Merging Learning Objects Automatically

Aldo Ramrez-Arellano, Elizabeth Acosta-Gonzaga

IPN
Mexico City, Mexico
aramirezar@ipn.mx, eacostag@ipn.mx
ABSTRACT
Several approaches have been proposed to recommend the most
suitable Learning Object LO! according to student"s pro#ile$ It
gauges the similarity bet%een the student&s pro#ile and metadata
o# stored LOs$ ' recovery #unction is used in most o# these
alternatives( the highest value means a high degree o# matching
%ith the user&s needs$ )sually the user has the option to pic* out
a LO o# the ran*ed list to loo* through it$ +hen recovery
#unction does not #ind a LO, %hich #ul#ills user"s re,uirements or
it %as ran*ed too lo% to be considered -suitable., it is re,uired to
build a more appropriate one$ /he combination o# t%o or more
LOs adds ne% content to the ne% LO so it might be closer to the
user&s needs$ /his paper sho%s an approach to do so %hich is
incremental because let us gather *no%ledge by means o#
merging LOs$
KEYWORDS
01learning, learning object, merging$
!TROD"CTO!
/he tas* o# manually revie%ing Learning Objects LO! is
enormous because o# the gro%ing ,uantity o# educational
resources, such as, the Multimedia 0ducational 2esources #or
Learning and Online /eaching M02LO/! 345 repository,
contains 67,888 resources approximately$ In addition to this, a
Learning Object 2epository LO2! is developed to retrieve LOs
in a use#ul %ay and it also has the capability to return a large
number o# hits$ )sers #ace the problem o# deciding %hich
resources might be closer to their needs, there#ore LOs are
expected to be rated by using an automatic method$ /his ran*ing
o# LO has a strong in#luence on ho% the user pic*s out a LO #or
bro%sing it$ 9or instance, a long list o# ran*ed LOs cannot be
bro%sed completely by a user$ Moreover, a manual classi#ication
could bias the score o# a LO and it could not match %ith user&s
pre#erences because it depends on the human evaluator context$ It
is common that most o# search engines ran* a LO as #ollo%s 3:75
3::5;
By giving an example of a L
By setting search fields
By giving a !ser"s profile
'lthough many o# these search engine use a recovery #unction
%hich can deal %ith numeric or categorical #ields, both *ind o#
#ields cannot be handled by most o# them$
Ran#ing by gi$ing an e%am&le o' a LO
In this approach, the user supplies an example o# the desired LO
then( a recovery #unction compares the example to LOs stored in
LO2, and returns the one that %as ran*ed as the highest$ In the
case o# SM0/0 3:<5, it measures similarity bet%een metadata o#
the example and metadata o# stored LOs$ Since it is similar to the
algorithms used #or early %eb search engines, it has a handicap$
/he measure %ill be slant i# the number o# a term, appearing in
metadata, increases 3:5$
Other %or* %ith a di##erent approach is presented in 3:65 %hich
ran*s a LO building and training a neural net%or*$ /he method to
select LOs can be summari=ed in three steps :! the di##erence
bet%een #eatures o# supplied and stored LO is calculated >! the
model is trained to get a good accuracy in ran*ing 6! the model is
applied to a ran*ing tas*$
?ue to the computation done in the #irst step, a pair1%ised tas* is
carried out in order to compare the example to each LO$ It rises
the time o# computation %hen a large number o# objects belong to
the search set$
@o%ever, the previous approaches have a disadvantage because it
is re,uired that the user is ac,uainted %ith the topic$ 9or instance,
a #reshman o# computer sciences, %ho has never covered topics
related to advanced programming, might have trouble %ith giving
an example o# such subject$
Ran#ing by setting searc( 'iel)s
' common method is to supply a search criterion, %hich is
composed o# *ey%ords such as title, language, material type,
audience etc$ 'lthough, in#ormation retrieval techni,ues are used
#or calculating the degree o# similarity 3:53>5 as it %as mentioned
in the previous section, the main di##erence is that *ey%ords do
not represent any object so there is not a semantic relationship
among them$ /his approach has become popular not only on the
LO search but also on documents$
' combination o# a *ey%ord1based search and a #eedbac* ,uery
is used in 3:A5 3>85 3>:5$ Instead o# counting the number o# %ords
in metadata, the search engine gathers the citations o# authors and
ho% many times their LOs have been do%nloaded$
Ran#ing by gi$ing a user*s &ro'ile
In 3:85 3::5, the authors propose t%o metrics based on an analysis
o# the LOs that have been bro%sed previously by users$ /he #irst
metric measures the pre#erence o# a user, computing the number
o# times that a given value is presented in the given #ield in the
metadata$ /he second metric counts the number o# LOs shared by
users in order to obtain their similarity$ 9rom this point o# vie%,
t%o users have a similar pro#ile i# they loo* through the same
LOs$
30scribir texto5
' pedagogical model in combination to the Learning Object
Metadata LOM! 3<5 is used in 3>>5 to split the pro#ile and
support the student learning pre#erence$ In the #irst stage, the
search engine uses the topic parameter to determine %hich LOs
are considered #or the #ollo%ing step in the ran*ing process$ In
the second stage, LOs are #iltered again, comparing the student&s
pro#ile %ith metadata o# a LO$ 's a result, the LOs matching %ith
the pro#ile are sho%ed to the student in a list$ It is clear that the
ran*ing process selects LO"s randomly because there is no control
on ho% they are retrieved along the t%o stages per#ormed by the
system$ Conse,uently, the user cannot *no% %hat is the most
relevant LO in the #inal subset$
In this paper, %e propose an algorithm to merge LOs %ith no
human interaction$ /he user"s needs, expressed as a ,uery, drive
the selection o# redundant items along the process o# merging$
Our approach becomes #lexible since it can use any 2ecovery
9unction 29! to select an item o# out the available ones$
'dditionally, %e propose a novel measure based on con#usion
%hich ta*es into account the context o# the LOs to be evaluated$
In the remaining sections, some de#initions are sho%ed, the
pac*ing o# learning objects is brie#ly explained, the
algorithm #or merging learning objects is described and
#inally, the results and conclusion are presented$
DE+!TO!S
In a ran*ing process, many phases might be involved including
the tas* o# gauging the matching degree o# a LO %ith the user&s
,uery B!$ Next, %e %ill introduce the de#inition o# Recovery
function:
#efinition $% Recovery f!nction &R'(
Let LO a given learning object and B a given user"s ,uery$ +e
de#ine a recovery #unction 29! as;
RF(Q, LO)=m
Notice that m 38, :5 %hich means that a LO evaluated %ith a
value near to : is closer to Q than other one %ith a lo%er value$
9rom this de#inition %e can see that 29 is not limited to use an
especial techni,ue or measure but its outcome must be
normali=ed$
/he computation o# confusion 3C5 is sensitive to the context
inasmuch as it uses a metric o# hierarchical elements$
It means that, although the elements in a hierarchy are the same, a
di##erent topology changes the metric$ It %ill be explained #urther$
+e introduce the de#inition o# confusion and some examples #or
completes, a deep explanation can be #ound in 3C5$
#efinition )% *onf!sion in !sing r instead s, for a hierarchy +
Let r, s symbolic values, H a hierarchy and r, s H , then the
conf!sion in using r instead o# s, %ritten conf(r, s), is;
conf(r, r)=conf(r, s)=0 if s is any ascendant of r.
conf(r, s)=1+conf(r, fater!of(s)) oter"ise
#$am%&e 1: /he hierarchy H1 in 9ig$ : depicts the organi=ation o#
statistical methods$ i# someone as*s you #or 'statistica& test( and
you give 'inde%endent one sam%&e t test( conf('inde%endent one
sam%&e t test(, 'statistica& test()=0 but i# you are as*ed #or
'inde%endent one sam%&e t test. and you give 'students t test(
conf( 'students t test(, 'inde%endent one sam%&e t test()=1$
'ccording to the de#inition >, confusion is computed counting
descending lin*s #rom r to s$
#$am%&e ): 9rom 9ig$ :$ %e can see that -e$%erimenta&( is a
%rong ans%er #or -*nde%endent t"o sam%&e t test( because
conf('e$%erimenta&(, (*nde%endent t"o sam%&e t test()=+
/he normali=ed version o# con#usion is 365;
,O-F(r, s) =conf(r, s).
+here is the height o# the hierarchy used #or computing conf(r,
s)$ /he ,O-F (r, s) #or example : and > are 8, :D6 and :
respectively$
's %as mentioned previously, the context o# con#usion is given
by a hierarchy$ 0ven thought, confusion let us gauge the
similarity bet%een t%o concepts( slight modi#ication in the
hierarchy topology leads changes in its outcome$ /his measure
depends completely on hierarchy$
#efinition ,% Learning b-ect &L(
' learning object is a digital entity designed #or letting students
accomplish their educational goals, also it has the #ollo%ing
#eatures; it is reusable, interoperable, modular, accessible and
portable 3A5 3:>5 3:E5 3:45$
'ig!re $% A hierarchy H1 of statistical methods.
LEAR!!, OB-ECT .ACK!,
/o ensure the LO #eatures, LO designers use standards as
Instructional Management Systems IMS! 375, Sharable Content
Object 2e#erence Model SCO2M! 3:C5 and Learning Object
Metadata LOM! 3<5$ Our approach #ocus on SCO2M since it is
hierarchical organi=ed and uses LOM in combination %ith IMS,
all o# them %ritten in FML$
/he content organi=ation see 9ig$ >!, in SCO2M, is a
hierarchical map that de#ines the intended use o# the content
through activities$ 0ach item can be nested into another one( a
lea# item has no children nested items! thus it is lin*ed to a
resource such as a %ebpage$
'ig!re )% Content organization of a LO packaged using SCORM.
Our approach parses this content organi=ation to a hierarchy, as it
is sho%ed in 9ig$ :, ta*ing into account that only lea# items have
resources$
MER,!, LEAR!!, OB-ECTS
Similarity among to&ics o' LOs
In the process o# merging learning objects, it is expected that
ran*ed LOs are closely related to the ,uery topic hence similar
concepts belong to di##erent LOs$ /o #ind the most similar
concept ,/ H / to ,a H a %e use the #unction sim(,a, H) 3E5
described belo%$
Let 0a the ascendant node o# ,a #ather o# ,a! and 0/ the
ascendant node o# ,/ #ather o# ,/!$ /here are #our cases #or
see*ing ,/;
Case :$ ,a matchs %ith ,/ and 0a matchs %ith 0/$ In this case 0/
can be the #ather, grand#ather or great #ather o# ,/$ sim returns ,/
and the value : %hich means ,/ is similar to ,a$
Case >$ /he parent 0/ is similar to 0a but 0/1s children do not
match %ith ,a$ Calling recursively 0/1= sim(0a), the #unction try
to con#irm that 0/ is an ancestor o# ,a$ I# the 0/1 returned is the
root o# @b, the algorithm concludes unsuccess#ully returning the
value o# 8$ Other%ise sim is #ocused on #inding o# ,/1, a child o#
0/$ /hree cases are possible;
a$ Most o# the metadata o# ,/1 coincide %ith metadata o# ,a$ I#
,/1 has children, they must be chec*ed %ith children o# ,a
using sim recursively$ I# their children have an appropriate
level o# matching the algorithm returns ,/1 and the degree o#
coincidence bet%een metadata$
b$ Other%ise, the brother o# 0/ and their descendants are
compared recursively %ith ,a, until a reasonable level, using
sim$ I# it is success#ul( the degree o# coincidence o# metadata
is returned$ I# a#ter this search, no concept is #ound then adds
,a to 0/ o# resulting LO$
c$ I# sim #ails to #ind ,1/, an arbitrary but reasonable ans%er is a
child o# the brother o# 0/( tha is, ,/1 is a cousin o# Ca$
Case 6$ ,a matchs %ith ,/ but their #athers do not$ /o determine
i# ,a is similar to ,/, most o# metadata in ,a should coincide %ith
most o# those in ,/$ Moreover most o# children o# ,a coincide
30scribir texto5
using sim! %ith most o# children in ,/$ /he value returned is the
#raction o# metadata and children o# ,/ matching %ith those o# ,a$
I# the previous test #ails, sim is not able to #ind a similar concept
and return 8$
Case E$ Neither ,/ nor 0/ %as #ound$ /he #unction concludes
unsuccess#ully returning 8$
Algorit(m 'or merging learning object
/he main issue o# merging LOs is detecting redundant items$ /he
*ey ideas to tac*le it are to search #or similar items by means o#
sim #unction and add the most relevant one to the ne% LO$ /he
relevance o# t%o concepts is computed by a 29 comparing the
user&s ,uery B to a LO or its items individually there#ore merging
t%o LOs might have a di##erent outcome depending on B$

0ven though our approach is par1%ised, it can be generali=ed
applying the outcome o# the Merging Learning Object algorithm
MLO! as an input o# itsel#$ 9rom this point o# vie%, merging
three LO is done by MLOMLOLO:,LO>!,LO6!$

+e describe the algorithm as #ollo%s;
Let Ha, H/ hierarchical representations o# t%o LO see 9ig$ >! and
Hc the resulting LO$
MLO @a,@b,@c!
:$ merge@a,@b,@c!
>$ merge@b,@c,@c!
/he #unction mer2e is the core o# the algorithm$ It travels @a in
breadth1#irst order trying to #ind similar concepts bet%een the t%o
LOs.
Merge@a,@b,@c!
: 9or each ,a H a
> CbG simCa,@b!
6 I# Cb is null
E add Ca to @c
7 else
C i# 29B,Ca,!H 29B,Cb!
< mergeCa,Cb,Ca!
4 mergeCb,Ca,Ca!
A add Ca to @c
:8 else
:: mergeCb,Ca,Cb!
:> mergeCa,Cb,Cb!
:6 add Cb to @c
:E end i#
:7 end i#
:C end #or
I# sim #inds a ,/, it evaluates ,a and ,/ then the best item is
chosen according to 29 line C!$ Since Ca and Cb are a sub
hierarchy see 9ig$ 6a$!, it is necessary merge them line <, 4, ::
and :>! see 9ig$ 6b$!$ 9inally, the item is added to @c %ithout
children i# it does not belong to Hc yet$
/he #irst invocation o# merge, in MLO, adds mostly concepts
#rom Ha to Hc as the case, , may be #rom Ha or H/ i# it has a
similar concept! but it does not include concepts in H/ that are not
in Ha$ /his problem is solved in the second invocation$
Reco$ery 'unction base) on con'usion measure
/he recovery #unction based on con#usion RFconf #or short,
measures the total con#usion among items in %hich a term o# the
user&s ,uery appears$ 9ormally RFconf(Q,&o! is de#ined;
Let Q a user&s ,uery %ith ti terms i 1.., n , LO a learning Object,
itemi LO an item %here a term ti Q appears and &o LO a
2iven item$

RFconf(Q,&o)=1.n 3i
n
,O-F(&o,itemi)
Ienerali=ing the above #ormula #or a learning object;
RFconf(Q,LO)=1.m34
m
RFconf(Q,&o4)
/he generali=ation computes the average con#usion o# all items
that con#orm the LO according to the user"s ,uery$
a!
b!
'ig% ,a% Similar items from to different LOs are detected !y sim. 'ig% ,b% "he process of merging to similar items is depicted# merge adds
$propertie%s from Ca and decides that $interpretation% from C! is the most appropriate to !e add. &inally $assumption% is added as ell.

#$am%&e +: 9rom 9ig$ 6a$ +e can see that interpretation is
redundant in both LOs so only one must be chosen$ Jou give the
,uery BG.properties, applications, example.$ /he items %here
the terms -properties., -engineering. and -example. appear are
labeled e,ually in LOa and LOb #or simplicity$
0valuating RFconf(Q,&o) for -inter%retation. #rom LOa$
RFconf(Q, ( inter%retation() = 1.) ( ,O-F ( 'inter%retation(,
(%ro%erties( ) + ,O-F( 'inter%retation(, ( engineering() ) =
1.) ( 1.) + ).) ) = +.5
0valuating RFconf(Q,&o) for -inter%retation. #rom LOb$
RFconf(Q, (inter%retation() = ,O-F ( 'inter%retation(, (
example( ) = 1.)
+e are interested in the term closer to the ,uery, in other %ords,
%e search the item that minimi=e the confusion in a given
context$ In accordance %ith the results -interpretation. #rom LOb
is selected$ /he RFconf is not term1dependent as recovery #unction
based on KSM$ /his is due to the RFconf gauges ho% #ar the target
item is #rom items matching %ith ,uery terms$
RES"LTS
In this section, %e present the result o# merging learning objects
LOa and LO/ automatically$ /he t%o learning objects %ere pac*ed
using SCO2M and merged to produce the result LOc$ /he title
and metadata o# each item %ere examined in order to determine
their similarity by Kector Space Model techni,ue KSM! 3:5$ /%o
29 %ere tested, the #irst one is based on KSM and the second one
on con#usion metric explained in the previous section$ /o
compare the error o# our approach the same source LO, merged
by MLO, %ere #used manually$
/he error %as computed by #ollo%ing #ormula$
#rror= (num/er of re%eated items in LOc) . ( itemsLO).
+here LO, is the result o# merging LOa and LO/ and itemsLO is the
number o# items belonging to LO merged manually$
/he LOs manually merged %ere considered as a correct outcome$
/he human merger only has access to the metadata o# the item so
our experiments %ere #air$ /he 9ig$ E sho%s the results o# #using
eight di##erent LOs #rom sundry topics$ /he second column o# the
table presents the number o# repeated items in the LOc$ ' repeated
item #alse1negative detection! means that MLO %as not able to
detect similar concepts( conse,uently both %ere added instead o#
only one$
+e ,uanti#y the number o# items #rom a LO the correct #usion!
in order to sho% that MLO avoids a #alse1positive detection$ In
this case, the number o# items in LOc is less than the number o#
items in LO$ /he percentage o# items #rom LOa and LOb that have
metadata is sho%ed in the column number #ive$
CO!CL"SO! A!D +"T"RE WORK
/he MLO algorithm is a valuable tool because it lets us
accumulate *no%ledge by means o# #using LOs #rom similar
topics$ /he 29 plays a *ey role in selecting the most similar item
to user&s ,uery there#ore the resulting LO could be closer to user
&s needs$
/he success o# our approach depends on the metadata and the title
given to each item because they are essential in the comparison
carried out by MLO$ /he lac* o# metadata is made up #or the
label o# the items there#ore the LO %ith a lo% rate o# metadata
%ere merged success#ully$ It is clear that MLO needs a search
engine to provide a ran*ed list o# LO$ It guarantees that all LOs
belong to the same topic$
30scribir texto5
/he algorithm needs to be proved in a large amount o# complex
LOs such as a #ull course %here items are nested deeply$
)n#ortunately the LOs that #ul#ill these #eatures are scarcely
available on the %eb$ 'n evaluation carried out by learners is
included in a #uture %or* due to hitherto the number o# LOs o# a
speci#ic topic are not enough to develop a #air test$
Since MLO relies on sim and mer2e #unctions #or automatic
merging, it biases the process o# selecting similar items according
to user&s ,uery$ On the other hand a human #usion %ould choose
one out o# t%o items in an arbitrarily %ay$ In addition to this,
MLO can merge several LOs as %as described$
+e plan to explore other directions such as using the same 29 in
the MLO algorithm and search engine to veri#y the hypothesis
that the merged LO is ran*ed as the highest one$ 9or #uture %or*
%e are interested in not only merging LOs but also building them
#rom a conceptual representation provided by the user$
.opic Repeated items in
LOc
/tems in
LOc
/tems in the correct
LO
0 of items 1ith metadata Error
LOa LO!
@uman body : :C :7 :4 8 8$8C
Industrial 2evolution > >C >E 6A$: 46$6 8$84
Linear 2egression 8 :8 :8 8 8 8
Psychoanalysis 8 >: >: 8 >8 8
Student"s t test > :> :8 8 8 8$>
'ig!re 2% "he results of merging LOs automatically and manually.
209020NC0S
[1] 2$ '$ Lae=a1Jates and L$ 2ibeiro1Neto$ Modern
In#ormation 2etrieval$ 'ddison1+esley Longman
Publishing Co$, Inc$, Loston, M', )S', :AAA$
[2] S$ Cost and S$ Sal=berg$ ' %eighted nearest neighbor
algorithm #or learning %ith symbolic #eatures$ Mach$
Learn$, :8;7<1<4, Manuary :AA6$
[3] '$ Iu=man1'renas, '$1?$ Cuevas, and '$ Mimene=$ /he
centroid or consensus o# a set o# objects %ith ,ualitative
attributes$ 0xpert Syst$ 'ppl$, 64;EA841EA:A, May >8::$
[4] '$ Iu=man1'renas and M$ M$ Olivares1Ceja$ Measuring the
understanding bet%een t%o agents through concept
similarity$ 0xpert Syst$ 'ppl$, 68;7<<17A:, May >88C$
[5] Instruccional Management System IMS! >886!$
http;DD%%%$imsglobal$orgD$
[6] S$ Levach*ine and '$ Iu=man1'renas$ @ierarchies
measuring ,ualitative variables$ In CICLing, pages >C>1
><E, >88E$
[7] Learning Object Metadata LOM! >88>$
http;DDltsc$ieee$orgD%g:>D>88>8C:>1#inal1lom1dra#t$html$
[8] M02LO/$ http;DD%%%$merlot$orgD$
[9] M$ N$ Moste#aoui, S$ O$ and I$ M$ Iiaglis$ 'dvances in
)bi,uitous Computing; 9uture Paradigms and ?irections$
III Publishing, >884$
[10] F$ Ochoa and 0$ ?uval$ )se o# contextuali=ed attention
metadata #or ran*ing and recommending learning objects$ In
Proceedings o# the :
st
international %or*shop on
Contextuali=ed attention metadata; collecting, managing
and exploiting o# rich usage in#ormation, C'M' P8C, pages
A1:C, Ne% Jor*, NJ, )S', >88C$ 'CM$
[11] F$ Ochoa and 0$ ?uval$ 2elevance ran*ing metrics #or
learning objects$ I000 /rans$ Learn$ /echnol$, :;6E1E4,
Manuary >884$
[12] P$ 2$ Polsani$ )se and abuse o# reusable learning objects$
Mournal o# ?igital In#ormation, 6E!, 8> >886$
[13] L$ 2igutini, /$ Papini, M$ Maggini, and M$ Lianchini$ '
neural net%or* approach #or learning object ran*ing$ In
Proceedings o# the :4th international con#erence on
'rti#icial Neural Net%or*s, Part II, IC'NN P84, pages 4AA1
A84, Lerlin, @eidelberg, >884$ Springer1Kerlag$
[14] @$ 2yu and ?$ Parsons$ Innovative Mobile Learning;
/echni,ues and /echnologies$ In#ormation Science
2e#erence 1 Imprint o#; III Publishing, @ershey, P', >884$
[15] M$ San=12odrQgue=, and M$ ?odero, and S$ SRnche=1'lonso$
2an*ing learning objects through integration o# di##erent
,uality indicators$ Learning /echnologies, I000
/ransactions on, 6E!;674 16C6, oct$1dec$ >8:8$
[16] Sharable Content Object 2e#erence Model SCO2M! >88E,
http;DD%%%$adlnet$govDtechnologiesDscormDde#ault$aspx$
[17] SM0/0$ http;DD%%%$smete$orgDsmeteD$
[18] '$ Kinha$ 2eusable learning objects; theory to practice$
SIICS0 Lull$, 6<;E:61E:6, Mune >887$
[19] N$ J$ Jen, 9$ 9$ @ou, L$ 2$ Chao, and /$ O$ Shih$ +eighting
and ran*ing the e1learning resources$ In Proceedings o# the
>88A Ninth I000 International Con#erence on 'dvanced
Learning /echnologies, IC'L/ P8A, pages <8:1<86,
+ashington, ?C, )S', >88A$ I000 Computer Society$
[20] N$ J$ Jen, /$ O$ Shih, L$ 2$ Chao, and B$ Min$ 2an*ing
metrics and search guidance #or learning object repository$
I000 /rans$ Learn$ /echnol$, 6;>781>CE, Muly >8:8$
[21] N$ J$ Jen, /$ O$ Shih, and B$ Min$ ' ne% paradigm o#
ran*ing and searching in learning object repository$ In
Proceedings o# the second 'CM international %or*shop on
Multimedia technologies #or distance learning, M/?L P:8,
pages :1C, Ne% Jor*, NJ, )S', >8:8$ 'CM$
[22] L$ '$ M$ Naina, M$ 9$ 2odrigues, Mr, and I$ Lressan$ 'n
approach to design the student interaction based on the
recommendation o# e1learning objects$ In Proceedings o# the
>4th 'CM International Con#erence on ?esign o#
Communication, SII?OC P:8, pages >>61>>4, Ne% Jor*,
NJ, )S', >8:8$ 'CM$
30scribir texto5