Improving Performance of Decision Trees for Recommendation Systems by Features Grouping Method

  • Supachanun Wanapu
  • Chun Che Fung
  • Jesada Kajornrit
  • Suphakit Niwattanakula
  • Nisachol Chamnongsria
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 265)


Recently, recommendation systems have become an important tool to support and improve decision making for educational purposes. However, developing recommendation systems is far from trivial and there are specific issues associated with individual problems. Low-correlated input features is a problem that influences the overall accuracy of decision tree models. Weak relationship between input features can cause decision trees work inefficiently. This paper reports the use of features grouping method to improve the classification accuracy of decision trees. Such method groups related input features together based on their ontologies. The new inherited features are then used instead as new features to the decision trees. The proposed method was tested with five decision tree models. The dataset used in this study were collected from schools in Nakhonratchasima province, Thailand. The experimental results indicated that the proposed method can improve the classification accuracy of all decision tree models. Furthermore, such method can significantly decrease the computational time in the training period.


Recommendation Systems Decision Trees Features Grouping Learning Object Ontologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., Budimac, Z.: E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education 56(3), 885–899 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, W., Persen, R.: Recommending collaboratively generated knowledge. Computer Science and Information Systems 9(2), 871–892 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vesin, B., Ivanovic, M., Klasnja-Milicevic, A., Budimac, Z.: Ontology-based architecture with recommendation strategy in java tutoring system. Computer Science and Information Systems 10(1), 237–261 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Özpolat, E., Akar, G.B.: Automatic detection of learning styles for an e-learning system. Computers & Education 53(2), 355–367 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ocepek, U., Bosnić, Z., Nančovska Šerbec, I., Rugelj, J.: Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia types. Computers & Education 69, 343–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, C.-M.: Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education 51(2), 787–814 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, C.F., Yeh, Y.-C., Hung, Y.H., Chang, R.I.: Data mining for providing a personalized learning path in creativity: An application of decision trees. Computers & Education 68, 199–210 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1, 81–106 (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quinlan, J.R.: C.45: Programs for Machine Learning (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grasha, A.F., Riechmann, S.W.: A rational to developing and assessing the construct validity of a student learning styles scale instrument. Journal of Psychology 87(2), 213–223 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baykul, Y.A., Gürsel, M., Sulak, H., Ertekin, E., Yazıcı, E., Dülger, O., Aslan, Y., Büyükkarcı, K.A.: A Validity and Reliability Study of Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scale. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences 5(3), 177–184 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maneenil, S., Srisa-ard, B., Chookhampaeng, C.: Causal Factors Influencing Critical Thinking of Students in Different Learning Styles. Journal of Education, Mahasarakham University 4(4), 88–95 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thonthai, T.: Learning Styles of Graduate Diploma Students in Teaching Profession at Princess of Naradhiwas University. Princess of Naradhiwas University Journal 1(3), 145–157 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1,
  15. 15.
    Final 1484.12.1 LOM Draft Standard Document,
  16. 16.
    Knight, C., Gašević, D., Richards, G.: Ontologies to integrate learning design and learning content. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 7, 1–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verbert, K., Jovanović, J., Duval, E., Gašević, D., Meire, M.: Ontology-based learning content repurposing: The ALOCoM framework. International Journal on E-learning 5(1), 67–74 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verbert, K., Klerkx, J., Meire, M., Najjar, J., Duval, E.: Towards a Global Component Architecture for Learning Objects: An Ontology Based Approach. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Corsaro, A. (eds.) OTM-WS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3292, pp. 713–722. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunn, R., Dunn, K.: Teaching Secondary Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles Practical Approaches For Grades, pp. 7–12 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiley, D.A.: A Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory. Brigham Young University, Provo (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IMS learning resource meta-data information model,
  22. 22.
    SCORM, 2nd ed.,

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Supachanun Wanapu
    • 1
  • Chun Che Fung
    • 2
  • Jesada Kajornrit
    • 2
  • Suphakit Niwattanakula
    • 1
  • Nisachol Chamnongsria
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information TechnologySuranaree University of TechnologyNakhonratchasimaThailand
  2. 2.School of Engineering and Information TechnologyMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations