Activity-Based Learner-Models for Learner Monitoring and Recommendations in Moodle

  • Beatriz Florian
  • Christian Glahn
  • Hendrik Drachsler
  • Marcus Specht
  • Ramón Fabregat Gesa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6964)


In technology-enhanced learning, activity-based learner models can provide evidence for competence assessment. Such models are the foundation for learning and teaching support, such as: adaptation, assessment, and competence analytics, recommendations, and so on. This paper analyses how to construct activity-based learner models based on existing data in the Moodle learning management system. Based on the activity theory model and the actuator-indicator model, aggregators of learner activities for different activity types were implemented in Moodle. This requires the consideration of the social roles in a course, in order to enable adaptive views for learners and instructors on the stored activity information. The implementation showed that Moodle stores information about course activities that requires filtering before it can get used for higher level processing. The social planes in Moodle reveal a higher complexity than it has been previously described by theories of classroom orchestration, such as actors who are no longer present in a course.


Activity-based learner models Moodle Learners tracking Learning analytics Competence assessment Indicators TEL recommender systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Primus, N.J.C.: A generic framework for evaluating Adaptive Educational Hypermedia authoring systems - Evaluating MOT, AHA! and WHURLE to recommend on the development of AEH authoring systems. University of Twente, Twente (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verbert, K., Duval, E., Drachsler, H., Manouselis, N., Wolpers, M., Vuorikari, R., Beham, G.: Dataset-driven Research for Improving Recommender Systems for Learning. In: Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Banff, Alberta, Canada, February 27-March 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmermann, A., Specht, M., Lorenz, A.: Personalization and Context Management. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 15(3-4), 275–302 (2005), doi:10.1007/s11257-005-1092-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 8, pp. 63–93. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Najjar, J., Derntl, M., Klobučar, T., Simon, B., Totschnig, M., Grant, S., Pawlowski, J.: A Data Model for Describing and Exchanging Personal Achieved Learning Outcomes (PALO). International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (IJITSR) 8(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Commission of the European communities: Towards a European qualifications framework for lifelong learning,
  7. 7.
    Florian, B., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R.: Adaptive Evaluation Based on Competencies. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop Towards User Modeling and Adaptive Systems for All (TUMAS-A 2009): Modeling and Evaluation of Accessible Intelligent Learning Systems, held in conjunction with the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009), Brighton, United Kingdom (July 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Florian, B., De La Hoz, A., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R.: A set of software tools to build an author assessment package on Moodle. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) 2010, Sousse, Tunisia (July 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheetham, G., Chivers, G.: Professions, Competence and informal Learning. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crespo, R.M., Najjar, J., Derntl, M., Leony, D., Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P., et al.: Aligning Assessment with Learning Outcomes in Outcome-based Education. In: EDUCON 2010: IEEE Annual Global Engineering Education Conference, Madrid, Spain, April 14-16 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dillenbourg, P., Tchounikinew, P.: Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23, 1–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reigeluth, C.M.: Instructional Design: What is it and Why is it? In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models. An Overview of their Current Status. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Framework for integrated learning. Report 2004 Kaleidoscope concepts and methods for exploring the future of learning with digital technologies. The European Commission, DG INFSO, under contract N°. IST 507838 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education 29(2), 127–140 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glahn, C., Specht, M., Koper, R.: Visualisation of interaction footprints for engagement in online communities (Special issue). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 44–57 (2009); In: Kalz, M., Koper, R., Hornung-Prähauser, V. (eds.)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Clark, R.E., de Croock, M.B.M.: Blueprints for Complex Learning: The 4C/ID-Model. Educational Technology, Research and Development 50(4), 39–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verpoorten, D., Glahn, C., Kravcik, M., Ternier, S., Specht, M.: Personalisation of Learning in Virtual Learning Environments. In: Cress, U., Dimitrova, V., Specht, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5794, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glahn, C., Specht, M., Koper, R.: Smart Indicators on Learning Interactions. In: Duval, E., Klamma, R., Wolpers, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4753, pp. 56–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glahn, C., Specht, M., Koper, R.: Reflection Support Using Multi-encoded Tag-clouds. In: Wild, F., Kalz, M., Palmér, M., Müller, D. (eds.) Proceedings of 2nd Workshop Mash-Up Personal Learning Envrionments (MUPPLE 2009), Workshop in conjunction with 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2009): Synergy of Disciplines, Nice, France, September 29, 2009, pp. 89–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glahn, C., Specht, M.: Embedding Moodle into Ubiquitous Computing Environments. In: Montebello, M., et al. (eds.) 9th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, Valletta, Malta, October, 19-22 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Jong, T., Specht, M., Koper, R.: Contextualised Media for Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11(2), 41–53 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.M.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haemaelaeinen, W., Vinni, M.: Classifiers for Educational Data Mining. In: Romero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizky, M., Baker, R.S.J.d. (eds.) Handbook of Educational Data Mining. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Florian
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christian Glahn
    • 2
  • Hendrik Drachsler
    • 2
  • Marcus Specht
    • 2
  • Ramón Fabregat Gesa
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Informatics and Applications (IIiA)University of GironaGironaSpain
  2. 2.CELSTECOpen University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.EISCUniversidad del ValleCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations