时效性偏差:一种评价封闭课程教育推荐系统的新方法

Christopher Krauss, A. Merceron, S. Arbanowski
{"title":"时效性偏差:一种评价封闭课程教育推荐系统的新方法","authors":"Christopher Krauss, A. Merceron, S. Arbanowski","doi":"10.1145/3303772.3303774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The decision on what item to learn next in a course can be supported by a recommender system (RS), which aims at making the learning process more efficient and effective. However, learners and learning activities frequently change over time. The question is: how are timely appropriate recommendations of learning resources actually evaluated and how can they be compared? Researchers have found that, in addition to a standardized dataset definition, there is also a lack of standardized definitions of evaluation procedures for RS in the area of Technology Enhanced Learning. This paper argues that, in a closed-course setting, a time-dependent split into the training set and test set is more appropriate than the usual cross-validation to evaluate the Top-N recommended learning resources at various points in time. Moreover, a new measure is introduced to determine the timeliness deviation between the point in time of an item recommendation and the point in time of the actual access by the user. Different recommender algorithms, including two novel ones, are evaluated with the time-dependent evaluation framework and the results, as well as the appropriateness of the framework, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":382957,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Timeliness Deviation: A novel Approach to Evaluate Educational Recommender Systems for Closed-Courses\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Krauss, A. Merceron, S. Arbanowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3303772.3303774\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The decision on what item to learn next in a course can be supported by a recommender system (RS), which aims at making the learning process more efficient and effective. However, learners and learning activities frequently change over time. The question is: how are timely appropriate recommendations of learning resources actually evaluated and how can they be compared? Researchers have found that, in addition to a standardized dataset definition, there is also a lack of standardized definitions of evaluation procedures for RS in the area of Technology Enhanced Learning. This paper argues that, in a closed-course setting, a time-dependent split into the training set and test set is more appropriate than the usual cross-validation to evaluate the Top-N recommended learning resources at various points in time. Moreover, a new measure is introduced to determine the timeliness deviation between the point in time of an item recommendation and the point in time of the actual access by the user. Different recommender algorithms, including two novel ones, are evaluated with the time-dependent evaluation framework and the results, as well as the appropriateness of the framework, are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303774\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在课程中下一步学习什么项目的决定可以通过推荐系统(RS)来支持,该系统旨在使学习过程更加高效和有效。然而,学习者和学习活动经常随着时间的推移而变化。问题是:如何及时、恰当地评估学习资源的建议,如何对它们进行比较?研究人员发现,除了标准化的数据集定义外,在技术增强学习领域,RS的评估程序也缺乏标准化的定义。本文认为,在封闭的课程设置中,将训练集和测试集分割成时间依赖的方法比通常的交叉验证更适合于评估不同时间点的Top-N推荐学习资源。此外,引入了一种新的度量来确定项目推荐时间点与用户实际访问时间点之间的时效性偏差。用时间相关的评价框架对不同的推荐算法进行了评价,包括两种新的推荐算法,并讨论了评价结果以及该框架的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Timeliness Deviation: A novel Approach to Evaluate Educational Recommender Systems for Closed-Courses
The decision on what item to learn next in a course can be supported by a recommender system (RS), which aims at making the learning process more efficient and effective. However, learners and learning activities frequently change over time. The question is: how are timely appropriate recommendations of learning resources actually evaluated and how can they be compared? Researchers have found that, in addition to a standardized dataset definition, there is also a lack of standardized definitions of evaluation procedures for RS in the area of Technology Enhanced Learning. This paper argues that, in a closed-course setting, a time-dependent split into the training set and test set is more appropriate than the usual cross-validation to evaluate the Top-N recommended learning resources at various points in time. Moreover, a new measure is introduced to determine the timeliness deviation between the point in time of an item recommendation and the point in time of the actual access by the user. Different recommender algorithms, including two novel ones, are evaluated with the time-dependent evaluation framework and the results, as well as the appropriateness of the framework, are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信