AI-Driven E-Learning Platforms for Personalized Education
-
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2023PI4UR24Published 04-05-2023
Artificial Intelligence, Personalized Learning, E-Learning Platforms, Adaptive Learning Systems, Learning Analytics, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Machine Learning In Education, Educational Technology Issue
Section
ArticlesHow to Cite
[1]A. Isabella and R. Nandhakumar, “AI-Driven E-Learning Platforms for Personalized Education”, IJAIDT, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 01–15, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2023PI4UR24.Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a disruptive force in the current field of education, which allows one to create intelligent e-learning and provide a learner with personalized, adaptive, and learner-centric educational experience. Conventional e-learning communication models mostly embrace one fit model and neglect the individual learner in terms of cognitive abilities, learning pace, background knowledge, motivation, as well as learning preferences. This disadvantage results in in optimal interaction, high turnover, and learning imbalances. To overcome these difficulties, AI-based e-learning systems are used, which is based on machine learning algorithms, learning analytics, natural language processing, recommendations systems, and relevant learning contents, assessments, and feedback is delivered to particular learners in real time. The following paper gives a detailed research of AI-based e-learning websites in personalized learning. It explores the theoretical basis of personalized learning, the history of intelligent tutoring systems, and how AI methods like supervised learning, reinforcement learning, deep learning, and knowledge tracing are applied in adaptive learning. The paper also examines the architectures, data streams, learner control strategies and evolutional decision making systems that support modern AI-driven learning systems. Some of the most essential issues regarding data privacy, bias in algorithms, interpretability, scalability, and morality are evaluated crucially. There is a comprehensive methodology that is proposed and includes system design, dataset preparation, feature engineering, personalization algorithms, and evaluation metrics. The results of the experiment are discussed based on the comparative performance analysis, indicators of the learner engagement, and the improvements in the learning outcomes. The results show that AI-based personalization benefits lead to substantial satisfaction with the learners, retention of knowledge, and academic results as opposed to conventional e-learning sites. The paper also ends by emphasizing subsequent research interests, which include explainable AI in learning, multimodal learning analytics, and lifelong personalized learning ecosystems.
References
[1] J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier, “Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–207, 1995.
[2] B. P. Woolf, Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-Centered Strategies for Revolutionizing E-Learning, San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2009.
[3] A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson, “Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge,” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 253–278, 1995.
[4] K. VanLehn, “The behavior of tutoring systems,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 227–265, 2006.
[5] R. S. J. d. Baker and K. Yacef, “The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions,” Journal of Educational Data Mining, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2009.
[6] C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 601–618, Nov. 2010.
[7] S. K. D’Mello and A. Graesser, “AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers,” ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–39, 2012.
[8] N. Thai-Nghe, L. Drumond, T. Horváth, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, “Factorization techniques for predicting student performance,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Educational Data Mining (EDM), Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2011, pp. 129–138.
[9] R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2018.
[10] C. Piech et al., “Deep knowledge tracing,” in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015, pp. 505–513.
[11] H. A. R. Akkerman, J. Admiraal, and M. Simons, “Reconsidering the role of artifacts in learning,” Instructional Science, vol. 32, no. 1–2, pp. 1–21, 2004.
[12] G. Siemens and P. Long, “Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education,” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 30–40, 2011.
[13] D. Gašević, S. Dawson, and G. Siemens, “Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning,” TechTrends, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2015.
[14] T. Daradoumis, R. Bassi, F. Xhafa, and S. Caballé, “A review on massive e-learning (MOOCs) design, delivery and assessment,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1–35, 2013.
[15] S. Slade and P. Prinsloo, “Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1510–1529, 2013.
Downloads
How to Cite
[1]A. Isabella and R. Nandhakumar, “AI-Driven E-Learning Platforms for Personalized Education”, IJAIDT, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 01–15, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2023PI4UR24.