DESIGN OF AN ADAPTIVE E-LEARNING MODEL BASED ON

LEARNER’S PERSONALITY

Essaid El Bachari, El Hassan Abdelwahed, Mohamed El Adnani

Computer Systems Engineering Laboratory (LISI), Department of Enginneering Science,
Faculty of Science Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University
B.P. 2390, Bd My Abdellah, 40000, Marrakesh
{elbachari, abdelwahed, md-eladnani }@ucam.ac.ma

ABSTRACT
Personalized e-learning implementation is recognized as among one of the most
interesting research areas in the distance Web-based education. Since the learning
style of each learner is different we must to fit e-learning to the different needs of
learners. This paper presents an Adaptive e-learning model based personality
learner’s. To recognize the learner’s personality, this system uses the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator's (MBTI) personality dimensions. Secondly, it will propose
a Personalized Education System LearnFit Framework that suggests a learning
style matching with learner’s preference in online distance learning education.

Keywords: Adaptive Learning, E-learning, Learning Style, Teaching Strategy.

1 INTRODUCTION people prefer some kind of interacting with, taking

Until now, it is extremely difficult for a teacher to
determine the optimal learning strategy for every
learner in a class. And even if a teacher is able to
determine all the strategies, it is even more difficult
to apply all multiple teaching strategies in a
classroom. Today’s development of searching
technology provides learners a new way to break of
the traditional educational models “one size fits all”
approach. It makes it possible to “customize down
to the individual” and hence for effective
personalized and creative learning [30].
In response to individual needs, personalization in
education not only facilitates students to learn better
by using different strategies to create various
learning experiences, but also teacher's designer’s
education needs in preparing or designing varied
teaching or instructional packages. Each learner has
a preference for a teaching style that allows him to
learn better. Some one likes to listen and talk, others
prefer to analyze a text, or simply using a visual
medium. So to learn effectively, learners have to be
aware of their preferences that make easy to manage
their own way of learning. This information will
enable the learner to improve the effectiveness of its
approach to learning and to exploit its own resources.
Jungian based psychologists add that people’s
personality preferences influence the way they may
or may not want to become more actively involved in
their learning, as well as take responsibility for the
self-direction and discipline. So we have to identify a
person's individual learning style and then adapt
instruction toward that person's strengths and
preferences. It is commonly believed that most
in, and processing stimuli or information.
2 PREVIOUS WORKS
A lot of research works has been done about
personality type, virtual learning system and learning
but it’s still very difficult to draw a definitive
conclusion on the relationship between them. For
example see [25], [11], [3], [21], [10], [8], [9] and
[24]. In [1], authors designed an interface for
computer learners appropriate for the type of their
personality using MBTI test. Using learner’s
personality [23] and [15] proposed an expert system
for virtual Classmate Agent (VCA).
Recent developments of the online learning are
related to Adaptive educational Hypermedia Systems
(AEHS). An AEHS aims at building a model of the
goals, preferences and knowledge of each learner
and use this model throughout the interaction with
the learner, in order to adapt learning content to the
needs of that learner [6]. In this research, there are
four strategies path to improve the content suit for
individual learners. They are adaptive content,
adaptive navigation, adaptive presentation and
adaptive learning task.
In this paper we will suggest new teaching
strategies on elearning context matching with
learner’s personality using the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator tools. In this purpose, we will apply our
approach that may include four strategy paths, to
implement a smart virtual learning which can give
learner and also teacher a new positive educational
experience.
3 THEORY BASE 4. Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)

The related studies about this research can be The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator reports a person’s
summarized under two sections; namely, the related preferences on four scales which, is given in Table 1.
studies about learning style and the related studies
about MBTI and personality learners. Table 1: The MBTI preferences and their definitions.

3.1 Learning styles Preferences Definition

The learning style (LS) can be defined as the Where a person prefer
way a person collects processes and organizes Extraversion or Introversion
to focus their attention
information. The way a person prefer
There are many models of learning styles Sensing or Intuition
to take in information
existing in literature. Individual learning styles differ, The way a person prefer
and these individual differences become even more Thinking or Feeling
to make decisions
important in the area of education. Learning style
How a person deal with
may be defined as “the attitudes and behaviours Judging or Perceiving
the external world
which determine an individual’s preferred way of
learning” [22]. Therefore, when an instructor's style
The various combinations of these preferences
matches a learner’s learning style; this affects the
result in a total of 16 personality types and are
learner’s experience and ability to do well. Until
typically denoted by four letters to represent a
today, a lot of research works has been done about
person’s tendencies on the four scales. For example,
learning styles and developed a good deal of learning
ENFP stands for Extroversion, Intuition, Feeling, and
style models but there does not seem to be any
Perceiving. This does not mean that a person
agreement of acceptance of any one theory [4]. Thus,
possesses only four preferences, but that the four
some tools are used to evaluate learner’s learning
preferences show a greater presence than their
style. There are many questionnaires that categorize
counterparts. The MBTI assessment can not only
people based on their learning preference. Indeed,
indicate the learner’s preferences, but also indicate,
MBTI is the well-known tool used for personality
how clear in expressing the preference for a
and learning style determination.
particular pole over its opposite.
For example, Fig. 1, typical report from
3.2 Evaluation of learning styles
Consulting Psychologists Press, E is showing a
Different tools are used to determine learners’
greater presence, on a clear level, over its opposite, I.
learning styles [2]. There are many questionnaires
N is showing a greater presence, on a moderate level,
that categorize each person according to their
over its opposite, S. F is showing a greater presence,
learning styles: Kolb questionnaire, honey and
on a clear level, over its opposite, T. Lastly, J is
Mumford questionnaire [20], GRSLSS questionnaire
showing a greater presence, on a moderate level,
[19] and [20]. Felder and Solman proposed a
over its opposite, P.
psychometric instrument, the index of learning style
Questionnaire ILSQ [16]. Among the different
proposals for modelling LS, we choose the MBTI
tools since it is the more powerful tools for personal
and team success.

3.3 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs inventory is based on Carl
Figure 1: The strengths of MBTI type preferences.
Jung's theory of types, outlined in his 1921 work
Psychological Types [3], [12], [13] and [26]. Jung's
3.4 Dominant preferences
theory holds that human beings are either introverts
We all have an aspect of our personality which
or extraverts, and their behavior follows from these
dominates or governs us. It gives direction to the
inborn psychological types. He also believed that
personality and shapes our motives and goals. This is
people take in and process information different
called the Dominant Process. There is an Auxiliary
ways, based on their personality traits.
Process which should be the second in strength and
The Myers-Briggs evaluates personality type and
is the necessary assistant to the dominant. The
preference based on the four Jungian psychological
auxiliary takes care of the extraversion of the
types:
introvert and the introversion of the extravert. All
four of these processes are found in the middle two
1. Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)
pairs of preferences, that is, the perceiving
2. Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)
preferences which are either Sensing or Intuition and
3. Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)
the judging preferences which are either Thinking or
Feeling. If a person has a Dominant judging process, benefit of the upcoming chapter's theory. Therefore,
his Auxiliary process will be one of the perceiving the teacher present the chapter's Theory or ideas, and
ones. Conversely, a person with a Dominant then applies it to the original application. Afterwards
perceiving process will have a judging preference for the teacher presents additional applications and has
his Auxiliary process [26]. Using these combinations the students apply the theory [5].
can reduce the number of sixteen personality types to
four. • Intuitive (N): people get information through
This is more manageable for planning teaching perception between relationships and results; usually
approach and monitoring learning engagement. use their conception to get information. They prefer
Extroverts (E) use their dominant preference mostly to know the theory before deciding that facts are
for the external world and introverts (I) use their important. Intuitive people will always ask “why”
dominant preference mostly for the inner world [3], before anything else. The discovery method, or the
[12], [13] and [26]. Table 2 illustrates clearly the why method, will appeal to intuitive students and
priorities and function for each of the 16 personality will teach sensing students how to uncover general
types. principles. To be motivated to learn, Intuitive people
prefer theory first, after the can attempt to analyze
Table 2: Priorities and direction of functions in each type. and solve the case or problem [5], [12].
Myers Briggs type Dominant preferences
3.5.2 Thinking-Feeling (T-F)
ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTP ,ESFP S This scale suggests the way a person makes
INFJ, INTJ, ENFP, ENTP N decisions.
ISFP, INFP, ESFJ, ENFJ F • Thinking (T): people that make their decisions
ISTP, INTP, ESTJ, ENTJ T based logic, analysis, and reason. Their
decisions are logical and impersonal [26]. Since
For example the dominant preference found in thinking students like clear course and topic
ISFP, INFP, ESFJ and ENFJ is sensing. For those objectives teacher have to present the chapter's
with ISTP, INTP, ESTJ or ENTJ type, the dominant Theory or ideas, and will use many examples
preference is thinking. For reasons of simplicity we that illustrate the concept [13], [12].
can define four MBTI classes or MBTI clusters. • Feeling (F): people that have emphasis on
)
S = {ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTP , ESFP} harmony and balance. They enjoy teamwork.
) Their judgments and decisions are based on
N = {INFJ, INTJ, ENFP, ENTP} personal value [26].
)
F = {ISFP, INFP, ESFJ, ENFJ}
) 3.6 Adaptive teaching strategies
T = {ISTP, INTP, ESTJ, ENTJ} We define the teaching strategies as the ways of
The proposed taxonomy of learner preference presenting instructional materials or conducting
consists on matching the different learning styles instructional activities. It will be designed in a way
with teaching strategies. Then it’s easy to suggest the that learner are encouraged to observe, analyse, look
suitable media as a channel for its representation, for a solution and discover knowledge by themselves
thus personalizing it to every learner. [5]. The main objective is to facilitate the learning
process.
3.5 Features of MBTI dimensions In the first step, learner encounters with system
Properties of each learner’s preference, questionnaire that finds out learner’s personality (for
pertaining to education and learning, were collated example ISEJ, ESTP, INTJ …), then the system sets
from the literatures [5], [12], [13], [14], [26] and learner in one of four MBTI taxonomy. Using learner
many others. traits based on Isabel Briggs Myers [3], [12], [13]
and [26], Table 3 below suggests an adaptive
3.5.1 Sensing-Intuitive (S-N) learning style scenario for each learner’s preference.
This scale suggests the way a person prefers to take
in information that can give idea on how he can learn.
• Sensing (S): people rely heavily on their five
senses to take in information. They like concrete
facts, organization, and structure. Applications
motivate sensing students to learn the material. To
be motivated to learn, Sensing people attempt to
analyze and solve the case or problem without the
 Table 3: Learners personality and teaching style matched suggest.

MBTI Teaching strategies Suggest Distance educational delivery

cluster
TS1: it uses the Application-Theory-Application (ATA) approach.
Teacher start by presenting an Application. The students attempt to
) analyze and solve the problem without the benefit of the upcoming
S course's theory. Therefore, the teacher present the chapter's theory or
ideas, and then applies it to the original application. Afterwards the
teacher presents additional applications to make easy the learning
process.
• Instruction that allows them to hear and
touch as well as see what they are
learning
• Hands-on labs, material that can be
handled
• Relevant films and other audio-visuals
• First hand experience that gives practice
for the skills and concepts to be learned

TS2: it uses the approach Theory-Application-Theory (TAT). • Assignments that put them on their own
Teacher start by presenting the chapter’s theory or idea before initiative
application related. The students attempt to analyze and solve the • Real choices in the ways they work out
) problem using the course's knowledge. The teacher can reuse the their assignments
N theory to facilitate the learning process. This approach is used for • Opportunities for self-instruction
the traditional educational model. individually or with a group
• Opportunities to be inventive and
original
TS3: it uses Theory- Example- Practical exercises Approach (TEP). • Logically constructed subject matter
Teacher start by presenting the chapter’s theory or idea before • Classrooms free from emotional
) examples related. The students attempt to analyze and solve the distractions
T practical exercises using the course's knowledge. Afterwards the • Interesting problems to analyze
teacher presents additional applications based logic and problem-
solving.
TS4: it uses the opposite teaching of TS3. In fact, it uses Practical • Having topics with a human angle
) exercises, Example then Theory (PET). Teacher use case studies or • Learning into harmonious small-group
F learning based practical exercises. Therefore, the teacher presents the work.
chapter's theory or ideas. • Collaborative work

4 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK MODEL As is shown in Fig. 2, the model includes three

In this paper, a new Personalized Education
System LearnFit Framework is presented according
to the learning model based on personality. This
module is displayed in Fig. 2. Our general purpose
framework may be viewed as being comprised of at
least the following three elements:
a- Domain Model: Consist of concepts and the
relations that exist between them. Typically the
domain model gives a domain expert’s view of
domain.
b- Learner Model: Consists of relevant information
about the user that is pertinent to the
personalisation of the learning style
c- Pedagogical Model: includes two parts
• Adaptive Engine Model: Consists of a set of rules
or triggers for describing the runtime behaviour
of the system as well as how the domain model
relates to the user model to specify adaptation.
• Revised Strategy Model: Consists in determining
whether a given resource is appropriate for a
specific learning style or not.
main modules, each of them described below:
• Module 1. Preference Engine: in first step, the
system finds deals with detecting and storing the
preferences in student model according to MBTI
Tools. The Index of MBTI was added to the
registration form of Expert System for the future
login.
• Module 2. Adaptive Engine: according to learners
group, the system chooses a teaching style
matching with learner’s personality. This
extension uses the decision unit to select an
adaptive course to improve the learning process.
• Module 3. Revised strategy Engine: this model
determines whether a given teaching style is
appropriate or not. For each individual student
the system initializes the decision model
generated from a set of rules that represents the
matches between teaching style and the learner’s
personality. This model uses Bayesian Network
(BN) and its behaviour is quite similar to a
content-based recommender system1 [7].
1
A recommender system tries to present to the user the
information items he/she is interested in. To do this the

Figure 2: System Architecture of LearnFit
The LearnFit project is an Add-On to the popular
Moodle2 Learning Management System to provide
adaptivity learning experience. The add-on is a web-
based application having two tiers utilizing open
source technologies: PHP, MySQL, XHTML, CSS,
and AJAX. Our framework has three meta-models: a
learner model, a domain model and pedagogical
model. Theses models will be described in the
following sub-sections.
4.1 Learner Model
This component stores all user-related data, i.e.
the users’ profiles, including personal information,
preferences. It enables the system to deliver
customized instruction, on the basis of the individual
student’s, or the student group’s, learning style [29].
In our case, using MBTI questionnaire the
personality of the learner is recognized. The
questionnaire calculated and stored the preferences
in student model. It will only consider the four MBTI
) ) ) )
S
preferences of learners, which are , N , T and F .
The learner’s profile taxonomy is displayed in Fig. 3.
user’s profile is compared to some reference
characteristics. These characteristics may be from the
information item (the content-based approach) or the
user’s social environment (the collaborative filtering
approach).
2 Moodle has been an open source Learning managing
system designed to help educators to have a platform
where they could create online courses. Moodle is been
developed all the time by several parties who create new
qualities and improve existing ones.
Figure 3: Learner’s profile taxonomy
4.2 Domain Model
This model describes the structure of the
information content of the application. It consists of
concepts and concept relationships. A concept is an
abstract representation of an information item from
the application domain. The domain model of the
system is based on the notion of learning goals that
the learner can select and study, and provides
learners with a plurality of learning activities and
resources
In preview work, the authors in [27] suggest
three hierarchical levels of knowledge abstraction
learning goals, concepts and educational material.
We will add a fourth one that’s educational
pedagogical. This model is displayed in Fig. 4.
Figure 4: Teaching strategies suggestions for Myers-
Briggs Preferences.
A learning goal corresponds to a topic of the
domain knowledge, which can be recognized and
selected even by a novice learner. Each goal is
associated with a subset of concepts of the domain
knowledge, which formulates a conceptual structure
that represents all the concepts of a goal and their
relationships [27].
Teaching strategies hold a one-to-one
relationship with the learning styles. There can be
one teaching strategy that accommodates one
learning style. Each concept is associated with a
teaching strategy according to learner’s preferences
TSD = {TS 1 , TS 2 , TS 3 , TS 4 } (1)
Where TSD denotes the set of all teaching strategies
used in our framework.
Each teaching style TSi can be also associated
with appropriate learning objects (LOi):

{ i i i i
LO i = LO1 , LO2 , LO3 , LO4 ,..., LOn
i
} (2)

Where LOi denotes the set of all learning objects

related to each teaching strategy TSi. Figure 5: Adaptive taxonomy: LS dimensions and
Otherwise a teaching scenario can be also TS relationships
represented by a tree of learning object where
sections constitute the components (Child) of 4.3.2 Revisited strategy engine
learning scenarios, each section can be composed of The revisited strategy engine helps to determine
subsection that can also be composed of more whether a given teaching strategy is appropriate for a
specific learning objects like pedagogical resources specific learning style or not. This module uses a
and/or pedagogical activities. Dynamic Bayesian Network Classifiers DBN 3 [7],
[18] and [28] to classify a teaching strategy as
4.3 Pedagogical Model “appropriate” or “not appropriate” for the learner.
Teaching strategies (TS) are the elements given To define the DBN’s parameters we set the a priori
to the students by the teachers to facilitate a deeper distribution of the nodes representing the LS
understanding of the information. The emphasis according to the score obtained by learner in the
relies on the design, programming, elaboration and MBTI test (related module 1).
accomplishment of the learning content. Teaching
strategies must be designed in a way that students are
encouraged to observe, analyze, express an opinion,
create a hypothesis, look for a solution and discover
knowledge by themselves. Didactic teaching strategy
for example refers to an organized and systematized
sequence of activities and resources that teachers use
while teaching [18]. The main objective is to
facilitate the students´ learning. Our pedagogical
model has two main intelligent axes: adaptive
strategy engine and revisited strategy engine.

4.3.1 Adaptive strategy engine

The system is designed to offer a best teaching
environment matching with the learner’s profile. The
system sets learner in one of four kinds of
independent group given in Fig. 5. This classification
is obtained based on preference engine which
detecting and storing the preferences in student
model according to MBTI Tools. If the learner be
placed in the independent group, the education a
learning process will be started otherwise system
selects a suitable teaching strategy according to
learner’s personality type.
Figure 6: Bayesian networks representing the
decision model
For a given concept, the system offers a suitable
teaching style (Selected Ti), the value of each node
can be changed dynamically when the concept’s
score is acceptable. For example, Fig. 6 shows that for a
)
person with S profile, the system offers a selected teaching
style selected T1. Thereafter, if the student's grade is less
than 60%, the system presents another teaching style
for example selected T2, and so until the score will
be more acceptable. In that time, the value of the
learner’s profile can be adjusted.

3 A DBN is a model to describe a system that is

dynamically changing or evolving over time. This model
enables uses to monitor and update the system as time
proceeds.
 Regarding the conditional probability tables
(CPTs) that represent the relationships between the
dimensions of the LS and the TS, we estimated these
CPTs taking into account the matching tables defined
by the expert. The detail will be published in the next
work.
5 SYSTEM EVALUATION
To evaluate the performance and the impact of
the LearnFit framework to improve learning process,
we plan to compare the learning outcome of
LearnFit’s adaptive teaching strategy with a classical
non adaptive strategy. The difference will be
measured with respect to the following two main
criteria:
• Does the adaptive teaching strategy contribute to
a successful learning experience
• Does the impact of personality help educator to
making an effective group in collaborative
environment
We have set up experimentation for this semester
to compare our system with a classical one, by
measuring the student understanding after learning
process. Future work will involve a more exhaustive
evaluation, both with simulated and real learners.
This evaluation must account also for changes in
learners’ preferences. Once the model has been
validated, it will be used in a decision model aimed
at determining the more learning objects (LO) for
each learner.
6 CONCLUSION
Utilizing traditional web-based system to support
learning is one useful approach in education. The
problem is that, during on-line learning, a massive
amount of content presented will make learners feel
frustrated and dissatisfied. The problem of
personalization in eLearning remains the focus of
attention of many researchers nowadays. Various
attempts have been undertaken but only some of the
solutions are practically useful for teaching.
Sophisticated web-based Adaptive Hypermedia
systems as well as Intelligent Tutorial systems are
often oriented on one type of task, for instance
quizzes or assessments, and therefore cannot be used
for other purposes [6]. In this paper another
approach has been presented. In this model some
modules for personality recognition and selecting an
appropriate teaching strategy for learner’s
personality, we considered to develop interaction
with the learner. The first result shows that placing
the learner beside an appropriate learning style
matching with learner’s preference in online distance
learning education leads to improvement and makes
the virtual learning environment more enjoyable.
LearnFit uses three modules for strategy adaptation.
First, the system finds deals with detecting and
storing the preferences in student model according to
MBTI Tools. Then, according to learners group, the
system chooses a teaching style matching with
learner’s personality. This extension deals with the
decision unit to select the best adaptive course.
Lastly, the system determines whether a given
teaching style is appropriate or not using Bayesian
network (BN).
We are very encouraged by the system’s ability
and concentrating on evaluating the effectiveness
and impact of Learnfit’s to facilitate a positive
educational experiences. The result of this
experimentation will be published in the next work.
7 REFERENCES
[1] E. Abrahamian, J. Weinberg, M. Grady and C.
M. Stanton: The Effect of Personality-Aware
Computer-Human Interfaces on Learning, JUCP,
10:27–37 (2004)
[2] T. Anderson and F. Elloumi: Theory and
practice of online learning (2003)
[3] C. Bishop-Clark, D. Wheeler: The Myers-Briggs
Personality Type and its relationship to computer
programming. JRCE. 26:358-370 (1994)
[4] C. Bruen and O. Conlan: Adaptive ICT Support
for learning Styles- A Development Framework
for re-useable learning resources for different
learning styles & requirements, AITTE (2002)
[5] H. J. Brightman : Mentoring Faculty to Improve
Teaching and Student Learning Decision
Sciences. JIE(2005). Retrieved 2 May 2010,
from http:// gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html
[6] P. Brusilovsky: Methods and Techniques of
Adaptive Hypermedia. User Modeling and User-
Adapted Interaction, KAP 87-129 (1996)
[7] C. Carmona, G. Castillo and E. Millán:
Discovering Student Preferences in E-learning,
EC-TEL07, pp.33-42 (2007)
[8] S. Chaffar, G. Cepeda and C. Frasson:
Predicting the Learner’s Emotional Reaction
Towards the Tutor’s Intervention. 7th IEEE Inter.
Conf., Japan, pp. 639–641 (2007)
[9] S. Chaffar and C. Frasson: Inducing Optimal
Emotional State for Learning in Intelligent
Tutoring Systems. Comp. Sci., pp. 45–54 (2004)
[10] P. Chalfoun, S. Chaffar and C. Frasson:
Predicting the Emotional Reaction of the Learner
with a Machine Learning Technique. Workshop
on Motivational and Affective Issues in ITS.
Taiwan. (2006)
[11] M. Crosby, J. Stelovsky: From Multimedia
Instruction to Multimedia Evaluation. 4:147-162.
(1995)
[12] J. K. DiTiberio: Education, learning styles, and
cognitive styles. In MBTI applications: A decade
of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,
ed. A. L. Hammer. Palo Alto: CPP Press (1996)
[13] J. K DiTiberio: Uses of type in education. In [29] D. Sampson, C. Karagiannidis and F.
MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and Cardinali: An architecture for web-based e-
use of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator, eds. I. B. learning promoting re-utilizable adaptive
Myers, M. H. McC., and N. Q. CPP (1998) educational e-content. JETS. 5 27-37(2002)
[14] J.K. DiTiberio and A.L. Hammer: Introduction [30] T.I. Wang, K.T.Wang and Y.M. Huang: Using a
to type in college. Palo Alto, CPP (1993) style-based ant colony system for adaptive
[15] S. Fatahil, M. Kazemifard1, N and Ghasem- learning. ESWA, 2449-2464 (2008).
Aghaee1.: Design and Implementation of an
ELearning Model by Considering Learner's
Personality and Emotions. AEECS 423-434
(2009)
[16] R.M. Felder, L.K. Silverman.: Learning and
Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, EE,
78 (7), 674-681 (1988)
[17] R.M. Felder and B.A. Soloman: Index of
Learning Style Questionnaire. Online version
(1997). Retrieved 2 May 2010, from
http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.
html
[18] A.L. Franzoni, A.L. and S. Assar: Student
Learning styles Adaptation Method on Teaching
strategies and Electronic Media, Edu. Tech. Soc.
12 (4) 15-29 (2009)
[19] H.G Lang, H.G., M.S Stinson, M.S., F.
Kavanagh, Y. Liu, M. Basile: Learning style of
deaf college students and Deaf Education, Vol.,
4, pp. 16-27 (1999)
[20] K. Logan, K., P. Thomas: Learning style in
Distance Education Students Learning to
Program, Proc. Work. Psy. Prog. Int. group,
Brunel University, pp. 29-44 (2002)
[21] J. Gurka, W. Citrin: Testing Effectiveness of
Algorithm Animation. In PSVL. 360-367. (1996)
[22] P. Honey and A. Mumford.: The Manual of
Learning Styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire (1992)
[23] H. Maldonado, J.R. Lee, S. Brave, C. Nass, H.
Nakajima, R. Yamada, K. Iwamura and Y.
Morishima: We Learn Better Together:
Enhancing e-Learning with Emotional
Characters. In Proceedings, Comp. Supp.
Collab.Learning, Taipei, Taiwan (2005)
[24] B.F. Marin, A. Hunger and S. Werner:
Corroborating Emotion Theory with Role
Theory and Agent Technology. A Framework
for Designing Emotional Agents as Tutoring
Entities, J. Net. (1), 29–40 (2006)
[25] K. F. Matta, G. M. Kern: Interactive videodisk
instruction: the influence of personality on
learning. IJMMS, 35: 541-552 (1991)
[26] I. Myers-Briggs.: Introduction to Type. 5th ed.,
Palo Alto, CA: CPP (1993)
[27] K.A.Papanikolaou, M. Grigoriadou, H.
Kornilakis and G.D. Magoulas: Personalizing
the interaction in a Web-based educational
hypermedia system: the case of INSPIRE.
UMUAIU. 13 (3) 213-267 (2003)
[28] M. Saham: Learning Limited Dependence
Bayesian Classifiers., KDD-96 AAAI Press 335-
338 (1996)