Skip to main content

Creating an E-Learning Recommender System Supporting Teachers of Engineering Disciplines

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014

Abstract

Numerous reviews and studies have shown that Learning Management Systems at university level often are lacking from a number of characteristics such as the support of various didactical approaches, the possibility to consider different specifics of engineering disciplines or a lecturer friendly interface. In this paper, a new recommender system is proposed for teaching staff of engineering disciplines; the novelty of the recommender system is that criteria used by the system are based on standards for engineering education in conjunction with the framework for pedagogical evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments. The suitability assessment scenario being suggested identifies the various needs of teaching staff member with regards to his/her course, teaching methods and also suggests tools that are necessary to increase functionality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Garrote, Ramon, and Tomas Pettersson. 2007. Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 23 (3): 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The LMS Review Subgroup, and Duke University. 2009. Learning Management System (LMS) Review Summary of Findings.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Delinger, S., and R. Boora. 2010. Learning management systems evaluation for the University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Britain, Sandy, and O. Liber. 2004. A framework for pedagogical evaluation of virtual learning environments.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berking, Peter. 2012. Choosing Authoring Tools. (March): 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ghirardini, Beatrice. 2011. E-learning methodologies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Top 100 Tools for Learning.http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/.

  8. Handke, J., and Schäfer, A. M. 2012. E-Learning, E-Teaching und E-Assessment in der Hochschullehre. Munich: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bach, Ursula, and Sabina Jeschke, eds. 2011. TeachING-LearnING.EU Fachtagung „Next Generation Engineering Education“. Tagungsband der TeachING-LearnING.EU Fachtagung, Aachen, Germany, 8 June 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tekkaya, A. Erman, Sabina Jeschke, Marcus Petermann, Kristina Müller, and Katharina Schuster, eds. 2013. TeachING-LearnING.EU discussions - Innovationen für die Zukunft der Lehre in den Ingenieurwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  11. JISC. 2007. e-Learning Pedagogy programme. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy.aspx.

  12. Diwakar, A., M. Patwardhan, and S. Murthy. 2012. Pedagogical Analysis of Content Authoring Tools for Engineering Curriculum. In 2012 IEEE 4th International Conference on Technology for Education, 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Angelo, G. D. FROM DIDACTICS e-Learning Paradigms, Models and Techniques.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Granić, A., and M. Ćukušić. 2007. An Approach to the Design of Pedagogical Framework for e-Learning. In Proceedings of EUROCON, 2007. The International Conference on “Computer as a Tool”, 2415–2422.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Irfan, R., and M. Uddin-Shaikh. 2008. Framework for Embedding Tacit Knowledge in Pedagogical Model to Enhance E-Learning. In 2008 New Technologies, Mobility and Security, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Design for Learning Programme, 2009. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_outcomes.html.

  17. Besterfield-Sacre, Mary, L. J. Shuman, H. Wolfe, C. J. Atman, J. McGourty, Ronald L. Miller, B. M. Olds, and G. M. Rogers. 2000. Defining the outcomes: A framework for EC-2000. IEEE Transactions on Education 43 (2): 100–110.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Crawley, Edward F., J. Malmqvist, S. Ostlund, and D. Brodeur. 2007. Rethinking engineering education the CDIO approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engineering Council. 2013. UK standard for professional engineering experience.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Felder, R. M., and R. Brent. 2004. The ABC’s of Engineering Education: Abet, Bloom’s taxonomy, Cooperative Learning, and So on. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Miller, Jon D. 1991. Teacher Questionnaire: Science and Mathematics Classes L.S.A.Y.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Soldatova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Soldatova, E., Bach, U., Vossen, R., Jeschke, S. (2014). Creating an E-Learning Recommender System Supporting Teachers of Engineering Disciplines. In: Jeschke, S., Isenhardt, I., Hees, F., Henning, K. (eds) Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08816-7_35

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics