Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized e-learning system

Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
Vol. 10, No. 6, December 2021, pp. 3313~3324
ISSN: 2302-9285, DOI: 10.11591/eei.v10i6.3192 3313
Journal homepage: http://beei.org
Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and
personalized e-learning system
Alva Hendi Muhammad, Dhani Ariatmanto
Magister of Informatics Engineering, Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Jul 22, 2021
Revised Sep 24, 2021
Accepted Oct 27, 2021
Dynamic learning environment has emerged as a powerful platform in a
modern e-learning system. The learning situation that constantly changing has
forced the learning platform to adapt and personalize its learning resources for
students. Evidence suggested that adaptation and personalization of e-learning
systems (APLS) can be achieved by utilizing learner modeling, domain
modeling, and instructional modeling. In the literature of APLS, questions
have been raised about the role of individual characteristics that are relevant
for adaptation. With several options, a new problem has been raised where the
attributes of students in APLS often overlap and are not related between
studies. Therefore, this study proposed a list of learner model attributes in
dynamic learning to support adaptation and personalization. The study was
conducted by exploring concepts from the literature selected based on the best
criteria. Then, we described the results of important concepts in student
modeling and provided definitions and examples of data values that
researchers have used. Besides, we also discussed the implementation of the
selected learner model in providing adaptation in dynamic learning.
Keywords:
Adaptation and personalization
Adaptive learning system
Dynamic learning
Learner model attributes
Student modeling
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Alva Hendi Muhammad
Magister of Informatics Engineering
Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta
Jl. Ring Road Utara, Condongcatur, Depok, Sleman, 55281 Indonesia
Email: alva@amikom.ac.id
1. INTRODUCTION
The coronavirus disease-19 (covid-19) pandemic has forced traditional classroom learning to be
replaced by online learning thru e-learning platforms. E-learning has been the subject of much systematic
investigation, and its form has a long history of change. The first generation of e-learning (1960-1980)
introduced by Patrick Suppes and Donald Bitzer was in the form of computer instruction, known as computer
assisted instruction (CAI) or computer assisted learning (CAL). The second generation of e-learning (1990-
2005) was heavily influenced by personal computer (PCs), multimedia compact disc, read-only-memory
(CD-ROMs), and the internet. This generation emerged web-based e-learning. The third generation of
e-learning (2006-2015) was influenced by smartphones and online video services. This form of e-learning
was known as a mobile learning and ubiquitous learning system. To date, e-learning has entered the fourth
generation, which is characterized by the open and massive number of students through massive open online
courses (MOOC). The use of e-learning that continues to expand has been the common learning solution
during the pandemic.
Existing research recognizes that among varied forms of e-learning that exist today, the same
characteristic lies behind the e-learning system that was generically designed to facilitate all user characters
(one-size-fits-all). Criticism of this traditional form of e-learning was mainly of generalizing the student’s

 ISSN: 2302-9285
Bulletin of Electr Eng & Inf, Vol. 10, No. 6, December 2021 : 3313 – 3324
3314
background, understanding, motivation, and basic skills [1]-[3]. Thus, dynamic learning was introduced that
aims at achieving learning goals by adapting and personalizing the needs of students and the availability of
learning materials. The mechanism behind dynamic learning was providing services or learning material
suitable for students’ needs when using e-learning. Research in the field of dynamic learning has been carried
out extensively for many years, but the main problem that continues to be investigated in the literature is
related to the model that can be reused in various e-learning systems [3], [4]. The model in this context
covering adaptation model, user model, and domain knowledge model [5], [6]. The main issue addressed in
this paper is modelling the user, student or learner, in a dynamic learning environment according to the
situation and background learning framework [7]-[9].
A common condition in dynamic learning is the activity and progress of the student that constantly
change over time and place. Therefore, this paper set out to identify attributes of learning that derived from
interaction among pedagogy, technology, and knowledge transfer with the actors involved (student).
Modeling students in dynamic learning has a vital role in transforming student characteristics while using e-
learning in the form of ‘user profile’. The user profiles will have similar attributes between e-learning users.
However, they will have different values between students depending on the context of learning. Combining
the values and the attributes of the student model will form a learner profile of e-learning users. In simple
terms, the learner modeling process is shown in Figure 1. Through this mechanism, the learner profiles will
contain information that represents the characteristics of students at a specific moment of time. In the actual
application of dynamic learning, the value data from student can be provided directly by the user or
automatically obtained by the system from the user’s behavior [1], [10].
Figure 1. Learner model in e-learning
An early study of student modeling in e-learning was introduced by [11], that defines the following list
of questions: “Who is being modeled?”, “What is the characteristics of the student?”, “How to model students?”,
and “Why student information is needed?”. Furthermore, [11] succeeded in identifying student models in web-
based adaptive learning systems that consist of user knowledge, interests, goals, background, individual
characteristics, and context. The more comprehensive attributes of learner modeling were proposed in [12], [13]
by considering human factors in determining the criteria. The attributes proposed include (1) personal user
characteristics, such as name, age, gender, cognitive, personality, and learning style; (2) knowledge and skills, in
the form of experience, knowledge, and psycho-motor skills; and (3) system-related user characteristics data,
including objectives and requirements, preferences, interaction styles, and motivation. Several authors have also
conducted similar research and contributed additional attributes of the learner model [14]-[16].
In fact, these many attributes have caused a new issue with the lack of attribute naming standards.
Besides, the attributes that keep changing over time have often caused an impractical implementation of
dynamic learning [2]. Considering the fact that e-learning continues to evolve and the environment is
gradually changing, this study aims to make a classification of student modeling for dynamic learning.
Specifically, this paper contributes to the literature in two ways. First, we propose the definitions of
individual attributes of the learner model with reference to the current literature (2010-2020). Second, we
intend to clarify the differences in students’ attributes that exist in the current literature for APLS.
2. RESEARCH METHOD
In order to understand the role of learner model attributes in APLS, some research questions were
posed to address the review:
− What are the main attributes that have been proposed to model the individual learner profile?
− What are the strategies proposed in the existing literature to utilize the known attributes?
− What are the current challenges and limitations for well-known attributes in APLS?
The domain of the study is limited to the individual attributes in an adaptive and personalized
learning system. The research questions above are not addressed the accuracy or performance comparison of

Bulletin of Electr Eng & Inf ISSN: 2302-9285 
Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized … (Alva Hendi Muhammad)
3315
the existing attributes. However, we discuss how the existing literature utilizes each attributes to solve the
issues raised in APLS.
This study adopted the meta-modeling creation process [17] for designing the learner model. The
method contains the process of modeling various models (meta-modeling) to standardize and reuse the
available models. The improvement of the method used in this research includes adding model collection,
eliminating the use of relationships between concepts, and adding validation at the last stage. Furthermore,
the method used in this study consisted of six modeling stages is being as:
− Step 1. Identification source of knowledge and collects learner models
The first step of the modeling is identifying the source of knowledge and collects learner models. This step
aims to find a similar model that already exists in the literature in the domain of dynamic learning. The sources of
knowledge were limited to web of science and scopus database. The articles were searched by the following four
phrases: (dynamic OR adapt* OR personal*); (e-learning OR hypermedia OR “web-based learning” OR “intelligent
tutoring”); (“learner model” OR “student model” OR “user model”); and (evaluate* OR empiric* OR experiment*).
Then, the articles were filtered from the year 2010-2020, using English, and only from journals. The example of the
source collection from Scopus was illustrated in Figure 2. After manually reviewing the model by considering the
popularity of the citation number, 56 articles were selected from both databases. These 56 models contain designs and
concepts of learner models in dynamic, adaptive, and personalized learning environments.
Figure 2. The article results from scopus database
− Step 2: Classification of the learner model
The aim of this step is to classify the learner model according to the defined criteria. In this paper,
the criteria of the learner model in dynamic learning are the situation and background of the student [9]. The
situation focuses on handling the condition when learning occurs, while the background focuses on defining
the state of the study. These two classifications were selected since they represent a general taxonomy and
not specific to a particular model. However, these classifications can be applied well to many models. The
classification also worked well with dynamic learning by allowing direct mapping of the learner’s attribute
with a learning activity for adaptation purposes. From the 56 candidate models, 40 of them have been in
accordance with the defined criteria, that is the completeness and coverage as suggested in [9]. Finally, the
unused 16 models will be stored and used as comparisons in the final validation process.
− Step 3: Extraction of the concepts that relate to the learner model
The extraction process in this step is conducted by exploring the concepts (text mining) that have a
high relationship with the learner model. The extracted concepts from the article must represent ‘something’
or ‘object’ from the students. For instance, “name, address, and gender” are the concept that might represent
students. The example that illustrates the concept extraction process is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Example of the extracted concepts from articles
No. Reference Candidate Concepts Total
1. [18] Personal Data, Username, Country, Organization, Language, Performance Data, Time of Last
Session, Detail Level, Session Number, Programming Language, Teaching History, Concept
History, Test History, Unit History, Learning Style, Initial Skill Level, Experience Level, Actual
Skill Level, Duration, Number of Passes, Degree of Mastery, Knowledge Level, Instructional Plan,
Concept Title, Difficulty Factor
25
2. [19] Experience, Background, Goals, Knowledge Level, Preference, Interest, Interaction Style,
Attitude, Learning Experience, Personality, Cognitive Style, Learning Performance, Time Taken,
Correct Answer, Trait
15
... ... ... ...
36. [20] Personal Information, Contact, Demographic, Biographic, Qualification, Certification,
Performance, Preference, Format Presentation, Language, Media Type, Interest, Learning Goal,
Background Knowledge, Learning Style, Learning Activity, Prior Knowledge, Portfolio, Security,
Relation, Competency, Knowledge, Skill, Ability
24

 ISSN: 2302-9285
3316
− Step 4: Selection of the general concepts from the model
This step aims to improve the results of the concepts, as previously shown in Table 1. The process
includes selecting the most common (generality) and frequent concept names with more than three
occurrence frequencies. For example, Table 2 shows the process of naming the concept. The word
‘background’ appears four times in various models, followed by ‘background knowledge’, and ‘domain
background’. Thus, the background will be selected as the name used as a general concept for background
knowledge and background domain.
Table 2. Example of the naming process from selected models
General Concept Concepts Frequency Generality
Background Background 4 1
Background Knowledge 2 1
Background Domain 1 0
Cognitive Style Cognitive 1 1
Cognitive Ability 1 1
Cognitive Capacity 1 0
Cognitive Skills 1 1
Cognitive Processing 1 0
Cognitive Purpose Indicator 1 0
Cognitive State 2 1
Cognitive Style 4 1
Cognitive Task 1 0
Level of Cognitive 1 1
Visual and Cognitive 1 0
− Step 5: Validation of the proposed concept
The validation aims to measure the concepts’ quality and accuracy in terms of generalization,
correctness, and completeness. Validation was conducted by comparing the frequency of occurrence of the
data presented in Table 3 with the validation set suggested in the first step. Then, the degree of confidence
(DoC) was measured. DoC value is a real number that expresses the reliability of the probability [17]. The
formula of DoC is being as:
𝐷𝑜𝐶 =
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑉𝑆 1
𝑥100%
The final results of DoC and the proposed concept is presented in Table 3. The validation in Table 4
aims to determine the final concept used as the learner model. The lower DoC value means the concept has a
minor relationship with the suggested learner model. However, not all concepts in the very mild category are
eliminated. Some concepts are still in use after comparing the occurrence rate with the 16 models from the
validation set.
Table 3. Degree of confidence for the proposed concept
DoC Classification Learner Model Concepts
70-100% (VeryStrong) Knowledge Level, Prior Knowledge, Preference
50-69% (Strong) Learning Style, Background, Skills, Presentation, Time
30-49% (Moderate) Cognitive Style, Personality, Domain Concept, Learning Activity, Difficulty Level, Goal, Experience,
Course, Interactivity
11-29% (Mild) Competency, Learning Performance, Device, Emotion, Interest, Learning Motivation, Objective
0-10% (Very Mild) Qualification, Instructional Plan, Bandwidth, Location, Age (), Gender (), Language (), Personal
Information (), Content (), Topic ()
()=Delete the concept
Table 4. Final concept of the proposed learner model
Category Concepts
Situation Bandwidth, Course, Device, Difficulty Level, Domain Concept, Emotion, Goal, Instructional Plan, Interactivity,
Interest, Learning Activity, Learning Motivation, Location, Preference, Presentation, Time
Background Background, Cognitive Style, Competency, Experience, Knowledge Level, Learning Style, Learning
Performance, Objective, Personality, Prior Knowledge, Qualification, Skill

3317
3. RESULTS
This section presents the findings of learner model attributes and then highlights the definition and
specific data values for each attribute. The following sub-section then discuss the illustration of its value
during the implementation. An example of using the learner model under a dynamic learning environment
will also be presented.
The learning model suggested in this study follows the framework of situated learning as presented
in [9]. We realize the adaptivity and personality in dynamic learning can be easily achieved by considering
the situation and background of the learner simultaneously. Thus, the attributes of the learner should fall
under these two categories: situation or background. The situation is any circumstances surrounding the
student, while the background focuses on shaping the state of the learning history. The classification of the
concept based on its categories is presented in Table 4. The lists of the concept were organized
alphabetically. Even though some concepts might have a different degree of importance when implementing
in the domain. However, to determine the degree of importance will need more information related to the
implemented domain. Without understanding the implemented domain, it would be impractical to compare
the importance of the concepts.
3.1. Learning attributes related to situation
Included in the category of situation is the concept that depends on the system. Therefore, this
category encompasses all information related to the interaction between the user, system, device,
infrastructure, and the environment. The description of each concept and example of the data instances based
on literature are presented is being as:
− Bandwidth. Bandwidth provides information related to the network or internet connectivity in a specific amount
of time. Some of the internet connectivity elements include: RFID, IrDA, Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMax, UMTS, 4G,
or Satellite [1]. Moreover, bandwidth elements may include static and dynamic properties. The static properties
may be a range of elements to represent the bandwidth values, such as low, medium, high, or defines as the
minimum and maximum [13]; while the dynamic properties display the value of the actual speed or capacity of
the network. Knowing the network connection gives insight into the e-learning system, to provide contents
adaptation related to media presentation or size of resources that can be retrieved into student’s device.
− Device. Device contains information related to the type of equipment that is used for learning. The
information that is attached to a device contains technical elements, such as screen size, connectivity,
central processing unit, interface, input/output, memory, and storage capacity, and battery lifetime. From
these characteristics, we could refer to the hardware that the learner uses, such as PC, laptop, PDA,
Smartphone, or Tablet [21]. The device information is important to determine the media presentation or
learning resource that would be adaptable to the student [22].
− Difficulty Level. Difficulty level indicates the difference in the task that is hard to accomplish or understood
by students. The difficulty level is relevant to determine the learners’ abilities because inappropriate content
can result in disorientation during learning. In particular, the dynamic parameter of difficulty level in
different stages of learning to deliver appropriate learning content. In contrast, some studies used the static
parameter to define the difficulty level. For instance, Ouf et al. [20] defined three values of high, fair, and
low, as the difficulty parameter. Idris et al. [15] proposed a three-step difficulty level, which consists of
Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced. Another static parameter as suggested by [22] defined difficulty
level by using the scale from 0 (easy) to 1 (difficult).
− Domain Concept. A domain concept consists of a topic of the domain. The domain concept can also be
associated with learning objects in e-learning. The relationship among domain concepts of the course is
known as the learning path. Information related to domain concepts is crucial for adaptation. This allows
the system to generate and predict the content for the student based on the information in the domain
concept. The information in the domain concept is also needed for determining the adaptation strategy,
which is generally defined in the instructional model or adaptation model.
− Emotion. Emotion is described as a diﬀuse aﬀective state that consists of a subjective feeling change
without apparent cause. Different from mood, which tends to appear when things are not going well
according to their expectation, emotion tends to come from a known cause [23]. For example, learners
exhibit a happy emotion when they understand a topic or pass the test. Nevertheless, emotion is often
combined and used interchangeably with mood to represent the affective states of the student [7].
− Goal. Goal is the description of an objective that the learner tries to achieve. The goal is simply the answer
to the question: “What does the student want to achieve?” The goal can be modelled with possible learner
goals or tasks that the system can recognize. Typically, a learner has to select one of the pre-defined goals.
Cena et al. in [7], the goal’s information is stored to indicate the particular topic in the system that the
learner wants to visit. Some systems can capture goals from users and models as a probabilistic overlay
[24]. Lamia and Tayeb [25] suggested two classifications of goal, that is the long-term goal and short-term

 ISSN: 2302-9285
3318
goal. The long-term goal is the lifelong study plan and is typically permanent in the course. In contrast, the
short-term goal provides the learner the opportunity to solve a certain problem, such as passing an
assignment or doing a simulation. Goals can be modelled through navigation or monitoring dashboards.
Learning goals are usually set at the beginning of the course, so that the system can provide information
related to the goals that the learner wants to achieve. Then, the system might provide the needed resources
to achieve the goals or remind the learners of their expected learning level.
− Instructional Plan. The instructional plan refers to a specific kind of strategy used to provide an effective learning
object design to reach a more successful learning outcome. The instructional plan focuses on the current learning
states, needs, and learning outcomes of students [18]. Also, the instructional plan is a developing functional
learning system based on a systematic approach that meets the requirements of a specific target group.
− Interactivity. Interactivity level is described as the degree to which the student can influence the learning
resource. Interactivity level promotes opportunities to interact with learning resources in different ways.
Moreover, interactivity level indicates the degree to which the learning resource can respond to the actions
and input of the user [26]. It has a value space range from very low to very high. The learning activity in
very low interactivity level relates to passive activities with less response from the user, such as reading an
essay or answering test questions [27]. Whereas the very high interactivity level value often relates to active
response from the user, such as a 3D simulation environment that needs the user to do a series of steps.
− Interest. Interest is an indication of a learner being more attracted to a particular learning topic than others.
This allows adaptive systems to make lessons that match the learner’s interest. To represent user interest,
some authors suggest the keywords-level model and concept-level model [28]. The keyword-level model
uses a weighted vector of keywords to filter and retrieve the relevant learning materials to the keyword. In
contrast to this approach, a concept-level model uses a weighted overlay of the concept-level domain model
to represent user interests.
− Learning Activity. Learning activity is defined as any activity that the learner does while progressing through a
unit of instruction in the course. Several types of learning activities exist according to cognitive or learning
style. For instance, Felder-Silverman exemplifies learning activities like case studies, brainstorming,
discussion, problem solving, experiments, observing, mind maps, group discussion, case studies, reading,
storytelling, interviews, listening to lectures, questionnaires, and consulting references [20].
− Learning Motivation. Learning motivation is defined as the desire or the willingness to make an effort
towards a specific learning goal. Learning motivation is often classified as a system-related characteristic
because it intensely depends on the learning goal [29]. The learning goal itself is system-dependent and can
be affected by the presentation of learning content [26].
− Location. Location is the representation of the place or position where the learner can be located. The
location could be located automatically using position measurement from GPS or cellular ID [13].
However, most of them are usually selected manually by users according to the type of settings like a
classroom, library, laboratory, home, outdoor, train, or bus [30]. Some works allow learners to create initial
settings which consist of context attributes, such as location, time, and date [21].
− Preference. Preferences are the learning features that relate to likes and dislikes regarding interfaces,
services, or resources. Preferences such as font type, size, and other parameters are associated with the
interface [25]. The variables relate to device communication, hardware, and software which are associated
with the service [29]. Furthermore, the preferred type of courses or instructional model can be associated
with resources. Different methods have been proposed to gather learning preferences from the system. Ouf
et al. [20] suggest using questionnaires for collecting learner preferences. This method provides real-time
information without any need for further processing.
− Moreover, this method is similar to Lamia and Tayeb [25], which provides checklists for users to select preferred
interface elements. After the preferences are determined, the system applies adaptation in the new contexts. The
preference can also be defined as an ordered list of values, which indicate their likes and dislikes.
− Presentation. Presentation is described as the technical datatype or media type of the learning resource that
is intended for presentation to the user. The information on the presentation can be used to identify the
hardware and software needed to access the resources. The type of presentation may take several
multimedia forms, such as text, picture, video, audio, application, animation, or hypertext [22].
− Time. In adaptive e-learning, time could represent the plan of activity, duration spent on studying, or
indicate the date of learning [18]. Similar to location, time context is often used in conjunction with another
context, either schedule, place, or motivation [7].
3.2. Learning attributes related to background
The background encompasses information regarding the general user, individual traits, experience,
and learning history. Information related to the general user could be captured directly from the user’s

3319
feedback. This mechanism differs from individual traits. Individual traits, including cognitive style, learning
style, and personality, usually require separate testing and interpretation of the results. The description of the
concept in this category are is being as:
− Background. In broad terms, background refers to the previous knowledge of a student in some
particular areas, usually outside the domain of the concept but still relevant to the body of knowledge.
For example, the background for students in the field of Computer Science or Information Technology
might contain information related to knowledge in programming, system and development, networking,
and operating systems [31]. The other fields will contain different information of the background [32].
− Cognitive Style. The cognitive style is often described as the way students think, observe, and remember
information. Cognitive style, along with learning style, has become the essential concepts in adaptive
learning. It encompasses the working memory, control and speed of processing, and visual attention
[11], [33]. Researchers have identified that the cognitive processing of the human is often related to age,
exercise, and experience [5], [16]. According to the wechsler adult intelligent scale (WAIS), the
cognitive style could be classified into six broad types: information, comprehension, vocabulary,
similarities, object assembly, and picture arrangement [34].
− Competency. Competency shows the qualification of a student in a field. Although this is not compulsory
for the user model in dynamic learning, competency can be included as the learner’s portfolio.
Competency should represent that a student possesses the skills and knowledge required in a particular
field [23]. A student with technologically related certification, for example, demonstrates the
competency and knowledge that can be used to personalize content learning.
− Experience. Experience is the representation of the prior record associated with the learner’s previous
practice outside the core domain of the system. Some authors [6], [35] define experience as the user’s
general knowledge about a discipline. However, we also need to include the knowledge inside the
discipline in the learning history. Thus, experience represents a range of backgrounds that might be used
in modeling adaptive learning, including job, profession, responsibilities, or working experiences in
related areas [6].
− Knowledge Level. Knowledge level represents an element record that reflects the expertise level of
knowledge about a topic given. Knowledge level could represent the acquired knowledge or required
knowledge. The acquired knowledge is the knowledge that the student acquires at a given level. This is
also given to the student after they pass a chapter or a test. The required knowledge describes the
necessary knowledge that students should have before studying a material. The knowledge level is
essential in adaptive learning. A system can adapt the level of students and decide what the next stage of
the learning process might be by accessing the knowledge of the learners. This way of adaptation is
promoted by [15], [35], [36]. Knowledge level can also be reflected using performance level indicators,
automatic system score, or question items level, such as well learned, learned, poor, and very poor [22].
− Learning Performance. Learning performance aims to measure the achievements and effectiveness of
different kinds of learning activities. Learning performance can be determined by several methods. First
is using learning goal or task accomplishment rates [37]. Second, the general measuring score of pre or
post-test after completing a lesson. Then, academic performance by grading the result of pre and post-
test. An effective assessment is a vital way to measure learners’ performance and accomplishment of the
learning outcomes. That is what learners are expected to know, understand, and do to be successful in a
domain concept [38].
− Learning Style. Learning style is the way a student learns or prefers to learn. In fact, every student has
different methods or strategies which they prefer when studying. Many studies have been done to
investigate the specific learning style of students to improve the learning process. The selection of the
appropriate learning style was derived from the educational and psychological fields. In e-learning
environments, the common learning styles adopted for adaptive learning are Riding’s Cognitive Style
analysis [11], Felder/Silverman index of learning styles [39], [40], Myers-Briggs type indicator [41], and
Kolb’s model [42]. Some studies have proposed their own model as in [43], [44].
− Objective. The objective defines a classification of educational objectives that learners use to formulate
their intentions. An objective in a subject can be measured by a degree of control that learners seek to
achieve [45]. Many objectives of the study were derived from Bloom’s taxonomy. According to Bloom’s
taxonomy, the objective of study can be classified into six categories: knowledge, understanding,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
− Personality. Personality reflects a record that stores the relevant learning attitude of a learner. According
to Kim et al. [19], a learner’s experience in e-learning will be affected signiﬁcantly if the instruction
style matches the learner’s personality. That is why the modelling of personality is often closely tied to
the preference for learning resource presentation. Some studies proposed different strategies of
personality types, such as keirsey’s temperament theory (KTS), five-factor model, and MBTI [14], [41].

 ISSN: 2302-9285
3320
KTS suggests four personality types that are highly relevant to learning: Rational (intuitive thinking),
Idealist (intuitive feeling), Artisan (sensory perception), and Guardian (sensory judgment). The five-
factor model also has different effects on learning. This personality consists of five dimensions:
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The MBTI model provides
personality preferences along four bipolar psychological dimensions: introvert-extravert, sensing-
intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving [46].
− Prior Knowledge. Prior knowledge is a way to represent the accumulation of knowledge and learning
that each learner brings to a particular course. Prior knowledge aims to follow every student’s activity
during the learning process. It is a form of reflection of the student’s performance or success/failure rate
[40]. Prior knowledge data can be obtained from the result of the test, history of last visited learning
resources, or time spent on completing a chapter [22], [35].
− Qualification. The qualification indicates the level of education of a learner. In IMS, education is used as
a context to describe the environment where learning activities take places, such as University, School,
Training, and others [7]. The qualification is used not only to represent the learning resources but also to
represent the attributes of learners. Qualification can also be used to generate and personalize content
that is matched with the education context [47].
− Skill. Skill represents the ability of a learner to perform well in a particular area. The skill of learner is
often determined to personalize learning content based on the difficulty level. Skill might be used to
represent a general ability in learning or just in a specific domain. For example, [18] uses skill to
measure the degree of mastery in a specific programming language. The values range from bad (no skill)
to expert (high skill). On the other hand, skill can also reflect the learner’s general ability, such as
mathematical skill, analytical, problem solving, reasoning, and logical thinking [47].
4. DISCUSSION
This sub-section analysis the difference of the findings with the existing learner models [3], [6]. A
practical illustration of adaptation and personalization in dynamic learning will then be presented. We
describe the application in mobile, ubiquitous, and pervasive learning [1], [48] and then show the proposed
learner model identifying the context for adaptation.
4.1. General framework for APLS
The previous results have shown that a student might have many attributes in e-learning. Hence, an
intelligence system is needed for processing learning materials based on learning context. To date, several
intelligence learning tools and systems have been built with various modifications and improvements. The
designs are generally similar to the framework shown in Figure 3 (adapted from [9]), which is divided into
two domains. The first domain is context identification that handles the situation when learning occurs and
defines the learner’s state. The second domain is the adaptation and personalization process. It is the core of
the system that will summarize the information and provide recommendations related to the available
learning objects. Several methods currently exist for the assessment and recommendation of the learning
object. The previous studies by [49], [50] provided an excellent review on this theme.
Figure 3. General APLS framework
Learning object
recommendation
Bandwidth, Device,
Difficulty Level, Domain
Concept, Emotion, Goal,
Instructional Plan,
Interactivity, Interest,
Learning Activity, Learning
Motivation, Location,
Preference, Presentation,
Time
Context Identification Adaptation and Personalization Process
Context
Learning Object
Repository
Adaptation Engine
Data Information Knowledge Decision
Background, Cognitive
Style, Competency,
Experience, Knowledge
Level, Learning Style,
Learning Performance,
Objective, Personality,
Prior Knowledge,
Qualification, Skill
Assessment
(summarize the facts)
Situation
(who/where)
Background
(summary of learner
history)
Recommendations
(prediction for the next
step)

3321
4.2. Model comparison
Comparison against other models can be used to identify the coverage of the concepts. First, we
compare our model with the work of [3]. The source of literature in their model was from Science citation
index expanded and social science citation index. Thus, the method for searching focuses on all individual
characteristics, including learning styles, cognitive styles, background knowledge, age, and gender. The
refinement was conducted by selection by titles, abstracts, and full texts. They also considered the citation
number for each variable. Their final results successfully identified 17 attributes of the learner for adaptive
learning, including age, gender, cognitive abilities such as processing speed, working memory, spatial ability,
metacognitive abilities, personality, anxiety, emotional and affective states, cognitive styles, learning styles,
experience, background knowledge, motivation, expectations, and preferences. The comparison with our
model had shown that most of the suggested concepts supported, except age and gender. We already
identified both concepts before, but they were dropped during validation since it less popular for adaptation
in other models.
In addition, we compare our findings with the study of [6]. The study focused on identifying
personal traits that can be identified for adaptive learning. The source of knowledge in the study was obtained
from 78 sources related to personal traits, specifically in cognition, affective, behavior, or combination
between domains. Their final results have identified the most factors suitable for adaptive learning, including
learning style, cognitive style, emotions, cognitive abilities, knowledge level, and personality type. Since
their research focuses on personal trait, our model’s comparison was valid when comparing attributes in the
background. Our model has identified all the suggested attributes for adaptive learning environments, from
learning style to personality type.
4.3. Model application
In what follows, we illustrate our findings of the learner model for mobile, ubiquitous, and pervasive
learning. Accordingly, the learner model determines the context during learning in two aspects: situation and
background. Therefore, we first propose a set of values related to the situation. The data source of dimension
could be identified directly by the system or manually supplied by the user. From the application description
[1], the aim of the learning in this scenario is to assist the student during learning intermediate English. In
this subject, student must individually and collaboratively present a project related to starting a new business.
The context considered as the situation in the presented scenario is digital property, physical property,
location, environment, availability, illumination level, and noise level. In addition, the scenario also considers
the student’s background, namely interest, need, preference, and contribution. Using our learner model, we
identify the situation each student provided to the system is being as:
− Digital property and physical property are the software and hardware technical capabilities. These can be
represented as device, bandwidth, and presentation.
− Location and environment are the descriptions of where the learners stand. Our model uses the similar
name, i.e., location.
− Availability is the available time for learning. This can be represented as time.
− Illumination level and noise level where the learner is located. We identified this as interactivity.
Furthermore, the example of the background used by each student in this scenario are:
− Interest and contribution relate to learner’s attention and interaction on learning skills to improve. This
can be represented as interest, learning activity, goal, and objective.
− Need is a request for language support. This can be represented as difficulty level, knowledge level, and
instructional plan.
− Preference is the inclination to select a service. We use a similar concept name to define preference.
Finally, the data context instantiated from learners is assessed to allow learning material
recommendation. The recommendation is selected from the list of resources. These resources might in the
form of learning activities, learning materials, learning objects, or services. In the scenario supported above,
the resources are various learning activities that students should complete.
5. CONCLUSION
This paper has explored the different dimensions of learner modeling in dynamic learning, including
transforming mechanisms to adapt and personalize learning. The impact of adaptive and personalized
learning in formal education should be viewed as an opportunity to improve the learning experience. The
process of producing a learner model included synthesizing a new learner model from existing models and
validating the proposed model with several models in the existing domain. The result of the synthesis process
is a generic learner model for the APLS. We also provided classification and dimension based on an
assessment of the situation and background model. Focusing more on the proposed model, we presented all

 ISSN: 2302-9285
3322
definitions and related data values for each proposed attribute. With the addition of the definition and data
values, it is expected that this learner model would assist the researcher in reusing our model for
implementing dynamic learning. Furthermore, we demonstrated the implementation of the learner model by
assisting dynamic learning in mobile and ubiquitous contexts. This is an important contribution in developing
a learner model that supports a dynamic learning environment and facilitating adaptation and personalization.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Gómez, P. Zervas, D. G. Sampson and R. Fabregat, “Context-aware adaptive and personalized mobile learning
delivery supported by UoLmP,” Journal of King Saud University (Computer and Information Sciences), vol. 26,
no. 1, Supplement, pp. 47-61, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.008.
[2] H. Xie, H. C. Chu, G. J. Hwang and C. C. Wang, “Trends and development in technology-enhanced
adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017,” Computers &
Education, vol. 140, p. 103599, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599.
[3] J. Nakic, A. Granic and V. Glavinic, ‘‘Anatomy of student models in adaptive learning systems: A systematic
literature review of individual differences from 2001 to 2013,’’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol.
51, no. 4, pp. 459-489, January 2015, doi: 10.2190/EC.51.4.e.
[4] S. Y. Chen and J. H. Wang, “Individual differences and personalized learning: a review and appraisal,” Universal
Access in the Information Society, no. 0123456789, pp. 1-17, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10209-020-00753-4.
[5] H. Yago, J. Clemente and D. Rodriguez, “Competence-based recommender systems: a systematic literature
review,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 37, no. 10-11, pp. 958-977, 2018, doi:
10.1080/0144929X.2018.1496276.
[6] N. B. A. Normadhi, L. Shuib, H. N. Md Nasir, A. Bimba, N. Idris and V. Balakrishnan, “Identification of personal
traits in adaptive learning environment: Systematic literature review,” Computers & Education, vol. 130, pp. 168-
190, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.005.
[7] F. Cena, S. Likavec and A. Rapp, “Real World User Model: Evolution of User Modeling Triggered by Advances in
Wearable and Ubiquitous Computing: State of the Art and Future Directions,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol.
21, no. 5, pp. 1085-1110, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10796-017-9818-3.
[8] S. S. Khanal, P. W. C. Prasad, A. Alsadoon and A. Maag, “A systematic review: machine learning based
recommendation systems for E-learning,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2635-2664,
2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10063-9.
[9] A. Muhammad, J. Shen, G. Beydoun and D. Xu, “SBAR: A Framework to Support Learning Path Adaptation in
Mobile Learning BT-Frontier Computing,” in International Conference on Frontier Computing, vol. 422, pp. 655-
665, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3187-8_62.
[10] Y. M. Huang and P. S. Chiu, “The effectiveness of a meaningful learning-based evaluation model for context-
aware mobile learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 437-447, 2015, doi:
10.1111/bjet.12147.
[11] P. Germanakos and M. Belk, “User Modeling,” Human-Centred Web Adaptation and Personalization. Springer,
Cham, pp. 79-102, 2016, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28050-9_3.
[12] L. A. Cárdenas-Robledo and A. Peña-Ayala, “A holistic self-regulated learning model: A proposal and application
in ubiquitous-learning,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 123, pp. 299-314, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.007.
[13] L. A. Cárdenas-Robledo and A. Peña-Ayala, “Ubiquitous learning: A systematic review,” Telematics and
Informatics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1097-1132, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.009.
[14] V. Slavuj, A. Meštrović and B. Kovačić, “Adaptivity in educational systems for language learning: a review,”
Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 64-90, 2017, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2016.1242502.
[15] N. Idris, S. Z. M. Hashim, R. Samsudin and N. B. H. Ahmad, “Intelligent learning model based on significant
weight of domain knowledge concept for adaptive E-learning,” International Journal on Advanced Science,
Engineering and Information Technology (IJASEIT), vol. 7, no. 4-2, pp. 1486-1491, 2017, doi: 10.18517/ijaseit.7.4-
2.3408.
[16] E. Mousavinasab, N. Zarifsanaiey, S. R. N. Kalhori, M. Rakhshan, L. Keikha and M. G. Saeedi, “Intelligent
tutoring systems: a systematic review of characteristics, applications and evaluation methods,” Interactive Learning
Environments, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 142-163, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257.
[17] A. Al-Dhaqm, S. Razak, S. H. Othman, A. Ngadi, M. N. Ahmed and A. A. Mohammed, ‘‘Development and
validation of a database forensic metamodel (DBFM),’’ PloS one, vol. 12, no. 2, p. e0170793, February 2017, doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0170793.
[18] Z. Jeremić, J. Jovanović and D. Gašević, “Student modeling and assessment in intelligent tutoring of software
patterns,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 210-222, January 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.010.
[19] J. Kim, A. Lee and H. Ryu, “Personality and its effects on learning performance: Design guidelines for an adaptive
E-learning system based on a user model,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 450-
461, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2013.03.001.
[20] S. Ouf, M. Abd Ellatif, S. E. Salama and Y. Helmy, “A proposed paradigm for smart learning environment based
on semantic web,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 72, pp. 796-818, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.030.

3323
[21] I. El Guabassi, Z. Bousalem, M. Al Achhab, I. Jellouli and B. E. El Mohajir, “Personalized adaptive content system
for context-Aware ubiquitous learning,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 127, pp. 444-453, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.procs.2018.01.142.
[22] B. Dogan and E. Dikbıyık, “OPCOMITS: Developing an adaptive and intelligent web based educational system
based on concept map model,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 676-691, 2016,
doi: 10.1002/cae.21740.
[23] N. Valle, P. Antonenko, D. Valle, K. Dawson, A. C. Huggins-Manley and B. Baiser, “The influence of task-value
scaffolding in a predictive learning analytics dashboard on learners’ statistics anxiety, motivation, and
performance,” Computers & Education, vol. 173, p. 104288, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104288.
[24] S. Sosnovsky and P. Brusilovsky, “Evaluation of topic-based adaptation and student modeling in QuizGuide,” User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 371-424, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11257-015-9164-4.
[25] M. Lamia and L. M. Tayeb, “Discovering learner styles in adaptive E-learning hypermedia systems,” Journal of
Universal Computer Science, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1522-1542, 2013, doi: 10.3217/jucs-019-11-1522.
[26] A. Pensabe-Rodriguez, E. Lopez-Dominguez, Y. Hernandez-Velazquez, S. Dominguez-Isidro and J. De-la-Calleja,
“Context-aware mobile learning system: Usability assessment based on a field study,” Telematics and Informatics,
vol. 48, p. 101346, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101346.
[27] S. V. Kolekar, R. M. Pai and M. P. M. M., “Rule based adaptive user interface for adaptive E-learning system,”
Education and Information Technologies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 613-641, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9788-1.
[28] P. Brusilovsky and E. Millán, “User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems,” The
adaptive web. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, vol. 4321 LNCS, pp. 3-53, 2007, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_1.
[29] C. Conati, O. Barral, V. Putnam and L. Rieger, “Toward personalized XAI: A case study in intelligent tutoring
systems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 298, p. 103503, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103503.
[30] H. Xie, D. Zou, R. Zhang, M. Wang and R. Kwan, “Personalized word learning for university students: a profile-
based method for E-learning systems,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 273-289,
2019, doi: 10.1007/s12528-019-09215-0.
[31] A. Peña-Ayala and L. Cárdenas, “A Revision of the Literature Concerned with Mobile, Ubiquitous and Pervasive
Learning: A Survey,” in Mobile, Ubiquitous, and Pervasive Learning: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends, Ed.
Cham: Springer International Publishing, vol. 406, pp. 55-100, 2016, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26518-6_3.
[32] O. B. Yedri, L. El Aachak and M. Bouhorma, “Assessment-driven Learning through Serious Games: Guidance and
Effective Outcomes,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 8, no. 5, p.
3304, October 2018, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v8i5.pp3304-3316.
[33] S. Asai, D. T. D. Phuong, F. Harada and H. Shimakawa, “Predicting cognitive load in acquisition of programming
abilities,’’ International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3262-3271,
August 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i4.pp3262-3271.
[34] M. Lang, M. Matta, L. Parolin, C. Morrone and L. Pezzuti, “Cognitive profile of intellectually gifted adults:
Analyzing the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale,” Assessment, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 929-943, 2019, doi:
10.1177/1073191117733547.
[35] F. Colace, M. De Santo, D. Di Stasi and M. Casillo, “An adaptive educational hypermedia system for supporting
students in their traditional learning process in computer engineering education,” The International journal of
engineering education, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1625-1636, 2016.
[36] A. E. Labib, J. H. Canós and M. C. Penadés, “On the way to learning style models integration: a Learner’s
Characteristics Ontology,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 73, pp. 433-445, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.054.
[37] S. Sarwar, Z. U. Qayyum, R. García-Castro, M. Safyan and R. F. Munir, “Ontology based E-learning framework: A
personalized, adaptive and context aware model,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 78, no. 24, pp. 34745-
34771, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-08125-8.
[38] Y. Lin, S. Feng, F. Lin, W. Zeng, Y. Liu and P. Wu, “Adaptive course recommendation in MOOCs,” Knowledge-
Based Systems, vol. 224, p. 107085, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107085.
[39] M. M. El-Bishouty et al., “Use of Felder and Silverman learning style model for online course design,” Educational
Technology Research and Development, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 161-177, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9634-6.
[40] B. Arsovic and N. Stefanovic, “E-learning based on the adaptive learning model: case study in Serbia,” Sādhanā-
Academia Proceeding Engineering Science, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12046-020-01499-8.
[41] M. Rastegarmoghadam and K. Ziarati, “Improved modeling of intelligent tutoring systems using ant colony
optimization,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1067-1087, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10639-
016-9472-2.
[42] J. Feldman, A. Monteserin and A. Amandi, “Automatic detection of learning styles: state of the art,” Artificial
Intelligence Review, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 157-186, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10462-014-9422-6.
[43] H. M. El-Bakry and A. A. Saleh, “Adaptive E-learning based on learner’s styles,” Bulletin Electrical Engineering
and Informatics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 240-251, December 2013, doi: 10.11591/eei.v2i4.189.
[44] Ö. Özyurt and H. Özyurt, “Learning style based individualized adaptive E-learning environments: Content analysis
of the articles published from 2005 to 2014,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 52, pp. 349-358, 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.020.
[45] J. El Bouhdidi, M. Ghailani and A. Fennan, “A probabilistic approach for the generation of learning sessions
tailored to the learning styles of learners,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), vol.
8, no. 6, pp. 42-49, 2013, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v8i6.3084.
[46] S. Fatahi, “An experimental study on an adaptive E-learning environment based on learner’s personality and

 ISSN: 2302-9285
3324
emotion,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2225-2241, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-
09868-5.
[47] C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey,” WIREs Data
Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1-21, January 2020, doi: 10.1002/widm.1355.
[48] U. Lucke and C. Rensing, “A survey on pervasive education,” Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 14, pp. 3-16,
2014, doi: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2013.12.001.
[49] A. A. Kardan, M. Aziz and M. Shahpasand, “Adaptive systems: a content analysis on technical side for E-learning
environments,” Artificial intelligence review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 365-391, June 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10462-015-
9430-1.
[50] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial
intelligence applications in higher education - where are the educators?,” International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-27, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Alva Hendi Muhammad is a lecturer of Informatics Engineering at Universitas Amikom
Yogyakarta in Indonesia. He also served as the Secretary of the Postgraduate Program in
Informatics Engineering (distance learning). Alva has a Ph.D in IT from the University of
Technology Sydney Australia. His research interests include AI for Engineering and
Educational Technology, distance learning, as well as decision and expert system modeling.
Dhani Ariatmanto is a full-time lecturer at the Faculty of Informatics, University of Amikom
Yogyakarta. He was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 1980. Dhani received a master’s degree in
Informatics Engineering from the University of Amikom Yogyakarta. He is currently pursuing
a doctoral program at Universiti Malaysia Pahang. His research interests include Image
Processing, Digital Watermarking, and Multimedia Application.

Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized e-learning system

Related slideshows

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized e-learning system

Similar to Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized e-learning system (20)

More from journalBEEI

More from journalBEEI (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Understanding the role of individual learner in adaptive and personalized e-learning system