is not necessary to change the learning objects in the case of new
version of software.
 Self Contained - Each learning objects can be taken independently.
 Can be aggregated - Learning objects can be grouped to form larger
collections of contents for example different learning objects are integrated to
form the course structure.

2.2.3. Types of learning Objects

The learning objects are of the following.

1. Static Learning Objects (SLO)

2. Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO)

Static Learning Objects (SLO)

Static Learning Objects (SLO) can be produced as software materials intended to be

fairly static and constant. These contents remain to a specific form and style that does
not vary throughout the overall learning experience. This approach is useful in a
controlled learning setting where participants have almost equal levels of experience
and learning capacities. Such learning objects can be found in professional training
materials used for professional certifications offered by IT/ Telecomm companies like
Microsoft or Cisco systems where simulations, animations and explanations follow a
predefined path that does not vary in terms of difficulty levels or overall lesson
details.

Static Learning Objects (Carlo, 2007) are helpful in instructional settings with simple
and / or very straight forward requirements, generally similar to those in which
educators need to have full control of learning method and process. These static
learning objects are used by previous E-Learning systems. Nowadays the E-Learning
systems are using only dynamic learning objects. SLOs are self paced learning
objects. These learning objects are organized in a pre-determined order. The delivery

19
or invocation of objects is determined by time or sequence. The delivery of these
Static Learning Objects is defined by an instructional designer or teacher.

Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO)

Dynamic Learning Objects (DLO) is un-paced learning objects. These objects are not
ordered, that means each learning objects are independent of the other learning
objects. The delivery or invocations of objects are triggered by events. The delivery
of learning objects is based on learner choices.

Dynamic learning objects are used when educators need to adapt to the ever changing
way of knowledge acquisition of students. Dynamic Learning Objects (Carlo, 2007)
are conceived and designed to be used within learning environments where an
educator encounters variable level of skill, experience, retention and reasoning
amongst a group of learners. Dynamic Learning Objects represents a great challenge
when adapting educational software to the true nature of human‟s learning methods.

2.3 LEARNING OBJECT CONTENT MODELS

Content models identify different kind of learning objects and their components.
Content Models provide a more precise definition of what learning objects are and
also it helps to identify learning object components and repurpose them. This content
model contains a collection of learning object. These learning object content models
groups the learning objects to form a complete course structure. Different types of
content models are described below.

 Learnativity Content Model

 SCORM Content Aggregation Model

 CISCO RLO/RIO Model

 NETg Learning Object Model

 General Learning Object Content Model

20
Learnativity Content Model

The Learnativity content model (Wagner 2002) identifies the following taxonomy:

 Raw Media Elements are the smallest level in this model: these elements
reside at a pure data level. Examples include a single sentence or paragraph,
illustration, animation, etc.

 Information Objects are sets of raw media elements. Such objects could be
based on the information block model.

 Based on a single objective, information objects are then selected and

assembled into the third level of Application Specific Objects. At this level
reside learning objects in a more restricted sense than the aforementioned
definition of the LOM standard suggests.

 Aggregate Assemblies that deal with larger (terminal) objectives. This level
corresponds with more conventional lessons or chapters.

 Collections: lessons or chapters can be assembled into larger collections, like

courses and whole curricula.

The following Figure 2.1 shows Learnativity Content Model.

Figure 2.1: Learnativity Content Models.

21
SCORM Content Aggregation Model

The SCORM content aggregation model contains the following components:

 Assets

 Sharable Content Objects (SCO)

 Content Aggregations.

Assets: Assets are an electronic representation of media, text, images, audio, web
pages or other data that can be presented in a web client. Figure 7 shows the SCORM
Content Aggregation Model.

Figure 2.2: SCORM Content Aggregation Model.

 Sharable Content Object (SCO): Represents a collection of one or more

assets. To improve the reusability, a SCO should be independent of its
learning context. A SCO can for example be reused in different learning
experiences to fulfill different learning objectives. SCOs are meant to be
small units, such that reusability in more learning objectives is feasible.

 Content Aggregation: is a map (content structure) that can be used to

aggregate learning resources in a well integrated unit of education (for
example course, chapter, module).

22
CISCO RLO/RIO Model

A Reusable Learning Object (RLO) is a collection of 7 ± 2 RIOs (Reusable

Information Objects). To make a complete learning experience or lesson from a
collection of RIOs, an Overview, Summary and Assessment are added to the packet.

Reusable Information Objects (RIOs) are pieces of information that are built around a
single learning objective. Each RIO is composed of three components: content items,
practice items and assessment items. A practice item is an activity that gives the
learner the ability to apply its knowledge and skills, like a case study or a practice test.
An assessment item is a question or measurable activity used to determine if the
learner has mastered the learning objective for a given RIO. The following figure
Figure 2.3 shows CISCO RLO/RIO Model.

Figure 2.3: CISCO RLO/RIO Model

NETg Learning Object Model

NETg was one of the first to use the LO concept for its IT courses. It has a hierarchy
of 4 levels – course, unit, lesson and topic. A course contains independent units. A
unit contains independent lessons and a lesson contains independent topics. A topic
represents an independent learning object that contains a single learning objective and
has a corresponding activity and assessment. The following figure Figure 2.4 shows
NETg Learning Object Model.

23
 Figure 2.4: NETg Learning Object Model

Figure 2.5 gives the hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content Model
Structure.

24
 Learning Object Content Models

Learnativity SCORM Content CISCO RLO/ RIO NETg Learning

Content Model Aggregation Model Model Object Model

Collections Content RLOs Courses

Aggregations

Aggregate SCOs RIOs Units

Assemblies

Application Assets Content Items Lessons

Specific Objects

Information Objects Topics

Raw Media
Elements

Figure 2.5: Hierarchical Structure of various Learning Object Content Model

Structure.

Homogeneity of the different learning object content models can be found out easily.
It is obvious that a learning object of a model can be used in another model if the
learning object is in a subset of both models. For example, a learnativity learning
object can be used in CISCO if it contains 7 ± 2 information objects, an overview,

25
summary and assessment. If the learning object contains only 4 RIOs, it is not in a
subset of both profiles and cannot be used within a CISCO context. A learning object
of CISCO fits within the NETg model if the RLO contains a single learning objective
and has a corresponding activity and assessment.

2.4 LEARNING CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LCMS)

Learning content management systems (LCMS) allow online content to be stored,

managed, and reused through integrated database functionality. A learning content
management system (LCMS) is a related technology to the learning management
system (e.g., WebCT), in that it is focused on the development, management and
publishing of the content that will typically be delivered via an LMS.

An LCMS is a multi-user environment where developers may create, store, reuse,

manage, and deliver digital learning content from a central object repository. The
LMS cannot create and manipulate courses; it cannot reuse the content of one course
to build another. The LCMS, however, can create, manage and deliver not only
training modules but also manage and edit all the individual pieces that make up a
catalog of training. LCMS applications allow users to create, import, manage, search
for and reuse small units or chunks of digital learning content and assets, commonly
referred to as learning objects. These assets may include media files developed in
other authoring tools, assessment items, simulations, text, graphics or any other object
that makes up the content within the course being created. An LCMS manages the
process of creating, editing, storing and delivering E-Learning content.

The LCMS is a complex piece of software that labels learning objects then organizes
and delivers them in infinite combinations. The core components of a LCMS are

 An authoring tool suitable for non-programmers.

 A dynamic delivery interface that delivers content.
 An administrative component that manages learner records, launches courses, and
tracks progress.
 A learning object repository that is a central database that manages content.

The central database or repository either delivers learning objects to learners

individually or combines objects into learning modules. These objects and modules

26
are presented to learners through the interface which tracks users, provides links to
information, and handles assessment and feedback. The administrative application
manages learner information, launches courses from a catalogue, and tracks and
reports on learner progress. The authoring application provides templates that
automate storyboarding. Using these templates authors may develop an entire course
by using existing learning objects in the repository, creating new learning objects, or
using a combination of old and new objects (Brennan, et al., 2001). So an LCMS can
support the creation and management of Reusable Learning Object (RLO).

The following Figure: 2.6 depict the elements that comprise a typical LCMS. The
content is created and stored in a repository that is accessed by the learning
management system and distributed to the users (i.e., learners). The individual learner
data is also managed by the system and is accessible to the individual user. So one
begins to comprehend the integration of content, managing the content for
distribution, and managing learner data.

LCMS are based on a reusable learning object model allowing content to be reused
within or across courses or programs (Hall, 2003). To accomplish this, LCMS
manage content separately from the media in which the content will be delivered.
RLO are assembled into learning chunks or accessed as individual pieces of
information or instruction and delivered to the learner. The successful and efficient
deployment of an LCMS relies largely on effective development and use of learning
objects, which are reusable, media-independent chunks of information organized by a
metadata classification system (Ellis, 2001). LCMS were not created with the
intention of replacing LMS. LCMS and LMS can be complementary and each solves
a uniquely different challenge. LCMS are particularly suited to handling large
amounts of content for E-Learning efforts. An effective LCMS will enable an
organization to organize courseware without programming expertise.

27
 Figure 2.6: Learning Content Management System Components

2.5 SUMMARY

This chapter describes various context parameters that are used in existing systems to
acquire context awareness in E-Learning and also about the learning objects, learning
content management systems that are described in the existing works.

28
 CHAPTER 3

NEED FOR PROPOSED SYSTEM

From the study of the existing works in context aware E-Learning, it is obvious that
different subsets of the context parameters are considered for capturing the learner‟s
context. Each of them helps to capture certain aspects of the learner‟s context. But
they are incomplete in certain aspects. Hence, there is a need to define a standardized
context model which can completely capture the learner‟s context. Also, to provide
the learning content based on a learner‟s context, a learning object have to be
available at different levels of abstraction and media types which is termed as learning
chunks. These learning chunks have to be composed dynamically to constitute for a
learning object to be delivered to the learner based on his current learning context.

At present, the structure of learning objects are monolithic and do not support to
provide learning content based on the complete context of the learner. Hence, there is
a need to define a modular structure of a learning object that helps to realize a learning
object based on complete learner‟s context. Since a new learning object structure is
defined, a suitable representation for the same also has to be proposed. In addition, a
content management system for storing the learning chunks and dynamically
composing them based on a leaner‟s context has to be defined.

Thus the proposed system needs the following to dynamically compose and provide
the learning object according to the learner‟s context.

 Standardization of Context Model

 Definition of Learning Object Model

 Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation

 Design and development of Content Management System

29
 CHAPTER 4

PROPOSED SYSTEM

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The proposed context aware E-Learning system is to be developed by using the

solutions proposed for each of the following.

 Standardization of Context Model

 Definition of Learning Object Model
 Definition of Learning Object-chunk Representation
 Design and development of Content Management System

4.1.1 Standardization context model for context aware e-learning systems

In the existing E-Learning systems, different subsets of context parameters have been
used for capturing a learner‟s context. Since the subset is not complete, it cannot help
to accommodate all the details of a user‟s context completely. Hence, it is necessary
to derive a standardized context model that helps to establish a learner‟s context
comprehensively.

The standardized context model consists of mainly four sub context parameters
which consolidates the existing systems parameters. They are the following.

 Profile Context
 Preference Context
 Infrastructure Context
 Learning Context

The structured sets of context parameters are given in Table 4.1.

Profile Context

This context is giving information about learner‟s personal information, personality

type and learner‟s level of expertise regarding the topic of study.

30
Preference Context

It contains the information about learner‟s approach or preferences and learner‟s

intention and learning style.

Infrastructure Context

It describes the information about learner‟s situation, network and device used by the
learner.

Learning Context

This describes the information about the learning pace, learning state and the
comprehension level of the learner.

Table 4.1: Structured set of contexts

Sub Context Name Context Type Parameters Sub-

Parameters

Profile Context Static Personal Name

Information ID

DOB

Gender

Address

Email-id

Phone Number

Technologies Known

Knowledge Level

OS Experience

Internet Usage

Personality Type Extrovert

Sensory

Thinkers

Judgers

31
 Beginner
Level of Expertise Practitioner

Expert

Conceptual

Example-Oriented
Learner Preference Case Study

Simulation
Preference Context Static Demonstration

Research
Learner Intention Survey or Overview

Quick Reference

Basic Introduction

Project

Assignment

Seminar

Learning Style Video

Audio

Text

Animation

Slides

I Learner Situation Private

Public
Infrastructure Static Driving
Context Network Wired

Wireless

Device Mobile

32
 PDA

Laptop

PC

QoLS Functional requirements

Non- functional requirements

Slow
Learning Pace Medium

Fast

Studied
Learning State To Be Studied
Learning Context Dynamic To Be Revised

Not Understood
Comprehension Understood a little
Level Understood Well

Understood Completely

These sub-contexts are either Static type or Dynamic type. Static contexts are
constant; it will not change in the entire E-Learning session. In the above sub-
contexts, the profile context, preference context and infrastructure contexts are static
because it will remain the same for the entire course session. Learning context is
dynamic context because it changes according to the learner‟s pace, learner‟s state
and comprehension level. Formalized way of representing the standardized context
model is given in Fig.4.1.

Context Ontology – {Profile, Preference, Infrastructure, Learning State}

Profile – {Personal Information, Personality Type, Level of Expertise}

Personal Information {Name, ID, DOB, Gender, Address, Email-id, Phone

Number, Technologies Known, Knowledge Level, OS
Experience, Internet Usage}

33
Personality Type {Extrovert, Sensory, Thinkers, Judges,}

Level of Expertise {Beginner, Practitioner, Expert}

Preference - {Learner‟s Preference, Learner‟s Intension, Learning Style}

Learner’s Preference {Conceptual, Example- Oriented, Case Study,

Demonstration, Simulation}

Learner’s Intension {Research, Survey, Quick Reference, Basic

Introduction, Project, Assignment, Seminar}

Learning Style {Video, Audio, Text, Animation}

Infrastructure – {Learner‟s Situation, QoLS, Network, Device}

Learner’s Situation {Public, Private, Driving}

QoLS {Functional Requirements, Non-Functional

Requirements}

Functional Requirements {Bandwidth, Response

Time}

Non-Functional {Reliability, Availability,

Requirements Cost}

Network {Wired, Wireless}

Device {Mobile, PDA, Laptop, PC}

Learning State – {Learning Pace, Learner‟s State, Comprehension Level}

Learning Pace {Slow, Medium, Fast}

34
Learner’s State {Studied, To Be Studied, To Be Revised}

Comprehension Level {Not Understood, Understood a Little, Understood

Well, Understood Completely}

Figure 4.1: Formalized way of representing the standardized context model.

4.1.2. Definition of Learning Object Model for Context Aware E-Learning

systems

The design of the standardized context model requires a flexible learning object
model. That is, the learning object structure should not be static. The structure of the
learning object will change according the learner‟s preferences and intentions.

This requires that the learning object is structured in terms of different levels of
abstractions as given below in Fig 4.2. That is, the same learning object is available
in the form of a concept, detailed concept, example, case study, simulation and
demonstration. Each of these corresponds to the various abstraction of the same
learning object. Every abstraction would be available in different media types. These
learning object abstractions in the various media types are called as learning object
chunks.

Concept
Detailed Concept
Example
Case Study
Simulation
Demonstration
Figure 4.2: Different levels of abstraction

When a learner whose learning preference is learning by „case study‟ approaches the
E-Learning system with the intention of preparing for interview, the different
learning object abstraction chunks chosen to constitute the learning object structure

35
and the sequencing order of these abstractions while presenting to the learner is as
shown below

Simple Concept  Case Study  Example.

Thus, for the above mentioned scenario, the learning object is structured with three
abstractions – simple concept, case study and example. This structure is dynamically
determined based on the learning preference and intention of the learner.

Formalized way of representing the learning object model for different intentions of a
learner is given in Table 4.2. This shows the different learner‟s intention and the
corresponding sequencing of the learning object abstractions for each of these
intentions.

Table 4.2: Learning object structure based on the learner’s preferences and
intentions.

Learner’s Intention Learning chunk abstractions constituting

the learning object

Research {Simple Concept, Detailed Concept,

Example, Case Study, Demonstration,
Simulation}

Survey {Detailed Concept, Example, Case Study}

Quick Reference {Simple Concept, Example, Case Study}

Basic Introduction {Simple Concept, Example}

Project {Detailed Concept, Example, Case Study,

Simulation, Demonstration}

Seminar {Detailed Concept, Example, Case Study,

Demonstration}

Assignment {Detailed Concept, Example, Case Study}

36
4.1.3 Definition of Learning Object-Chunk Representation

For representing the standard context model and structured learning object model a
suitable representation technique has to be identified. Every learning chunk
corresponds to a particular domain. It is available in a particular level of abstraction
in a particular media. Thus, learning objects chunks are represented in a three-
dimensional way. X-axis represents the domain ontology to which the learning object
chunk belongs. Y-axis represents the level of abstraction of the learning object chunk
viz. concept, detailed concept, example etc. and the Z-axis represents the media in
which a learning object chunk abstraction is existing. Fig. 4.3 shows the 3
dimensional representation of learning object chunks.

Level of
Abstraction

Media
Domain Ontology

Figure 4.3: Three dimensional representation of learning object chunks

The following Fig. 4.4 shows hierarchical representation of learning object. That is, a
learning object x, is available in abstractions y1..yn and every abstraction is available
in z1.. zn media types.

z1

y1

zn
x
x
yn

Figure 4.4: Hierarchical representation of learning objects

37
4.1.4. Content Management Systems for Context Aware E-Learning Systems

In order to accommodate the newly designed standardized context model and learning
object content model, a content management system which can store the learning
object chunks and dynamically compose a learning object according to the current
context of the learner is required.

The content management system has to store and retrieve the learning object chunks.
During content generation, the learning object delivery module makes use of the
learning object model which is dynamically generated for the learner‟s context and
composes a learning object in terms of many zs which correspond to the various ys
that have been chosen to constitute for the structure of the learning object in a domain
x.

The advantages of the proposed system are that it generates content based on a
standardized set of context parameters. Also, since the learning object structure is
dynamically composed it can cater to learner‟s preference an intentions so that the
learner will get highly customized learning content.

4.2 ARCHITECTURE OF THE PROPOSED CONTEXT-AWARE E-

LEARNING SYSTEM

Architecture of the proposed context aware e-learning system includes the following
modules.

 User Interface Module

 Context Building Module

 Learning Object Structure Generation Module

 Learning Object Delivery Module

 Content Management System

Fig 4.5 shows the architecture of the proposed Context Aware E-Learning system.
The learner will give input through the user interface module. Through this user
interface module the learner‟s context is built. A suitable learning object model which
best suits the current context is generated dynamically. The learning object model is

38
the input to content management system which fills the structure with the required
learning object chunks and delivers it to the learner through the learning object
delivery module.

Standardized Learning
Context Object
Model Model

User
Interface Learning
Module Object
Delivery
Module

Content
Management
System

Figure 4.5: Architecture of proposed context aware E-Learning system.

4.3 SUMMARY

This chapter describes the proposed systems and the architecture of the proposed
context aware E-Learning system.

39
 CHAPTER 5

CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes about proposed context aware E-Learning system and screen
shots of proposed context aware E-Learning system. This chapter also explains the
two analyses carried out among proposed context aware E-Learning system and
existing context aware E-Learning system.

5.2 CASE STUDY

The proposed context aware E-Learning system is entitled as GURUDEV. Through

the proposed system GURUDEV the learner can learn about some computer network
portion. GURUDEV will provide apt content to the learner with particular intention
and preference.

GURUDEV defines everything that is described above. Fig. 5.1 shows the user
interface of the GURUDEV. Fig.5.2 gives the learner context for generating the
appropriate learning content dynamically. In Fig. 5.2 the learner comes with an
intention of „seminar‟. The learner provides „detailed concept‟ as his learning
preference. The learner is assumed to be in „private‟ place, the media preferred by the
learner is „text‟ and the learner is using „laptop‟ and network used is wired and the
learner want to study about network topology. Then, the sequencing of abstraction of
learning object chunk will be in the following form

Detailed Concept Example Case Study Demonstration.

Finally the system dynamically composes learning objects according to the learner‟s
context and is given to the learner. That is shown in Fig. 5.3.

40
 Figure 5.1: User Interface of proposed system

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

41
 Figure 5.3: Dynamically composed adaptive learning object

5.3 ANALYSIS

Two types of analyses are carried out among proposed and existing context aware E-
Learning systems. First analysis verifies whether implemented context aware E-
Learning system, GURUDEV fulfills the requirements of the context aware E-
Learning system. Each of the stipulated parameters are fulfilled by GURUDEV and
explained in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Fulfillment of context aware requirements by the proposed system

Requirements of Context - Fulfillment in the How it is fulfilled

Aware E-Learning Standardized Context
Model

Learner‟s Ability Fulfilled Learners abilities are

Described in the Profile
Context
Learner‟s Preferences Fulfilled Learner‟s preferences are
Described in the
Preference Context
Learner‟s Fulfilled Described in the Profile

42
Background Knowledge Context
Learner‟s Interest Fulfilled Described in the Profile
Context
Learner‟s Skills Fulfilled Described in the Profile
Context
Learner‟s Requirements Fulfilled Described in Profile as
well as Infrastructure
Context

The second type of analysis performs an evaluation of proposed E-Learning system

with the existing E-Learning system. The evaluation is performed using the
parameters defined in the standardized context model. That is, every system is
analyzed to determine whether the context awareness such as profile awareness,
preference awareness, infrastructure awareness and learning awareness are fulfilled in
them. Table 5.2 shows whether the existing systems are satisfying the contexts
parameters of the standardized context which is described in the proposed context
aware E-Learning system. The total score is given based on the context parameters
fulfilled. . Score 1 is attributed to every awareness that is fulfilled. The sum of all the
score is plotted in the form of a graph in figure 5.4.

Table 5.2: Comparison of proposed system with existing context aware E-Learning
systems

Existing Profile Preference Infrastructure Learning Total

Systems Awareness Awareness Awareness State Score
Awareness
ADLI, 2003     2
Adriana & Francisco     2
Andreas, 2007     3
Andreas, 2004     1
Bill et al., 1994     1
Carla et al., 2008     2
Darrel, 2009     2
Enrico et al.,2004     2
Srimathi & Srivatsa     2
IMS, 2003     3
Jeongwoo et al., 2006     2
Jose et al., 2008     3
Jovanovic et al., 2007     2
Kawanishi et al., 2006     3
Thyagharajan, 2007     3

43
Koun & Hsin, 2008     3
Lanzilotti et al., 2006     3
Maria, 2009     2
Mianxiong et al., 2007     2
Mingfei et al.,2007     1
Peng et al., 2007     2
Stefan et al., 2007     1
Sun Microsystems,     3
2003
Tzone et al., 2008     1
Xinyou et al., 2008     3
Yang, 2006     3
Yang et al., 2006     3
Yevgen et al., 2009     2
Yuan et al., 2007     3
Zhu, 2009     3
Proposed System     4

The following Fig. 5.4 shows the graphical representation of the evaluation. The X
coordinate represents the E-Learning systems and Y coordinates represents the Total
Value of that each system obtained. Most of these existing systems are satisfying only
3 context parameters described in the proposed context model but the proposed E-
Learning system satisfies all the 4 context parameters and is shaded in Fig. 5.4.

4.5

3.5

3
Total Score

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
e-learning Systems

Figure 5.4: Graphical representation of evaluation of existing E-Learning

systems against proposed E-Learning system

44
5.4 SUMMARY

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

45
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND FORESEEABLE ENHANCEMENT

A context aware E-Learning system considers many parameters that contribute for a
learner‟s learning context. By using these context parameters, an E-Learning system
will give customized information to the user. Context aware E-Learning systems
select or filter the learning resources in order to make the E-Learning content more
relevant and suitable for the learner in his/her situation. But most of the existing
context aware E-Learning systems uses only some of the context parameters namely
learner‟s preferences, learning styles, learner‟s intentions etc.

In this work a context aware E-Learning system is proposed to be developed. For this,
a standardized context model and learning object model are devised. A new content
management system (CMS) which can store the structured learning objects and
deliver highly customized content to the learner by dynamically composing the
learning objects is also developed.

In future psychological aspects and user‟s cognitive level details can be included in
the context model.

46
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADLI Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), (2003). Advanced

Distributed Learning Initiative.

Adriana Berlanga, Francisco J. Garcia. (2003). Towards reusable Adaptive Rules.

Anderson, N., and Clifford, L. Interoperability between Information and Learning

Environments– Bridging the Gaps.

Andreas S., Claudia W. (2004). User Context Aware Delivery of E-Learning Material:
Approach and Architecture. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 10(1), pp.
38-46.

Andreas Schmidt. (2007). IMPACT OF CONTEXT-AWARENESS ON THE

ARCHITECTURE OF LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS, Architecture
solutions for E-Learning systems, Idea- Group Publishing.

Becking, D., Betermieux, S., Bomsdorf, B., Feldmann, B., Heuel, E., Langer, P.,
Schlageter, G. (2004) Didactic Profiling: Supporting the Mobile Learner.
Proceedings E-Learn 2004.

Bill N. S, Norman Adams, and Roy Want. (1994). Context-Aware Computing

Applications, IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications.

Birgit B. (2005). Adaptation of Learning Spaces: Supporting Ubiquitous Learning in

Higher Distance Education. Mobile Computing and Ambient Intelligence: The
Challenge of Multimedia.

Bomsdorf, B. (2005). Towards Plasticity of Digital Learning Spaces. International

Conference on Mobile Computing and Ambient Intelligence.

47
Carla Limongelli, Filippo Sciarrone, Marco Temperini, Giulia Vaste. (2008).
Adaptive Learning with the LS-Plan System: a Field Evaluation, IEEE
Transaction on Learning Technologies.

Carlos, F. (2007). Creating Learning Object. Proceedings of the 2007 Informing

Science and IT Education Joint Conference.

Chen Y.S., Kao T.C., Sheu J.P., Chiang C.Y. (2002). A Mobile Scaffolding-Aid-
Based Bird -Watching Learning System. IEEE International Workshop on
Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'02), pp.15-22.

Cui, Y.; Bull, S. (2005). Context and Learner Modelling for the Mobile Foreign
Language Learner, International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied
Linguistics, 33(2), pp. 353-367.

Curtis M., Luchini K., Bobrowsky W., Quintana C., Soloway E. (2002). Handheld
Use in K-12: A Descriptive Account, IEEE International Workshop on Wireless
and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'02), pp.23-30.

Cristiana B., Carlo A., Elisa Q., Fabio A., Letizia T. (2007). A data-oriented survey of
context models, ACM SIGMOD Record. 36(4), pp 19-26.

Darrel Woelk. (2009). e-Learning, Semantic Web Services and Competency

Ontologies. IEEE First International Workshop on Education Technology and
Computer Science, pp. 233-237.

Derek Stockley. 2003. E-learning Definition and Explanation (Elearning Online

Training Online Learning).

Dey, Anind, K. (2001). Understanding and Using Context. Personal Ubiquitous

Computing , 5 (1), pp. 4–7.

Ellis, R. K. (2001) LCMS Roundup.

48
Enrico Rukzio, George N. Prezerakos, Giovanni Cortese, Eleftherios Koutsoloukas,
Sofia Kapellaki. (2004). Context for Simplicity: A Basis for Context-aware
Systems Based on the 3GPP Generic User Profile. International Journal of
Computational Intelligence, 1(1), pp. 1-12.

Hall, B. (2002). Learning management systems 2002.

Howe, D, Free online dictionary of computing. (2006). Imperial College

Department of Computing London, UK.

H. Srimathi, S.K. Srivatsa, “Identification of ontology based learning object using

instructional design.

IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2003). IMS Abstract Framework: White paper.

Jeongwoo Ko, Fumihiko Murase, Teruko Mitamura, Eric Nyberg, Masahiko Tateishi,
Ichiro Akahori. (2006). Context-Aware Dialog Strategies for Multimodal Mobile
Dialog Systems, Journal on AAAI.

Jose Manuel Marquez, Juan Antonio Ortega, Luis Gonzalez-Abril, Francisco Velasco.
(2008). Creating adaptive learning paths using Ant Colony Optimization and
Bayesian Networks. IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks
(IJCNN 2008), pp. 3834-3839.

Jovanovic, J., Gasevic, D., Knight, C., Richards, G. (2007). Ontologies for Effective
Use of Context in e-Learning Settings. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3),
pp. 47-59.

Kawanishi, N. Jin, K.S. Si, H. Kawahara, Y. Morikawa, H. (2006). Building

Context-Aware Applications and Probe Space Infrastructure. IEEE International
Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communications, pp. 103-106.

49
K.K. Thyagharajan, Ratnamanjari Nayak. (2007). Adaptive Content Creation for
Personalized e-Learning Using Web Services. Journal of Applied Sciences
Research, 3(9), pp. 828-836.

Koun-Tem Sun, Hsin-Te Chan. (2008). The Study of Using Sure Stream to Construct
Ubiquitous Learning Environment, 2008 IEEE International Conference on
Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing, pp. 534-548.

Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costabile, M. F., De Angeli, A. (2006). eLSE
Methodology: a Systematic Approach to the eLearning Systems Evaluation.
Educational Technology & Society. 9(4), pp. 42-53.

Maria Zajac, (2009). Using Learning Styles to Personalize Online Learning, Journal
on Campus- Wide Information System. 26(3), pp.256-265.

Mianxiong Dong, Kaoru Ota, Zixue Cheng, Guojun Wang. (2007). A Support Method
for Improving Learner‟s Learning Habit Using Behavior Analysis in a Ubiquitous
Environment, IEEE 2007 International Conference on Parallel Processing
Workshops (ICPPW 2007), pp. 67-72.

Mike A., Rupert C., Steve H., Joe N., Pete S., Andy W., Andy H. (2000).
Implementing a Sentient Computing System, Philosophical Transactions, Royal
Society London. 358, pp. 2349-2358.

Mingfei Wang, Linlin Ci, Ping Zhan, Yongjun Xu. (2007). Applying Wireless Sensor
Networks to Context-Awareness in Ubiquitous Learning, IEEE Third
International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC 2007), 5, pp. 791-795.

Peng Chen, Anbo Meng, Chunhua Zhao. (2007). Constructing Adaptive Individual
Learning Environment Based on Multi- Agent System. IEEE International
Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security Workshop (CISW 2007),
pp. 374-377.

50
Ogata H., Yano Y. (2004). Context-Aware Support for Computer Supported
Ubiquitous Learning. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile
Technologies in Education (IEEE WMTE2004), pp.27-34.

Schilit B.N, Adams, Want R. (1994). Context-aware computing applications. IEEE

Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA'94), pp. 89–
101. Retrieved from the website http://sandbox.parc.com/want/papers/parctab-
wmc-dec94.pdf.

Schilit B.N., Theimer, M.M. (1994). Disseminating Active Map Information to

Mobile Hosts. IEEE Network, 8 (5), pp. 22–32.

Schmidt A. (2005a). Potentials and Challenges of Context-Awareness for Learning

Solutions. 13th Annual Workshop of the SIG Adaptivity and User Modeling in
Interactive Systems.

Schmidt A. (2005b). The Knowledge Maturing Process as a Unifying Concept for E-

Learning and Knowledge Management. Fifth Inter-national Conference on
Knowledge Management (I-KNOW 2005).

Schmidt, A. (2006). Ontology-based User Context Management: The Challenges of

Dynamics and Imperfection. International Conference on Ontologies,
Databases and Applications of SEmantics (ODBASE 2006), pp. 995-1011.

Schmidt, A. (2007). IMPACT OF CONTEXT-AWARENESS ON THE

ARCHITECTURE OF LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS. Architecture
solutions for E-Learning systems. Idea- Group Publishing.

Stefan Dietze, Alessio Gugliotta, John Domingue. Addressing Context-Awareness

and Standards Interoperability in E-Learning: A Service-oriented Framework
based on IRS III.

Sun Microsystems. (2003). E-learning Framework.

Thevenin, D., Coutaz, J. (1999) Plasticity of User Interfaces: Framework and

Research Agenda. In: Proceedings of Interact’99, pp. 110-117.

51
Thyagharajan K.K, Ratnamanjari N. (2007). Adaptive Content Creation for
Personalized e-Learning Using Web Services. Journal of Applied Sciences
Research, 3(9), pp. 828-836.

Tzone-I. Wang, Kun-Te Wang, Yueh-Min Huang. (2008). Using a style-based ant
colony system for adaptive learning. Elsevier Journal on Expert System with
Application, 34(4), pp. 244-246.

Wagner, E. D. (2002). Steps to Creating a Content Strategy for Your Organization,

The e-Learning Developers' Journal.

Williams, D. A. (2002). Getting a handle on learning content management systems.

Xinyou ZHAO, Fumihiko ANMA, Toshie NINOMIYA, Tishio OKAMOTO. (2008).

Personalized Adaptive Content System for Context Aware Mobile Learning.
IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 8(8),
pp. 153-161.

Yang S. J. H, Irene Y.L. Chen. (2006). Providing Context Aware Learning Services to
Learners with Portable Devices. In proceedings of 2006 IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ‘06), pp. 840-842.

Yang, S. J. H., Chen, I., & Shao, N. (2004). Ontological Enabled Annotations and
Knowledge Management for Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning
Community. Educational Technology and Society, 7 (4), pp. 70-81.

Yang, S. J. H., Lan, B. C. W., Wu, B. J. D., & Chang, A. C. N. (2005). Context
Aware Service Oriented Architecture for Web Based Learning. International
Journal of Advance learning Technology, 2(4).

Yang. S. J. H. (2006). Context Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Peer- to-
Peer Collaborative Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), pp. 188-
201.

52
Yevgen B., Hamidreza Baghi, Igor Keleberda, Michael Fleming. (2009). An
adjustable personalization of search and delivery of learning objects to learners,
Elsevier Journal on Expert System with Application, 36(5), pp. 9113-9120.

Yuan Fan Zhan, Laurence Capus, Nicole Tourigny. (2007). A Learner Model for
Learning- by- Example Context. Eighth ACIS International Conference on
Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and
Parallel/Distributed Computing, pp. 778-785.

Zhou, X. (2008). Design and implementing An integrated Learning Content

Management System. IEEE Proceedings of First International Workshop on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 347-350.

ZHU Zhen. (2009). Design and Implementation of Web-Services based E-Learning

System. IEEE 2009 First International Workshop on Education Technology and
Computer Science, pp. 233-237.

53
 PUBLICATIONS

JOURNALS

1. Minu. M. Das, Manju Bhaskar, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya.

“Context Aware E-Learning System with Dynamically Composable Learning
Objects”. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE),
2010, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1245-1253.

2. Minu. M. Das, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya. “Static Context Model
for Context Aware E-Learning”. International Journal of Engineering Science
and Technology (IJEST), 2010, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 2337-2346.

3. Manju Bhaskar, Minu. M. Das, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya. “Genetic
Algorithm Based Adaptive Learning Scheme Generation For Context Aware
E- Learning”. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering
(IJCSE), Vol. 2, No. 4, 2010.

4. Minu. M. Das, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya. “Standardization of

Context Model for Context Aware E-Learning”. International Journal of
Computer Application (IJCA), August 2010.

5. Minu. M. Das, Manju Bhaskar, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya.

“Standardized Multi Layered Context Model for Context Aware E-
Learning”. Communicated to the International Journal of Computer Science and
Information Technologies (IJCSIT).

CONFERENCES

1. Minu. M. Das, Manju Bhaskar, Dr. T. Chithralekha, “Three Layered

Adaptation Model for Context Aware E-Learning”. International Conference
on Advances in Information and Communication Technologies (iCT 2010).
September 7-9. Cochin, Kerala, India.

54
2. Minu.M.Das, Dr. T. Chithralekha, Dr. S. Siva Sathya, “Learning Objects in E-
Learning”. Proceedings of the National Conference on Emerging Trends in
Computing (NCETIC), March 24-26, Government Engineering College, Thrissur,
Kerala, India.

55
56