LS-Plan: An Effective Combination of Dynamic Courseware Generation and Learning Styles in Web-Based Education

  • Carla Limongelli
  • Filippo Sciarrone
  • Giulia Vaste
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5149)


This paper presents LS-Plan, a system capable of providing Educational Hypermedia with adaptation and personalization. The architecture of LS-Plan is based on three main components: the Adaptation Engine, the Planner and the Teacher Assistant. Dynamic course generation is driven by an adaptation algorithm, based on Learning Styles, as defined by Felder-Silverman’s model. The Planner, based on Linear Temporal Logic, produces a first Learning Objects Sequence, starting from the student’s Cognitive State and Learning Styles, as assessed through pre-navigation tests. During the student’s navigation, and on the basis of learning assessments, the adaptation algorithm can propose a new Learning Objects Sequence. In particular, the algorithm can suggest different learning materials either trying to fill possible cognitive gaps or by re-planning a newly adapted Learning Objects Sequence. A first experimental evaluation, performed on a prototype version of the system, has shown encouraging results.


Cognitive State Linear Temporal Logic Adaptation Algorithm Student Model Planning Language 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bajraktarevic, N., Hall, W., Fullick, P.: Incorporating learning styles in hypermedia environment: Empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 41–52 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. David McKay Comp. Inc. (1964)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Bra, P., Smits, D., Stash, N.: Creating and delivering adaptive courses with AHA. In: EC-TEL, pp. 21–33 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brusilovsky, P., Karagiannidis, C., Sampson, D.: Layered evaluation of adaptive learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning 14(4/5), 402–421 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brusilovsky, P., Millan, E.: User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. (eds.) Adaptive Web 2007. LNCS, vol. 4321. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brusilowsky, P., Vassileva, J.: Course sequencing techniques for large-scale web-based education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-long Learning 13, 75–94 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Micarelli, A., Sangineto, E.: Automatic student personalization in preferred learning categories. In: 3rd International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carver, C.A., Howard, R.A., Lane, W.D.: Enhancing student learning through hypermedia courseware and incorporation of student learning styles. IEEE Transactions on Education 42(1), 33–38 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falmagne, J.C., Koppen, M., Villano, M., Doignon, J.P., Johannesen, L.: Introduction to knowledge spaces: How to build, test, and search them. Psychological Review 97(2), 201–224 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K.: Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education 78(7), 674 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felder, R.M., Spurlin, J.: Application, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. Int. Journal of Engineering Education 21(1), 103–112 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gena, C.: Methods and techniques for the evaluation of user-adaptive systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 20(1), 1–37 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., Wilkins, D.: Pddl—the planning domain definition language (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cialdea Mayer, M., Limongelli, C., Orlandini, A., Poggioni, V.: Linear temporal logic as an executable semantics for planning languages. J. of Logic, Lang. and Inf. 1(16), 63–89 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohan, P., Greer, J., McCalla, G.: Instructional planning with learning objects. In: Baumgartner, K.M., Cairns (eds.) n IJCAI 2003 Workshop Knowledge Representation and Automated Reasoning for E-Learning Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piaget, J.: Language and thought of the child. Harcourt, New York (1926)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, G., Brusilovsky, P.: Elm-art: An adaptive versatile system for web-based instruction. International Journal of AI in Education 12(4), 351–384 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla Limongelli
    • 1
  • Filippo Sciarrone
    • 1
  • Giulia Vaste
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Automation AI-Lab“Roma Tre” UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations