[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Encapsulated Phytase Produced by Recombinant Yarrowia lipolytica Exhibits High Efficiency on Broiler Chickens in Low Dosage
Previous Article in Journal
Review of Computational Mechanics, Optimization, and Machine Learning Tools for Digital Twins Applied to Infrastructures
Previous Article in Special Issue
Issues and Solutions in Deep Learning-Enabled Recommendation Systems within the E-Commerce Field
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 23
10.3390/app122311996
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning-Based Recommender Systems for E-Learning

by
Latifat Salau
1,*,
Mohamed Hamada
2,
Rajesh Prasad
1,
Mohammed Hassan
3,
Anand Mahendran
4 and
Yutaka Watanobe
2
1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja 900109, Nigeria
2
Software Engineering Lab, University of Aizu, Aizuwakamatsu 965-8580, Fukushima, Japan
3
Department of Software Engineering, Bayero University, Kano 700241, Nigeria
4
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(23), 11996; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122311996
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 15 November 2022 / Accepted: 19 November 2022 / Published: 24 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Deep Learning Based Recommender Systems: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Statistics of recommendation goals.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Recommendation Elements.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Frequencies of recommendation techniques.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Recommendation Platform.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Recommendation for User Type.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Regional distribution of surveyed papers.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Surveyed Paper type.</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recommender systems (RSs) are increasingly recognized as intelligent software for predicting users’ opinions on specific items. Various RSs have been developed in different domains, such as e-commerce, e-government, e-resource services, e-business, e-library, e-tourism, and e-learning, to make excellent user recommendations. In e-learning technology, RSs are designed to support and improve the learning practices of a student or an organization. This survey aims to examine the different works of literature on RSs that corroborate e-learning and classify and provide statistics of the reviewed articles based on their recommendation goals, recommendation techniques used, the target user, and the application platforms. The survey makes a prominent contribution to the e-learning RSs field by providing an overview of current research and traditional and nontraditional recommendation techniques to provide different recommendations for future e-learning. One of the most significant findings to emerge from this survey is that a substantial number of works followed either deep learning or context-aware recommendation techniques, which are considered more efficient than any traditional methods. Finally, we provided comprehensive observations from the quantitative assessment of publications, which can guide and support researchers in understanding the current development for potential future trends and the direction of deep learning-based RSs in e-learning.

1. Introduction

We form opinions about things we do not care for, like, or dislike daily. It happens more often in our daily life; for instance, we may decide to go to school in the morning, play soccer in the afternoon, and watch an action movie at night. Similarly, when trying to purchase an item from a store, one can decide to purchase a snack, an item from the dairy section, a book, or a beverage. However, making the right decision is one of the challenges people face in their daily activities. Thus, there is a need for an intelligent system to help predict user preferences for new items. Recommender systems (RSs) emerged to deal with this problem to help users find what is genuinely relevant to their needs [1]. Such systems have intelligently changed how we find articles, information, and even how we see others. RSs’ main function is to predict user interest by relating the user’s history, information, profile, and queries used, searched, created, and expressed [2]. Recently, learning has drastically shifted from a traditional classroom to an e-learning environment [3]. In technology-enhanced learning, RSs are used to find and suggest suitable learning objects to the learner, and a learning object (e.g., a problem) has several categories that indicate topics or fields [4]. RSs are generally essential in education and any activity involving accessing and sharing resources among people or communities. It uses different users’ and items’ characteristics, such as their interests, educational backgrounds, levels of expertise, geographical locations, and so on, to propose sequences or novel resources that might interest users [5]. However, when providing recommendations for e-learning contexts, the system should consider the users’ interests and learning goals [6].
The past seven years have seen increasingly rapid advances in RSs. One of the primary concerns of the RSs research community within that period was the concept of choosing the candidate recommendation technique that can be used to compute users’ preferences on new items efficiently. Many of today’s RSs for learning are built based on the three primary traditional recommendation techniques, the same as RSs in other domains, such as e-commerce, namely collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, and hybrid techniques [7]. However, along with this growth of RSs, there is increasing concern over several significant drawbacks related to recommendation techniques. Over-specialization, cold-start, and data sparsity problems are the major drawbacks of traditional methods [8]. Nontraditional methods such as deep learning, context-aware, and multi-criteria recommendations extending traditional techniques have recently emerged. The existence of many alternatives in choosing the technique to use helped tremendously to improve the accuracy of recommendations that can be offered to users. Presently, RSs go beyond using only traditional recommendation techniques by considering the pedagogical requirements of the user instead of only the preferences. In this survey, we present, among other things, a synthesis of prior work on RSs, and an overview of both traditional and other techniques of building RSs for learning that are less problematic and more efficient than traditional recommendation techniques.
Furthermore, another critical aspect of building RSs is generally related to various user tasks that the system can support in a particular application domain. In technology-enhanced learning, RSs help learners achieve their desired learning goal by recommending a sequence of items, finding novel items, providing annotation in context, finding learning peers, recommending learning pathways, etc. [7]. This survey checked and classified research papers on RSs for learning that were published between 2015 and 2021 based on what they are recommending to the user (supporting the user tasks), the platforms (e.g., mobile, chatbot, or web-based), the recommendation techniques used, and categories of users (students or teachers).
Therefore, this study makes contributions to research on RSs for learning by demonstrating the following:
  • Overview of traditional and nontraditional recommendation techniques;
  • Synthesis of prior work on RSs for learning based on:
    a
    Recommendation techniques;
    b
    Recommendation goals (supporting user tasks);
    c
    Platforms (mobile or web-based);
    d
    Kind of users (For students, teachers, or both students and teachers).
  • Proposing potential future research direction on RSs for learning and other related application domains.
At the end of this survey, our results should be able to answer the following seven essential questions:
  • To what extent is research in deep learning-based RSs in e-learning?
  • What is the frequency of usage of each recommendation technique? In other words, which techniques are used more often to implement RSs for learning?
  • Which user tasks (recommendation goal) do people pay more attention to?
  • Are RSs for learning capable of making unexpected and fortunate recommendations?
  • What is the ratio between chatbot, mobile, and web-based RSs for learning?
  • Technology-enhanced learning concerns teaching and learning, which received considerable attention from researchers on RSs?
  • With new recommendation techniques (deep learning, context-aware, and multi-criteria rating techniques), has research in this domain shifted toward those new techniques?
The overall structure of this paper takes the form of five sections, including this introductory section. Section 2 contains a brief review of RSs for learning, related works, and evaluation methods; Section 3 explains the classification methodologies and an overview of recommendation techniques; Section 4 contains the findings of our work. Additionally, a conclusion and some potential future research directions are presented in Section 5.

2. Recommender Systems for E-Learning

E-learning is a way of learning, in which a learner can study online from anywhere, which can be self-paced with available learning resources. E-learning is one of the fastest learning methods in recent years due to the rapid growth in technology development [9]. Learners can now search for desired educational information, products, and services via computers and mobile devices [10]. The number of educational resources continues to grow, making it increasingly difficult for traditional search engines to meet requirements related to online searches for information about educational products and services during the learning process [11].
Problems of information overload create difficulties for people to discover items or make the right decision on a particular item that can satisfy their needs. The same issues arose when learners tried to find suitable learning materials. RSs are intelligent systems that can solve problems of information overload by using various techniques to find and recommend valuable items to users. They are subclasses of information filtering systems aimed at predicting preferences or ratings that a learner would provide to learning items and creating lists of relevant items for recommendations, ranked according to their various degrees of relevancy to the items required. RSs for learning cover almost all fields of technology-enhanced learning, such as mobile learning, formal learning, informal learning, and traditional and modern ways of learning. Various definitions have been suggested for RSs in general. In learning, RSs for learning have similarly retained almost all their definitions. The only distinction is that the term “items” used in this context strictly refers to a learner (or sometimes to both learners and students). RSs have become one of the main tools for personalized content filtering in the educational domain [11]. As indicated by H. Drachsler et al. in [12] and G. McCalla in [13], RSs for learning aim to support learners by providing valuable learning materials. In addition to what RSs do in other application domains, such as e-commerce, to recommend products to customers, RSs for learning also support various user tasks such as recommending learning peers, lessons and lectures, self-assessment materials, etc.

2.1. Related Works

Research in RSs for e-learning is continuously growing, with an effort by authors to summarize and map different aspects of this field.
Drachsler et al. in [12] presented a state-of-the-art review on technology-enhanced learning RSs. This study considered 82 papers published between 2000 to 2014 and provided a comprehensive overview of the area. The authors introduced parameters for evaluating technology-enhanced learning RSs and analyzed different recommendation techniques and sources of information. Khanal et al. [14] presented a systematic review of machine learning-based RSs for e-learning. The authors developed a taxonomy that accounts for components required to develop effective RSs. The study focused on four traditional recommendation techniques: collaborative filtering, content-based, knowledge-based, and hybrid approaches. The authors’ analysis was based on machine learning algorithms and the method of evaluating the RSs. They also addressed challenges regarding input and output characterization. They summarized the overall findings with an observation that machine learning techniques, algorithms, datasets, evaluation, valuation, and output are necessary components in Rs for e-learning.
Zhang et al. [15] presented a survey on RSs for e-learning. The authors reviewed and analyzed the research on e-learning RSs, identified the traditional recommendation techniques used in e-learning, and identified new research directions. They also proposed a framework with three major components: a user interface, a database server, and a recommendation engine. This paper highlighted how recommendation techniques could support learners in universities and life-long learners to gain skills to stay competitive. It aimed to provide guidance for researchers and practitioners in developing e-learning RSs. Urdaneta-Ponte et al. [1] conducted a review on RSs for education. The authors surveyed 98 articles to analyze the work undertaken in RSs that support educational practices to acquire information related to the type of education and areas dealt with, the developmental approach used, and the elements recommended.
Rivera et al. [16] presented a systematic mapping to investigate the use of RSs in education. The authors extensively reviewed 44 research papers to extract and classify relevant data to obtain valuable insights about the uses, approaches, and challenges addressed by RSs. Salazar et al. [17] conducted a systematic review of affective RSs in the learning environment. The authors presented a macro-analysis, identifying the primary authors and research trends. They also summarized different aspects of RSs, such as the techniques used in affectivity analysis, the source of data collection, and the state of the art of influence of emotions in the educational field.

2.2. Methods of Evaluating Recommender Systems for Learning

Frameworks have been suggested for evaluating the system, the usefulness of recommendations given to users, and evaluating whether users are delighted with the services the system offers. Mojisola et al. [18] have surveyed various methods for evaluating RSs for learning. The main aim of evaluating RSs is broadly categorized into three parts. First is measuring the performance of the systems, which entails the performance of algorithms used or the system’s general performance from a technical point of view. The second is measuring the impact on learning to evaluate if the learning performance of the user has improved after using the system for a considerable period. Third is user-centric evaluation, which measures users’ contentment and satisfaction with the system. The first evaluation category can be achieved offline using a dataset containing interactions between users and similar systems to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendation algorithm or the entire system. The impact of the system on learning can be measured scientifically from the users’ perspectives to determine the level of learning improvements and how the system influences their studies. Finally, real-life testing allows users to use the system over a long period to measure their satisfaction. One way to achieve this is through interviewing users either by face-to-face interaction or via the distribution of questionnaires.

3. Classification Method

As highlighted previously, the motivation of this study is to find and understand the research directions of prior works on RSs for learning by examining published articles, then provide interested researchers and practitioners’ insight on the state of the art and what needs to be done for potential future research. Therefore, a methodology must be set to systematically extract and analyze the research papers.
Classification to achieve the desired goal’s methods are followed based on the recommendation techniques, the user tasks supported by the system (recommendation goal), the system platforms, and the people using the system. Therefore, all the reviewed papers are classified based on seven recommendation techniques, six recommendation goals, three platforms (web-based, mobile-based, or chatbot), and the type of users, which can be teacher, student, or both students and teachers. This section presents a brief review of classification categories, especially the recommendation technique that is said to be the central nervous system of RSs, which controls how predictions should be made.

3.1. Classification Based on Recommendation Techniques

The fundamental recommendation question is to check if a user u ∈ U will be interested in item i ∈ I , for U and I as the domain of users and items, respectively. The most common ways to answer such questions are:
  • To find out the set of items that u liked previously and then find the similarity between them and i ;
  • To find out people who like i and try to compute their similarities with u .
In each of the above two cases, the similarity values are used to measure the degrees to which u is interested in i .
Many researchers and industries have used different approaches to build robust RSs that intelligently recommend learning or teaching materials to users. The most used techniques are collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, knowledge-based, and hybrid-based recommendation techniques. Other RSs use these techniques to make recommendations, such as context-aware, multi-criteria RSs, deep learning, and machine learning techniques. This section sheds more light onto various RS techniques.

3.1.1. Collaborative Filtering

Collaborative filtering is the most widely used and popular technique for building RSs that make predictions and suggestions based on ratings of other system users [19]. The belief regarding this technique is that ratings of other users can be used to provide reasonable predictions of the current user. It is based on the nature of humans to “use what is popular among my peers, or wisdom of the crowd” to recommend items to users [20]. The collaborative filtering technique presumes that if users agree on ratings of some selected items, they will have similar opinions on other new items. Its utility function f uses users’ or items’ similarities to predict the rating of unknown item i by user u as f   : ( u ,   i ) → r for which r can be an actual number within some interval (from 1 to 10), a binary rating (yes/no, like/dislike, etc.), or determined implicitly by the system. Several algorithms fall under collaborative filtering, such as user-based, item-based, stereotype/demographic, etc. Taking a user-based collaborative filtering algorithm, according to [9], the rating of new i by the u denoted by r u ,   i can be obtained either by taking the average of all ratings of i given by some users in U as in Equation (1) or by finding the similarity between all users who rated i and the user u , then calculate the sum of the products of their similarities and the ratings they gave to i , and finally, by multiplying the normalizing factor as in Equation (2), where ℵ is the normalizing factor which most of the time is considered to be the inverse of ∑ v ∈ U | s i m ( u , v ) | , or by jointly using Equations (3) and (4).
r u , i = 1 K   ∑ v ∈ U r v , i
r u , i = ℵ ∑ v ∈ U s i m ( u , v ) × r v , i
r u , i = r ¯ u + ℵ ∑ v ∈ U s i m ( u , v ) × ( r v , i − r ¯ v )
r ¯ u = ( 1 / | I u | ) ∑ i ∈ I u r u , i
where I u = { i   ∈ I | r u , i ≠ ∅   } .
On the other hand, as observed by [8], some algorithms used probabilistic methods to predict r u , i based on the Bayesian probability that u rated i , given that they previously rated some items i * ∈   I . Equation (5) is the relation used for this approach.
r u , i = E ( r u , i ) = ∑ k = 0 n i × Pr ( r u , i = k | r u , i * ,   i * ∈ I u )
Pr ( r u , i = R | r u , i * ,   i * ∈ I u )   can be estimated using either a Bayesian network or cluster models as proposed by [21]; the variable R is a non-negative integer ≤ n .
The question is how to find the similarities between users or items that can be used to perform the necessary computations. There are many similarity metrics, such as the Pearson correlation coefficient, Euclidean distance, cosine measure, Spearman correlation, Tanimoto coefficient, log likelihood, etc. The Pearson correlation coefficient is one of the many similarity metrics that has been used for a long time, but one needs to understand it very well before using it because it fails to give an accurate result when applied to a sparse or minimal dataset. It is not a flawed metric, and at the same time, it is not always good.
The formulas for calculating users’ similarities s i m   ( u i , u j ) using Pearson correlation and cosine measures are in Equations (6)–(9), respectively.
s i m   ( u ,   v ) = ∑ i   ∈   I u , v ( r u , i − r u ¯ ) ( r v , i − r v ¯ ) ∑ i   ∈   I u , v ( r u , i − r u ¯ ) 2 ∑ i   ∈   I u , v ( r v , i − r v ¯ ) 2
cos ( u → ,   v → ) = ∑ i   ∈   I u , v r u , i r v , i ∑ i   ∈   I u , v r u , i 2 ∑ i   ∈   I u , v r v , i 2
where I u , v = { i   ∈ I | r u , i ≠ ∅   and   r v , i ≠ ∅ } ; r u ¯ and r v ¯ are taken over ratings given by u and v to a common item i , respectively. Furthermore, in Equation (9), the term u → · v → is a dot product between vectors u → and v → .
Similarly, similarities between items i and j can be found using Equation (8) below.
s i m   ( i ,   j ) = ∑ u   ∈   U i , j ( r u , i − r u ¯ ) ( r u , j − r u ¯ ) ∑ u   ∈   U i ( r u , i − r u ¯ ) 2 ∑ u   ∈   U j ( r u , j − r u ¯ ) 2
where U i , j is the user who rated items i and j while, for the cosine measure, s i m   ( u ,   v ) = cos ( u → ,   v → ) , so that:
cos ( u → ,   v → ) = u → · v → ‖ u → ‖ 2 × ‖ v → ‖ 2 = ∑ i   ∈   I u , v ( r u , i r v , i   ) ∑ i   ∈   I u , v r u , i 2 ∑ i   ∈   I u , v r v , i 2
The term u → · v → is a dot product between vectors u → and v → .

3.1.2. Content-Based Technique

Unlike collaborative filtering, which uses similar rating patterns over users to make predictions, the content-based technique does not require the ratings of other users to make valuable recommendations. It is designed to use users’ profiles to recommend items due to their similarities with items the user was already interested in the past. The word similarity used here does not necessarily refer to the same similarity used to define collaborative filtering, which was based on rating correlations, but the similarity between attributes of the current item and those of items the user liked previously. Content-based filtering systems try to match features of items stored in the user’s profile. At the same time, the references are kept with the features of the newly presented items to make recommendations. Therefore, only items that the user previously liked will be recommended.
Contrary to collaborative-based systems that recommend items based on preferences from other users with similar tastes, content-based systems always make recommendations in a personalized manner. Whether the user will like the item or not relies on matching the features of the user’s profile and the item’s attributes. Case-based reasoning and attribute-based techniques are the most common content-based techniques [7].

3.1.3. Knowledge-Based Technique

The two techniques discussed above require a reasonable volume of data representing users’ previous purchasing history and rating experiences, making them unsuitable to the domain where items are highly customized. Such customized products include automobiles, financial services, real estate, tourism guide systems, and so on, rarely purchased in large quantities, as such ratings are not sufficiently available. The knowledge-based technique does not require any rating correlation or user profile to make predictions, making it convenient to recommend items not regularly purchased [22]. Knowledge-based RSs use item attributes, user specifications, and domain knowledge to generate recommendations. Instead of depending on users’ ratings, a knowledge-based system only needs information about users’ preferences, such as why they are looking for that item based on a lower price, high quality, or luxury. The system requires the information to make suitable recommendations by considering items that satisfy users’ requirements.

3.1.4. Hybrid Recommendation Technique

RSs can be built using collaborative, content-based filtering or knowledge-based techniques. Still, each of them has its peculiar weaknesses, as observed by Manouselis et al. in [7], where they highlighted some of the common pros and cons of each recommendation technique; for example, data sparsity, new user, and new item problems are some of the significant deficiencies of collaborative filtering, of which some of them can be controlled by content-based filtering. Therefore, combining two techniques with a hybrid recommendation technique can minimize such individual drawbacks. The term hybridization or, more formally, hybrid recommendation technique does not only mean it can be between different recommendation techniques (content-based, collaborative filtering, and knowledge-based) but also between algorithms under the same technique. Consider case-based reasoning and attribute-based algorithms; all of them are content-based techniques. The former suffers from a cold-start problem and new user/item problems, while the latter does not have such disadvantages. Conversely, domain dependencies are a severe problem of attribute-based algorithms that case-based reasoning does not have. The same complication can be revealed under collaborative filtering algorithms as both item-based, and user-based techniques suffer from cold-start problems. In contrast, stereotype collaborative filtering is believed to be free from cold-start problems [7]. Knowledge-based systems are unlike collaborative and content-based techniques that suffer from sparsity and cold-start problems at some level. It is a good alternative for hybrid RSs.

3.1.5. Context-Aware RS

The concepts of RSs we discussed in this paper focus on suggesting items relevant to the users’ needs that are not concerned about any other factor influencing the recommendation process. These types of RSs are traditional or two-dimensional (user, item) RSs, as their rating functions consider only two entities (users and items) to predict ratings. In a context-aware recommendation, other factors known as context are integrated into the rating function as necessary and sufficient conditions for making a meaningful recommendation [23]. The rating function discussed earlier can be modified to f   : u × i × C → r , where C is the domain of the contextual information required for the recommendation. The word context has many meanings depending on the domain of discussion, such as medicine, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and social science, to mention a few. No specific definition can satisfy the various research disciplines; therefore, the real meaning of context is domain-dependent. In the RS domain, context refers to any factor(s) or additional information that can be used to generate a more intelligent and effective recommendation [24]. Verbert et al. in [25] classified the term context used for building context-aware RSs into three different classes:
  • User Context: i.e., the location, companions, social situation, or even the user profile;
  • Computing Context: i.e., communication cost and bandwidth, the strength of the connectivity, and available resources, such as a computer, printer, workstation, etc.;
  • Physical context: i.e., weather conditions, noise, traffic levels, etc.
Context-aware RSs are generally called multidimensional RSs [26] because, given n dimensions of contexts to c 1 ,   c 2 , … ,   c n , the rating functions can then be defined as f   : u × i × c 1 × c 2 × … × c n → r .
There are three main approaches to modeling context-aware RSs: prefiltering, post-filtering, and contextual modeling paradigms, which differ only in the contexts in which the context is used before making the final recommendation.
The prefiltering paradigm applies the context to filter out all items that do not satisfy the context to have contextualized data and passes the result to the next level for the usual two-dimensional u s e r × i t e m recommendation. Conversely, a post-filtering approach performs the traditional two-dimensional u s e r × i t e m predictions before filtering the items that do not conform to the contextual information. On the other hand, contextual modeling reduces context filtering and two-dimensional u s e r × i t e m computations to just a brief explanation of the three paradigms of context-aware recommendation techniques. A more detailed description can be found in the work of Adomavicius and Tuzhilin in [26].

3.1.6. Multi-Criteria RS

Both traditional and context-aware RSs are implemented based on a single rating value r to represent the degree to which users are interested in items. Although single-rating RSs have been implemented in applications across several domains, research has shown that their functionality is limited because the likeness of an item by users may depend on several items’ attributes [27]. Interestingly, RS researchers in industries and academic institutions have already started shifting toward multi-criteria rating systems [28]. As an illustration, Zagat’s guide (https://www.zagat.com accessed on 5 July 2022), a restaurant guide that issues a restaurant rating criterion based on three categories (food, service, decor), online shops such as Rakuten (http://www.rakuten.com/ accessed on 5 July 2022), and retailers of consumer electronics (https://circuitcity.com accessed on 5 July 2022) are examples of systems that are developed based on multi-criteria RSs.
We are familiar with the form and how ratings take place in traditional recommendation approaches from the beginning of this section. We know how the rating functions work, how to compute similarities between users (Equations (6) and (9)) if necessary, as well how to use the similarity s i m ( u , v ) to calculate ratings (Equations (2) and (3)). Similarly, multi-criteria recommenders are designed to achieve the same goal of finding products/resources that might be useful and interesting to users. They vary only by acquiring more information about items from the users that is useful in making meaningful recommendations. In multi-criteria recommenders, the rating function f ( u , i ) is of the form f   : u × i → r 0 ,   r 1 , r 2 , … , r n , where r 0 is the overall rating, similar to r in traditional and context-aware RSs, and r k are the criteria ratings. Table 1 is a sample of ratings in multi-criteria systems using four criteria and an overall rating to predict user preferences on items [27]. The ratings with question marks (?,?,?,?,?) are the unknown ratings that need to be predicted.
Adomavicius, in [28], outlined two methods for calculating similarities between users or items for rating predictions in multi-criteria RSs. One of the proposed methods uses the same similarity metrics discussed in Equations (6) and (9) to make predictions by making some minor adjustments to account for all n + 1 different similarities, which are briefly demonstrated below:
We know that for each u and i , the utility function f ( u , i ) produces n + 1 different ratings, where n is the number of criteria used. f ( u , i ) = r 0 ,   r 1 , r 2 , … , r n , which requires calculating n + 1 similarities, one similarity for r 0 and others for each rating r k . Let s i m m ( u , v ) be the similarities between users u and v , where m = 0, 1, 2, …, n, then s i m 0 ( u , v ) is the similarity between u and v with respect to the overall rating r 0 , and s i m 1 ( u , v ) is the similarity between u and v with respect to rating r 1 , up to s i m n ( u , v ) , which is the similarity between u and v with respect to the last rating r n . The overall similarity is computed by taking the average of the n similarities or by considering the slightest (worst-case) similarity, as in Equations (10) and (11), and then finally by going back to our rating prediction algorithms in Equation (2) or Equations (3) and (4) on page 4. Note that for any item i , the utility function f for u and v with respect to i is f ( u , i ) = r 0 ,   r 1 , r 2 , … , r n and f ( v , i ) = r 0 * ,   r 1 * , r 2 * , … , r n * , respectively.
s i m a v e r a g e ( u , v ) = 1 n + 1 ∑ m = 0 n s i m m ( u , v )
s i m M i n ( u , v ) = M i n s i m m ( u , v ) ⏟ m = 0 , 1 , n
This method applies only to algorithms that require similarities between users or items to make predictions, such as collaborative filtering.
However, other methods work by assuming a solid relationship between criteria ratings and the overall rating as used in [20,29,30,31,32,33]. For instance, in Table 1, one can observe that the overall rating r 0 has a well-defined relationship with the rating of their corresponding criteria r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , and r 4 . This relationship can be formally represented in Equation (12).
r 0 = φ ( r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 )
Generally, for any number of criteria n , the relationship function can be extended to account for all n, as in Equation (13).
r 0 = φ ( r 1 , r 2 , … , r n )
The function φ is called the aggregation function. If we can define how to find ratings for each criterion and define the function φ , then r 0 will be computed easily, as outlined by Adomavicius et al. in [27], who demonstrated how to arrive at r 0 pictorially. The following steps summarize the necessary procedures needed to compute r 0 using the aggregation function approach:
  • Break down the multi-criteria ratings into single ratings and use any traditional recommendation technique to find the values. I.e., instead of f   : u × i → r 0 ,   r 1 , r 2 , … , r n   , use f   : u × i → r k , where ( k = 1 , 2 , … , n );
  • Define the function φ that can take multi-criteria ratings to produce r 0 , just as in Table 1, where the function was defined as the average of multiple ratings;
  • Lastly, Equation (13) will be used to predict r 0 .

3.1.7. Deep Learning-Based RS

Traditionally, RSs are based on clustering, nearest neighbor, and matrix factorization methods. Deep learning is a subset or type of machine learning method based on artificial neural networks that teach computers or machines by imitating how the human brain gains certain knowledge. Thus, deep learning is a neural network with more than three layers. In recent years, deep learning has seen tremendous growth in its popularity and usefulness, largely due to more powerful computers, larger datasets, and techniques to train deeper networks [34]. The influence of deep learning demonstrates its effectiveness when applied to RSs, as it has been dramatically changing recommendation architecture and providing more opportunities to improve the performance accuracy (e.g., recall, precision, etc.) of RSs [35]. Deep learning methods mainly used for RSs are deep belief networks (DBN), multilayer perception (MLP), auto-encoder (AE), convolutional neural networks (CNN), recurrent neural networks (RNN), restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM), neural autoregressive distribution estimation (NADE), and adversarial networks (AN) [35].

3.1.8. Other Techniques

Many researchers applied data mining techniques to improve the performance of RSs for learning. These techniques include neural networks, k-nearest neighbor, regression, association rule, decision trees, link analysis, support vector regression, and so on. Therefore, it is essential to classify RSs based on these data mining techniques.

3.2. Classification Based on Recommendation Goals

Building RSs for any application domain is associated with the user tasks that the system can support. Understanding the different goals for which RSs are being implemented can help researchers accurately evaluate the systems’ functions. Herlocker et al., in [36], have identified other user tasks that help to differentiate among various evaluation measures, where they categorize those user tasks and recommendation goals as follows:
  • Recommend Sequence: For recommending a series of related items;
  • Find Credible Recommenders: Making recommendations while at a testing stage;
  • Annotation in Context: Suggest an additional recommendation to the user while using the existing one;
  • Find Good Items: Recommending the user a ranked list of specific items;
  • Just Browsing: Recommend items even when the user did not request them;
  • Find All Good Items: Recommending all appropriate items.
Furthermore, according to [7], RSs for e-learning should achieve more goals than the recommendation goals identified by [36]. They, therefore, outlined three more recommendation tasks as enumerated below:
  • Find Novel Items: Provide the learner with novel or new learning objects;
  • Find Peers: Find and recommend other learners with similar interests as the learner;
  • Find Good Pathways: Recommending different possible learning pathways.

3.3. Classification Based on Platform

Research is continually carried out in RSs for different applications, and the implementation method is essential. Implementation of RSs can be done in four ways depending on the goal the researcher aims to achieve. Below are ways RSs can be implemented:
  • Online (also called web-based): implementation online can be accessed easily once the user has an electronic device connected to the internet;
  • Offline: it is an implementation that is not hosted on the web;
  • Chatbot: involves using an agent (a computer program that simulates and processes human conversations as if they were real people) to interact with users;
  • Mobile-based: an implementation that can be accessed via a mobile device.

3.4. Classification Based on User Type

RSs in e-learning can be implemented for several audiences depending on the problem it aims to solve. The system’s user type is important as it tells who will appropriately utilize it. In technology-enhanced learning, the users of the systems can be (but are not limited to) the students, teachers, or both teachers and students.

4. Results and Discussion

This survey was achieved by examining published articles found in central databases such as IEEE, ACM, ScienceDirect, WoS, Google Scholar, and Scopus. These articles were analyzed not just based on the classification method highlighted in Section 3, but the demographic distribution, recommendation element, and publication type were also considered. This section presents the result of the analysis conducted.

4.1. Recommendation Goals

The survey evaluated each proposed system’s goals using six user task categories. Still, due to a close similarity between the ”Find Good Items” and ”Find All Good Items” categories, we treat any paper that falls under these two classes as being in the same category. Moreover, we consider incomplete systems (work-in-progress papers) as part of our target papers if the required information can be identified. Table 2 presents the breakdown of the research papers investigated according to the recommendation goals. Furthermore, Figure 1 displays a simple statistical analysis of the number of research papers under each recommendation goal. Thus, it is apparent from Table 2 and the chart (Figure 1) that most of the work was conducted to provide a sequence or find all good learning objects.
Interestingly, all six recommendation goals have been covered by a reasonable sample of papers that support learners in accomplishing those specific tasks. The recommendation element was also covered in this survey. Most research papers reviewed recommended learning resources and courses for students or teachers. The study sequence, books, online courses, etc., were not left out of the recommendations. Figure 2 shows that most of the surveyed papers recommended learning resources, while projects, movies, learning design, journals/conferences, and difficulty ranking were the least recommended to learners.

4.2. Recommendation Techniques

Different recommendation techniques have been used in implementing various RSs. Table 3 presents all the papers based on the technique used and their corresponding years of publication to classify the research papers based on multiple recommendation techniques. To measure the annual frequencies of each RS technique, Figure 3 summarizes the number of paper publications under each category every year. Despite some of their weaknesses, it is apparent from this finding that the most used recommendation techniques are collaborative filtering and hybrid. Nevertheless, context-aware recommendations, a popular nontraditional technique that integrates usual recommendations with specific conditions under which recommendations should be made, have also been explored in building many RSs for learning. Previous sections of this paper have highlighted the significant advantages of using the multi-criteria recommendation technique, and its apparent benefits have been outlined in various works in the literature, such as in [27].
Based on our findings in terms of recommendation algorithms used, it was observed that recommendation approaches are becoming more evenly distributed as nontraditional techniques are still being explored for research in RSs to make learning more impactful. In this era of Big Data, implementing new techniques can significantly influence user satisfaction and provide a promising solution. In recent years, deep learning and other artificial intelligence techniques such as evolutionary computing, genetic algorithms, fuzzy logic, and Bayesian techniques are some of the “Other techniques” increasingly attracting considerable attention in RSs for learning.

4.3. Recommendation Based on Platform

As part of the survey from Figure 4, it was observed that only a few systems were implemented using chatbots and mobile. 1% of the implemented systems are mobile-based, which was the work of [57], and 2% of the implemented systems are chatbot-based RSs for learning which was the works of [100,143], while 59% were implemented online.

4.4. Recommendation Based on User Type

As pointed out in the introductory section, research has consistently shown that the scope of RSs for technology-enhanced learning does not only cover supporting learners with useful learning objects. It also supports teachers by providing teaching materials, recommending different motivational approaches to motivate their students, and assisting teachers in generating a lesson plan and other teaching activities. Unfortunately, issues related to building RSs for teachers have not been treated extensively compared to learner-based RSs. Among all the papers we surveyed, the dominating user type is students, as shown in Figure 5, while [43,47,96,97,118,136,143] 6% of all systems considered were built either specifically for teachers or for both teachers and students.
The sudden outburst of Covid-19 in 2020 has affected the educational pattern and shifted the method of learning to online, which many countries adopted. From the map in Figure 6 and Table 4, it can be observed that China, India, USA, and Morocco are the leading countries with the highest number of publications from our survey. The dark blue on the map shows the countries with the highest number of paper publications, and it fades as the number of publications reduces, e.g., Nigeria, Serbia, Czech, etc.

4.5. Classification Based on Publication Type

The current study was not explicitly designed to evaluate all research papers related to RSs. Instead, it was limited only to those systems that could be applied directly to technology-enhanced learning with students and teachers as the target users of the systems. Thus, 116 papers on RSs for learning were surveyed and classified according to the classification procedure. These papers are from conferences, journals, and book sections, with most of the surveyed papers being from conferences, as seen in Figure 7.

4.6. Deep Learning-Based RS in E-Learning Research

Deep learning-based RS has been implemented in e-learning mainly because of its flexibility, representation learning, sequence modeling, and nonlinear transformation. This section analyzes different works from the literature that have been proven to be effective and implemented using deep learning.
Ref. [42] proposed a content-based learning resource recommendation algorithm based on CNN to solve the automatic multimedia learning resource recommendation problem. The proposed CNN is used to predict the latent factors from the text information of multimedia resources. To train the CNN, the authors solved the input and output using a language model, a proposed latent factor model that was regularized by the L1-norm, and the split Bregman iteration method. Their proposed approach uses text information directly to make content-based recommendations without tagging. The authors believe that the Bregman iteration method greatly improves CNN training efficiency.
Ref. [53] aimed to explore how to take advantage of the existing MOOCs to improve the learning quality of formal courses provided by accredited educational establishments. Therefore, the authors proposed MOOCs RSs for formal learning platforms. The platform was able to recommend effective MOOCs to learners in the formal curriculum. Their proposed system is based on Siamese long short-term memory (LSTM) networks to measure the semantic similarity between courses’ descriptions.
Ref. [54] proposed a deep learning-based course recommendation model that generates views from a different perspective and makes intelligent course recommendations for students. The proposed approach was implemented by collecting various data types to generate student and curriculum models. The data were then generated by studying the actual relationship between specific models. Finally, a deep learning technique was used to extract key features, select different recommended features, and generate different views to further recommend to students.
Ref. [56] proposed a deep learning-based RS that simultaneously integrates content (heterogeneous) information and sequence data in the candidate-generation process. The proposed model utilizes the sequence data of user history and the item’s heterogeneous information to improve the prediction accuracy of deep RSs. Their proposed approach modified the first layer of the deep learning-based recommendation model by concatenating a vector containing data regarding item order. Thus, the average preference vector and the sequential preference vector models can be aware of more information on the user, leading to a more accurate recommendation.
Ref. [66] presents a novel model of full-path learning recommendation in an online learning environment. This model relies on clustering and machine learning techniques based on a feature similarity metric on learners. The proposed approach was implemented by clustering a collection of learners and training a long short-term memory (LSTM) model to predict their learning paths and performance. A personalized full-path learning recommendation was then selected from the results of path prediction for a full practical path recommendation specifically for test learners.
Ref. [88] proposed a recommendation framework for e-learning based on deep learning to solve the limitation of effective methods in e-learning. The proposed model was based on a strong capability to learn from a training set and improvements over previous methods. The model was trained using the traditional k-nearest neighbor (KNN) method, which guarantees the model’s accuracy. Their system recommends new items whose similarity cannot be calculated. Additionally, their approach greatly reduces the heavy burden of a running system, which is helpful in the actual practice of RSs. The authors concluded that the framework offers a new recommendation method for more personalized learning in the future.
Ref. [106] proposed a deep learning-based RS approach called neural collaborative filtering (NCF) for predicting the grade a student will earn in a course that he/she plans to take in the next term. The deep learning-inspired approach provided added flexibility in learning the latent spaces compared to previous grade prediction methods based on matrix factorization (MF), where students and courses are represented in a latent “knowledge” space. The proposed approach incorporated instructor information in addition to student and course information. Finally, for proper analysis of the learned model parameters, the authors assumed that the embeddings obtained for students, courses, and instructors should be non-negative. This non-negative NCF model, referred to as the NCFnn model, added a rectified linear unit (ReLU) on the embedding layer of NCF.
Ref. [115] proposed a novel deep reinforcement learning framework (DRE) for adaptively recommending exercises to students with the optimization of three objectives: review and explore, smoothness of difficulty level, and engagement. The framework proposed two different exercise Q-networks (EQN) to generate recommendations for an agent. The first one is a straightforward yet effective EQNM with the Markov property, where the next recommendations to students only depend on their current exercising performance. In contrast, the second is a more sophisticated EQNR with a recurrent manner, where they tracked all students’ exercising history to make decisions. Both architectures are model-free; thus, the authors did not need to calculate the state transitions in the exercise space. The authors also proposed three novel reward functions to formally capture and quantify those three objectives so that the DRE could update and optimize its recommendation strategy by interactively receiving students’ performance feedback.
Ref. [116] introduced a novel goal-based RS based on adaptations of RNN for suggesting courses to help students prepare for target courses of interest, personalized to their estimated prior knowledge background and zone of proximal development. The authors validated several model variations against test sets representing the tasks of grade prediction, prerequisite prediction, and course selection prediction. These three prediction validations were chosen to suggest whether the approach warranted testing in the wild. The proposed approach model’s definition was based on a popular variant of RNNs called LSTM. LSTM was used because it helps RNNs to learn temporal dependencies by adding several gates, which can retrain and forget select information.
Ref. [122] proposed a time slice imputation for personalized goal-based RSs in higher education. This paper builds on previous research in [110] by improving the tractability of generating a recommendation from the architecture introduced in [110] and applying this improvement to the task of course preparation recommendation, as it was applied in the prior work, and extending its application to MOOC quiz preparation, where it has not yet been applied. The proposed improvement in tractability was achieved by treating the space of recommendations (e.g., courses or course pages) as weights in a neural network that stochastic gradient descent can learn on a per-learner basis to optimize for a future goal (e.g., grade on a course or quiz), while the prior work [110] approached this optimization by enumerating every possible recommendation and evaluating it as an input to the model.
Ref. [125] proposed an attention-based CNN to obtain a user’s profile, predict user ratings, and recommend the top n courses for MOOC learners. The proposed approach was implemented by first representing learner behaviors and learning histories into feature vectors. The attention mechanism was then used to train the neural network to improve relevance estimation according to the differences between the estimation scores and the actual scores given by users. Finally, the trained model recommended courses to learners. The authors presented a web-based course RS framework. Their proposed system can identify the learning habits of students and assist them in identifying preferred courses. However, it may still suffer the problem of recommending similar courses due to the huge number of courses with the development of MOOCs.
Ref. [132] proposed a personalized course recommendation system based on eye-tracking technology and deep learning. The proposed approach is a novel click-through rate (CTR) model for personalized online course recommendations with discriminative user, item, and cross features. The feature representation ability of the CTR model was improved, and the serious challenge of cold-start problems was alleviated. Furthermore, transfer learning was introduced to deal with the problem of insufficient data in model training. More specially, eye-tracking technology was applied to learn the users’ cognitive styles, which are visualized with a heat map and fixation point trajectory to achieve a reasonable interface for personalized course recommendations. Finally, the recommendation interface was sent to the learners according to the users’ cognitive styles.
Ref. [142] proposed an efficient e-learning recommendation (EELR) system for user preferences using a hybrid optimization algorithm (HOA). The EELR system constructs an HOA with a deep recurrent neural network (DRNN) and an improved whale optimization (IWO) algorithm. The proposed approach was implemented by first utilizing DRNN to order and analyze the e-learner types with their group, which was used to classify with deep multi-layers. After that, the learners’ conduct and inclinations were examined by completing the mining of the arrangements observed frequently by the IWO calculation. Finally, the proposal of e-learning depends on the appraisals compared to these arrangements observed frequently. This proposed system was to implement and validate numerous e-learning entries against client inclinations over some undefined time frame and proved to be more proficient and exact in contrast with the customary recommender framework. The authors concluded that this strategy could help learners to grasp the knowledge system and learning direction and improve their learning efficiency.

5. Conclusions and Future Work

RSs for learning has become an independent and vital research domain aimed at designing, implementing, testing, and evaluating systems to know how efficient recommendation algorithms are or investigate t whole systems’ performances. Other evaluation methods include assessing the impact of systems toward achieving desired learning goals and measuring users’ satisfaction and trust in systems. Different systems have been developed to run on various computer devices and environments. This research was undertaken to give an overview of various RS techniques and statistics of research papers on RSs for learning based on (1) the technique(s) used to design and implement the system; (2) the users’ tasks supported by the systems; (3) the platforms (chatbot, mobile or web-based); and (4) the kind of users of the system (students or teachers).
This survey has shown significant findings regarding the recommendation goals, techniques, and platforms used for its implementation. Firstly, it was observed that a great deal of research was implemented using traditional techniques, mostly collaborative filtering and hybrid approaches. Still, a substantial number of works also followed either deep learning, hybrid, or context-aware recommendation techniques, which are considered more efficient than traditional methods. Secondly, in terms of supporting user tasks, it was shown that most systems either recommended “sequence” or “find all good learning objects” to the learner. The third significant finding concerned the platforms for which the proposed systems were designed to run, showing that very few systems were designed to run on mobile platforms. This result has shown a great need to improve and change our research direction toward mobile-based applications, as much of the current literature has confirmed that smartphones and tablets reduce the frequency of using ordinary cell phones and, to a large extent, replace personal computers and other devices. One of the most striking new recommendation techniques that can significantly improve recommendation accuracy is the multi-criteria recommendation technique, which has been used and proven by researchers in industries and academic institutions to provide more accurate predictions than traditional techniques [152]. Many researchers have also established its efficiency in the RS domain [27]. Few recent research publications, such as [48,72,84,91,120], have applied the multi-criteria recommendation technique.
Nevertheless, another emerging area that goes in line with RSs for learning in terms of faster growth and development is the domain of social networking, which, if integrated with RSs for learning, can enable learners to connect, communicate, and share knowledge online. Fulfilling this can make social media and RSs major players in e-learning, as many learners can get in touch with each other in various ways. Unfortunately, even though it is not clearly stated within the aim of this survey, we tried to filter those systems developed to take advantage of social media to improve learning object recommendation. None of the papers were purposely designed as social network-based RSs for learning. The implication is that there is a need for research in this domain to focus on merging different social network sites with RSs for effective learning object recommendations.
Generally, some gaps were identified in this survey. Due to these gaps, we suggested that future work should focus on the following:
  • Building RSs for learning to support various user tasks to provide serendipitous recommendations;
  • Putting more effort into developing mobile-based and chatbot-based RSs for learning;
  • Building RSs specifically for teachers, as only 6% of our reviewed papers were designed to be used by teachers;
  • Nontraditional RSs, especially multi-criteria ratings RSs, which have direct applications in this domain, are also promising approaches for future work. Moreover, the primary concern still open to the RSs community is finding suitable optimization algorithms that can explore the relationships between multiple ratings to compute an overall rating [153]. Future research needs to explore selection techniques such as intelligent data pre-processing and segmentation to ascertain the best criteria for modeling multi-criteria RSs for learning.
  • Integrating learning styles into learning systems can lead to an intelligent and adaptive learning system that can adjust the content to ensure faster and better performance in the learning process [154]. Several systems, such as [148], proposed assessing students’ learning styles, which can be easily extended to a context-aware recommendation;
  • Most researchers followed a traditional approach; therefore, more efforts similar to introducing transfer learning, as suggested by [148], need to be put in place to tackle data sparsity problems in collaborative filtering and over-specialization problems in content-based filtering. These problems can be mitigated by successfully implementing serendipitous RSs for learning. Further work is required to build RSs for learning to solve these problems and avoid recommending apparent items;
  • As mentioned in the last paragraph, one of the outstanding issues for RSs for learning is the modern-day changes that show how social media has become a significant player in almost all our daily activities. Consequently, the challenge lies in following this trend and developing social network-based RSs for learning; this will be an exciting area for future research.
While the paper overcame the limitations of most recent surveys by considering research papers from journals and conferences and by examining papers irrespective of the country, due to practical constraints and the language barrier, the reader should bear in mind that the study was based on papers written in English. Therefore, one possible extension of the current study is to consider non-English papers, master and doctoral dissertations, related works from textbooks, news articles, and so on to provide an extended classification model.
Furthermore, searching the reviewed papers was performed using keywords related to RSs and learning, such as personalized systems, using names of recommendation techniques, journals, and conference proceedings, in addition to the keywords mentioned on the first page of the paper. In addition to these keywords and phrases, we did not search papers using names of other data mining techniques or authors whose research interest is mainly on RSs for learning. Other possible means of searching could be names of subcategories of recommendation techniques such as case-based reasoning, attribute-based and demographic-based techniques, and other non-English words that describe the system in another language. Further studies that consider these new search techniques will need to be undertaken.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S. and M.H. (Mohammed Hassan); methodology, L.S. and M.H. (Mohammed Hassan); investigation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S., M.H. (Mohamed Hamada) and M.H. (Mohammed Hassan); writing—review and editing, L.S., M.H. (Mohamed Hamada), R.P., M.H. (Mohammed Hassan), A.M. and Y.W.; visualization, L.S.; supervision, M.H. (Mohamed Hamada) and M.H. (Mohammed Hassan). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Urdaneta-Ponte, M.C.; Mendez-Zorrilla, A.; Oleagordia-Ruiz, I. Recommendation Systems for Education: Systematic Review. Electronics 2021, 10, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gupta, V.; Pandey, S.R. Recommender Systems for Digital Libraries: A Review of Concepts and Concerns. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-J.) 2019, 2417, 1–9. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2417 (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  3. Bhanuse, R.; Mal, S. A Systematic Review: Deep Learning Based E-Learning Recommendation System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Smart Systems, ICAIS 2021, Coimbatore, India, 25–27 March 2021; pp. 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Saito, T.; Watanobe, Y. Learning Path Recommendation System for Programming Education Based on Neural Networks. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 2020, 18, 36–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Manouselis, N.; Drachsler, H.; Verbert, K.; Santos, O.C. Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Trends and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781493905300. [Google Scholar]
  6. MacHado, G.M.; Boyer, A. Learning Path Recommender Systems: A Systematic Mapping. In Proceedings of the UMAP 2021-Adjunct Publication of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 21–25 June 2021; Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 95–99. [Google Scholar]
  7. Manouselis, N.; Drachsler, H.; Vuorikari, R.; Hummel, H.; Koper, R. Recommender Systems in Technology Enhanced Learning. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 387–415. [Google Scholar]
  8. Adomavicius, G.; Tuzhilin, A. Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State of the Art and Possible Extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2005, 17, 734–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Souabi, S.; Retbi, A.; Idrissi, M.K.I.K.; Bennani, S. Recommendation Systems on E-Learning and Social Learning—A Systematic Review. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2021, 19, 432–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cui, L.Z.; Guo, F.L.; Liang, Y.J. Research Overview of Educational Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering-CSAE ’18, Hohhot, China, 22–24 October 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. da Silva, F.L.; Slodkowski, B.K.; da Silva, K.K.A.; Cazella, S.C. A Systematic Literature Review on Educational Recommender Systems for Teaching and Learning: Research Trends, Limitations and Opportunities. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022. Online first publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Drachsler, H.; Verbert, K.; Santos, O.C.; Manouselis, N. Panorama of Recommender Systems to Support Learning. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 421–451. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mccalla, G. The Ecological Approach to the Design of E-Learning Environments: Purpose-Based Capture and Use of Information About Learners. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2004, 2004, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Khanal, S.S.; Prasad, P.W.C.; Alsadoon, A.; Maag, A. A Systematic Review: Machine Learning Based Recommendation Systems for e-Learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 2635–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Q.; Lu, J.; Zhang, G. Recommender Systems in E-Learning. J. Smart Environ. Green Comput. 2021, 1, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rivera, A.C.; Tapia-Leon, M.; Lujan-Mora, S. Recommendation Systems in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology & Systems (ICITS 2018), Libertad City, Ecuador, 10–12 January 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 721, pp. 937–947. [Google Scholar]
  17. Salazar, C.; Aguilar, J.; Monsalve-Pulido, J.; Montoya, E. Affective Recommender Systems in the Educational Field. A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2021, 40, 100377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Erdt, M.; Fernández, A.; Rensing, C. Evaluating Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning: A Quantitative Survey. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2015, 8, 326–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M. Recommending Learning Peers for Collaborative Learning through Social Network Sites. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation, ISMS, Bangkok, Thailand, 25–27 January 2016; IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 60–63. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mohamed, H.; Abdulsalam, L.; Mohammed, H. Adaptive Genetic Algorithm for Improving Prediction Accuracy of a Multi-Criteria Recommender System. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Many-Core Systems-on-Chip, MCSoC 2018, Hanoi, Vietnam, 12–14 September 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  21. Breese, J.S.; Heckerman, D.; Kadie, C. Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the UAI’98: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, USA, 24–26 July 1998; pp. 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  22. Charu, C.A. Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Q.; Ma, H.; Chen, E.; Xiong, H. A Survey of Context-Aware Mobile Recommendations. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2013, 12, 139–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Floor, V.S. Context-Aware Recommender Systems; Universiteit Utrecht: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Verbert, K.; Manouselis, N.; Ochoa, X.; Wolpers, M.; Drachsler, H.; Bosnic, I.; Duval, E. Context-Aware Recommender Systems for Learning: A Survey and Future Challenges. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2012, 5, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gediminas, A.; Alexander, T. Context-Aware Recommender Systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 207–247. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gediminas, A.; Nikos, M.; YoungOk, K. Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 854–887. [Google Scholar]
  28. Adomavicius, G.; Kwon, Y. New Recommendation Techniques for Multicriteria Rating Systems. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2007, 22, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M.; Ilu, S.Y. A Multi-Criteria Recommendation Framework Using Adaptive Linear Neuron. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2020, 11, 796–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hamada, M.; Ometere, A.L.; Bridget, O.N.; Hassan, M.; Ilu, S.Y. A Fuzzy-Based Approach and Adaptive Genetic Algorithm in Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. 2019, 4, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Hamada, M.; Hassan, M. Artificial Neural Networks and Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithms for Preference Prediction in Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems. Informatics 2018, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M. Smart Media-Based Context-Aware Recommender Systems for Learning: A Conceptual Framework. In Proceedings of the 2017 16th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, ITHET 2017, Ohrid, Macedonia, 10–12 July 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M. A Neural Networks Approach for Improving the Accuracy of Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Ian, G.; Yoshua, B.; Aaron, C. Deep Learning; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, S.; Yao, L.; Sun, A.; Tay, Y. Deep Learning Based Recommender System: A Survey and New Perspectives. ACM Comput. Surv. 2019, 52, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Herlocker, J.L.; Konstan, J.A.; Terveen, L.G.; Riedl, J.T. Evaluating Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2004, 22, 5–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ganeshan, K.; Li, X. An Intelligent Student Advising System Using Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), El Paso, TX, USA, 21–24 October 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Behar, P.A.; da Silva, K.K.A.; Schneider, D.; Cazella, S.C.; Torrezzan, C.A.W.; Heis, E. Development and System Assessment of Learning Object Recommendation Based on Competency: RecOAComp. In Proceedings of the IC3K 2015: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–14 November 2015; Volume 3, pp. 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, T.; Hong, L.; Shi, Y.; Sun, Y. Joint Text Embedding for Personalized Content-Based Recommendation. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1706.01084. [Google Scholar]
  40. Dwivedi, S.; Roshni, K.V. Recommender System for Big Data in Education. In Proceedings of the 2017 5th National Conference on E-Learning & E-Learning Technologies (ELELTECH), Hyderabad, India, 3–4 August 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bhumichitr, K.; Channarukul, S.; Saejiem, N.; Jiamthapthaksin, R.; Nongpong, K. Recommender Systems for University Elective Course Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, JCSSE 2017, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand, 12–14 July 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  42. Shu, J.; Shen, X.; Liu, H.; Yi, B.; Zhang, Z. A Content-Based Recommendation Algorithm for Learning Resources. Multimed. Syst. 2018, 24, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, Z.; Xie, X.; Chen, L. Context-Aware Academic Collaborator Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, London, UK, 19–23 August 2018; pp. 1870–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Santos, O.C.; Boticario, J.G. User-Centred Design and Educational Data Mining Support during the Recommendations Elicitation Process in Social Online Learning Environments. Expert Syst. 2015, 32, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tejeda-Lorente, Á.; Bernabé-Moreno, J.; Porcel, C.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; Herrera-Viedma, E. A Dynamic Recommender System as Reinforcement for Personalized Education by a Fuzzly Linguistic Web System. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 55, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Zheng, X.L.; Chen, C.C.; Hung, J.L.; He, W.; Hong, F.X.; Lin, Z. A Hybrid Trust-Based Recommender System for Online Communities of Practice. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2015, 8, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sergis, S.; Sampson, D.G. Enhancing Learning Object Recommendations for Teachers Using Adaptive Neighbor Selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies: Advanced Technologies for Supporting Open Access to Formal and Informal Learning, ICALT 2015, Hualien, Taiwan, 6–9 July 2015; pp. 391–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Park, Y. Supporting Student Success in Computing Courses through Personalized Peer Advice. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, Trondheim, Norway, 17–19 June 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 1329. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ye, M.; Tang, Z.; Xu, J.; Jin, L. Recommender System for E-Learning Based on Semantic Relatedness of Concepts. Information 2015, 6, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rodríguez, P.A.; Ovalle, D.A.; Duque, N.D. A Student-Centered Hybrid Recommender System to Provide Relevant Learning Objects from Repositories. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 9192, pp. 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, J.; Xing, T.; van der Schaar, M. Personalized Course Sequence Recommendations. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2016, 64, 5340–5352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Klašnja-Milićević, A.; Vesin, B.; Ivanović, M. Social Tagging Strategy for Enhancing E-Learning Experience. Comput. Educ. 2018, 118, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mrhar, K.; Abik, M. Toward a Deep Recommender System for MOOCs Platforms. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, ICAAI 2019, Istanbul, Turkey, 26 October 2019; pp. 173–177. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pan, X.; Li, X.; Lu, M. A MultiView Courses Recommendation System Based on Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Big Data and Informatization Education, ICBDIE 2020, Zhangjiajie, China, 23–25 April 2020; pp. 502–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Morrow, T.; Hurson, A.R.; Sedigh Sarvestani, S. Algorithmic Support for Personalized Course Selection and Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 44th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2020, Madrid, Spain, 13–17 July 2020; pp. 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ilyosov, A.; Kutlimuratov, A.; Whangbo, T.-K. Deep-Sequence-Aware Candidate Generation for e-Learning System. Processes 2021, 9, 1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Do, P.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, V.T.; Dung, T.N. A Context-Aware Recommendation Framework in e-Learning Environment. In Future Data and Security Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 9446, pp. 272–284. [Google Scholar]
  58. Anderson, C.; Suarez, I.; Xu, Y.; David, K. An Ontology-Based Reasoning Framework for Context-Aware Applications. Proceedings of 9th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 2015), Lanarca, Cyprus, 2–6 November 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 9405, pp. 471–476. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dwivedi, S.K.; Rawat, B. An Architecture for Recommendation of Courses in E-Learning. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. 2017, 9, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Moore, P.; Zhao, Z.; van Pham, H. Towards Cloud-Based Personalised Student-Centric Context-Aware e-Learning Pedagogic Systems. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2019, 993, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wibowotomo, B.; Rizal, E.D.S.; Akbar, M.I.; Kurniawan, D.T. Cooking Class Recommendation Using Content Based Filtering for Improving Chef Learning Practical Skill. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. (iJIM) 2021, 15, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Montuschi, P.; Lamberti, F.; Gatteschi, V.; Demartini, C. A Semantic Recommender System for Adaptive Learning. IT Prof. 2015, 17, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Meryem, G.; Douzi, K.; Chantit, S. Toward an E-Orientation Platform: Using Hybrid Recommendation Systems. In Proceedings of the SITA 2016-11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, Mohammedia, Morocco, 19–20 October 2016; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  64. Dwivedi, P.; Kant, V.; Bharadwaj, K.K. Learning Path Recommendation Based on Modified Variable Length Genetic Algorithm. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 819–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Obeid, C.; Lahoud, I.; el Khoury, H.; Champin, P.A. Ontology-Based Recommender System in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1031–1034. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhou, Y.; Huang, C.; Hu, Q.; Zhu, J.; Tang, Y. Personalized Learning Full-Path Recommendation Model Based on LSTM Neural Networks. Inf. Sci. 2018, 444, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shi, D.; Wang, T.; Xing, H.; Xu, H. A Learning Path Recommendation Model Based on a Multidimensional Knowledge Graph Framework for E-Learning. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020, 195, 105618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alshaikh, K.; Bahurmuz, N.; Torabah, O.; Alzahrani, S.; Alshingiti, Z.; Meccawy, M. Using Recommender Systems for Matching Students with Suitable Specialization: An Exploratory Study at King Abdulaziz University. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021, 16, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Son, N.T.; Jaafar, J.; Aziz, I.A.; Anh, B.N. Meta-Heuristic Algorithms for Learning Path Recommender at MOOC. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 59093–59107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fraihat, S.; Shambour, Q. A Framework of Semantic Recommender System for E-Learning. J. Softw. 2015, 10, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Wu, D.; Lu, J.; Zhang, G. A Fuzzy Tree Matching-Based Personalized E-Learning Recommender System. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 23, 2412–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bokde, D.K.; Girase, S.; Mukhopadhyay, D. An Approach to a University Recommendation by Multi-Criteria Collaborative Filtering and Dimensionality Reduction Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Nanoelectronic and Information Systems, Indore, India, 21–23 December 2015; Volume 9418, pp. 231–236. [Google Scholar]
  73. Han, J.W.; Jo, J.C.; Ji, H.S.; Lim, H.S. A Collaborative Recommender System for Learning Courses Considering the Relevance of a Learner’s Learning Skills. Clust. Comput. 2016, 19, 2273–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jose, A.; Priscila, V.-D.; Guido, R. A Fuzzy Cognitive Map like Recommender System of Learning Resources. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, FUZZ-IEEE 2016, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–29 July 2016; pp. 1539–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Al-Badarenah, A.; Alsakran, J. An Automated Recommender System for Course Selection. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2016, 7, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Elbadrawy, A.; Karypis, G. Domain-Aware Grade Prediction and Top-n Course Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 15–19 September 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 183–190. [Google Scholar]
  77. Outmane, B.; Essaid, E.B. E-Learning Personalization Based on Collaborative Filtering and Learner’s Preference. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 11, 1565–1581. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hasan, M.; Ahmed, S.; Abdullah, D.M.; Rahman, M.S. Graduate School Recommender System: Assisting Admission Seekers to Apply for Graduate Studies in Appropriate Graduate Schools. In Proceedings of the 2016 5th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics and Vision, ICIEV 2016, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 13–14 May 2016; pp. 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Symeonidis, P.; Malakoudis, D. MoocRec.Com: Massive Open Online Courses Recommender System. In Proceedings of the Poster Track of the 10th (ACM) Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2016, Boston, MA, USA, 17 September 2016; Available online: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1688/paper-01.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  80. Khacheb, A.; Belcadhi, L.C. Open Assessment Resources Recommendation for Competence Assessment. In Proceedings of the TEEM ‘16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 2–4 November 2016; ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 395–400. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kurilovas, E.; Kurilova, J.; Kurilova, I.; Melesko, J. Personalised Learning System Based on Students’ Learning Styles and Application of Intelligent Technologies. In Proceedings of the ICERI2016 Proceedings, Seville, Spain, 14–16 November 2016; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 6976–6986. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kuznetsov, S.; Kordík, P.; Řehořek, T.; Dvořák, J.; Kroha, P. Reducing Cold Start Problems in Educational Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks 2016, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–29 July 2016; pp. 3143–3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fazeli, S.; Lezcano, L.; Rajabi, E.; Drachsler, H.; Sloep, P. Supporting Users of Open Online Courses with Recommendations: An Algorithmic Study. In Proceedings of the IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2016, Austin, TX, USA, 25–28 July 2016; pp. 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Bankshinategh, B.; Spanakis, G.; Zaiane, O.; ElAtia, S. A Course Recommender System Based on Graduating Attributes. In Proceedings of the CSEDU 2017-Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Porto, Portugal, 21–23 April 2017; Volume 1, pp. 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tarus, J.K.; Niu, Z.; Yousif, A. A Hybrid Knowledge-Based Recommender System for e-Learning Based on Ontology and Sequential Pattern Mining. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 72, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Xiao, J.; Wang, M.; Jiang, B.; Li, J. A Personalized Recommendation System with Combinational Algorithm for Online Learning. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2018, 9, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, T. Collaborative Filtering Recommendation for MOOC Application. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2017, 25, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, S.; Liu, X.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, F.Y. E-Learning Recommendation Framework Based on Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2017, Banff, AB, Canada, 5–8 October 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 455–460. [Google Scholar]
  89. Hariadi, A.I.; Nurjanah, D. Hybrid Attribute and Personality Based Recommender System for Book Recommendation. Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering, ICoDSE 2017, Palembang, Indonesia, 1–2 November 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Turnip, R.; Nurjanah, D.; Kusumo, D.S. Hybrid Recommender System for Learning Material Using Content-Based Filtering and Collaborative Filtering with Good Learners’ Rating. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services, IC3e 2017, Miri, Malaysia, 16–17 November 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 61–66. [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhang, H.; Huang, T.; Lv, Z.; Liu, S.Y.; Zhou, Z. MCRS: A Course Recommendation System for MOOCs. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2017, 77, 7051–7069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ochirbat, A.; Shih, T.K. Occupation Recommendation with Major Programs for Adolescents. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Grids and Clouds 2017-ISGC 2017, Taipei, Taiwan, 5–10 March 2017; SISSA Medialab: Trieste, Italy, 2017; Volume 293, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  93. el Mabrouk, M.; Gaou, S.; Rtili, M.K. Towards an Intelligent Hybrid Recommendation System for E-Learning Platforms Using Data Mining. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2017, 12, 52–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chicaiza, J.; Piedra, N.; Lopez-Vargas, J.; Tovar-Caro, E. Recommendation of Open Educational Resources. An Approach Based on Linked Open Data. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017; IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 1316–1321. [Google Scholar]
  95. Patel, B.; Kakuste, V.; Eirinaki, M. CaPaR: A Career Path Recommendation Framework. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications, BigDataService 2017, Redwood City, CA, USA, 6–9 April 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  96. Wang, D.; Liang, Y.; Xu, D.; Feng, X.; Guan, R. A Content-Based Recommender System for Computer Science Publications. Knowl. Based Syst. 2018, 157, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Karga, S.; Satratzemi, M. A Hybrid Recommender System Integrated into LAMS for Learning Designers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 1297–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mbipom, B.; Massie, S.; Craw, S. An E-Learning Recommender That Helps Learners Find the Right Materials. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–7 February 2018; Volume 32. [Google Scholar]
  99. Li, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, S.; Zhong, Z.; Cheng, J. Intelligent Learning System Based on Personalized Recommendation Technology. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 4455–4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Souali, K.; Rahmaoui, O.; Ouzzif, M. Introducing a Traceability Based Recommendation Approach Using Chatbot for E-Learning Platforms. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2019, 915, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Albatayneh, N.A.; Ghauth, K.I.; Chua, F.-F. Utilizing Learners’ Negative Ratings in Semantic Content-Based Recommender System for e-Learning Forum. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2018, 21, 112–125. [Google Scholar]
  102. Zhao, Q.; Wang, C.; Wang, P.; Zhou, M.; Jiang, C. A Novel Method on Information Recommendation via Hybrid Similarity. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2018, 48, 448–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhu, H.; Liu, Y.; Tian, F.; Ni, Y.; Wu, K.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Q. A Cross-Curriculum Video Recommendation Algorithm Based on a Video-Associated Knowledge Map. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 57562–57571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Huo, Y.; Xiao, J.; Ni, L.M. Towards Personalized Learning Through Class Contextual Factors-Based Exercise Recommendation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems-ICPADS, Singapore, 11–13 December 2018; IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Volume 2018, pp. 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hinz, V.T.; Pimenta, M.S. Integrating Reputation to Recommendation Techniques in an E-Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 2018 17th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, ITHET 2018, Olhao, Portugal, 26–28 April 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ren, Z.; Ning, X.; Lan, A.S.; Rangwala, H. Grade Prediction with Neural Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 2019, Washington, DC, USA, 5–8 October 2019; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  107. Liu, X. A Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithm Based on the Influence Sets of E-Learning Group’s Behavior. Clust. Comput. 2019, 22, 2823–2833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Segal, A.; Gal, K.; Shani, G.; Shapira, B. A Difficulty Ranking Approach to Personalization in E-Learning. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 130, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Britto, J.; Prabhu, S.; Gawali, A.; Jadhav, Y. A Machine Learning Based Approach for Recommending Courses at Graduate Level. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology, ICSSIT 2019, Tirunelveli, India, 27–29 November 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 117–121. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gianotti, R.C.; Cazella, S.C.; Behar, P.A. A Model for Integrating Personality Traits into an Educational Recommender System. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2019, Maceio, Brazil, 15–18 July 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 383–385. [Google Scholar]
  111. Slim, A.; Hush, D.; Ojha, T.; Abdallah, C.; Heileman, G.; El-Howayek, G. An Automated Framework to Recommend a Suitable Academic Program, Course and Instructor. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Service and Applications, BigDataService 2019, Workshop on Big Data in Water Resources, Environment, and Hydraulic Engineering and Workshop on Medical, Healthcare, Using Big Data Technologies, Newark, CA, USA, 4–9 April 2019; pp. 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vaidhehi, V.; Suchithra, R. An Enhanced Approach Using Collaborative Filtering for Generating under Graduate Program Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Advanced Computational and Communication Paradigms, ICACCP 2019, Gangtok, India, 25–28 February 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  113. Morsomme, R.; Vazquez Alferez, S. Content-Based Course Recommender System for Liberal Arts Education. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2019), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2–5 July 2019; pp. 748–753. [Google Scholar]
  114. Baidada, M.; Mansouri, K.; Poirier, F. Development of an Automatic Process for Recommending Well Adapted Educational Resources in an E-Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Congress on Information Science and Technology, CiSt, Agadir-Essaouira, Morocco, Russia, 5–12 June 2020; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 231–235. [Google Scholar]
  115. Huang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Zhai, C.; Yin, Y.; Chen, E.; Gao, W.; Hu, G. Exploring Multi-Objective Exercise Recommendations in Online Education Systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Beijing, China, 3–7 November 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1261–1270. [Google Scholar]
  116. Jiang, W.; Pardos, Z.A.; Wei, Q. Goal-Based Course Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Tempe, AZ, USA, 4–8 March 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  117. Vina, Z.K.; Eko, S. Rosmasari KNN and Naive Bayes for Optional Advanced Courses Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Information Engineering (ICEEIE), Denpasar, Indonesia, 3–4 October 2019; pp. 306–309. [Google Scholar]
  118. Samin, H.; Azim, T. Knowledge Based Recommender System for Academia Using Machine Learning: A Case Study on Higher Education Landscape of Pakistan. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 67081–67093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Dahdouh, K.; Dakkak, A.; Oughdir, L.; Ibriz, A. Large-Scale e-Learning Recommender System Based on Spark and Hadoop. J. Big Data 2019, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Wei, P.; Li, L. Online Education Recommendation Model Based on User Behavior Data Analysis. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 37, 4725–4733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Shi, K.; Wen, B.; Wang, J.; Ouyang, Z. Research for Personalized Learning Reasource Recommendation Model Based on Academic Emotions. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization, CSEI, Kunming, China, 16–19 August 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 255–258. [Google Scholar]
  122. Weijie, J.; Zachary, A.P. Time Slice Imputation for Personalized Goal-Based Recommendation in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16–20 September 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 506–510. [Google Scholar]
  123. Niyigena, J.P.; Jiang, Q. A Hybrid Model for E-Learning Resources Recommendations in the Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Deep Learning Technologies, Beijing, China, 10–12 July 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Isma’Il, M.; Haruna, U.; Aliyu, G.; Abdulmumin, I.; Adamu, S. An Autonomous Courses Recommender System for Undergraduate Using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference in Mathematics, Computer Engineering and Computer Science, ICMCECS 2020, Ayobo, Lagos, Nigeria, 18–21 March 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wang, J.; Xie, H.; Au, O.T.S.; Zou, D.; Wang, F.L. Attention-Based CNN for Personalized Course Recommendations for MOOC Learners. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology, ISET 2020, Bangkok, Thailand, 24–27 August 2020; pp. 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Li, J.; Ye, Z. Course Recommendations in Online Education Based on Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithm. Complexity 2020, 2020, 6619249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wu, W.; Wang, B.; Zheng, W.; Liu, Y.; Yin, L. Higher Education Online Courses Personalized Recommendation Algorithm Based on Score and Attributes. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1673, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Tavakoli, M.; Mol, S.T.; Kismihók, G. Labour Market Information Driven, Personalized, OER Recommendation System for Lifelong Learners. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU 2020, Prague, Czech Republic, 2–4 May 2020; Volume 2, pp. 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Liao, T.; Feng, X.; Sun, Y.; Wang, H.; Liao, C.; Li, Y. Online Teaching Platform Based on Big Data Recommendation System. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations, ICIEI 2020, London, UK, 26–28 July 2020; pp. 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lalitha, T.B.; Sreeja, P.S. Personalised Self-Directed Learning Recommendation System. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 171, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wang, C.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, X.; Chen, E.; Xiong, H. Personalized Employee Training Course Recommendation with Career Development Awareness. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020-Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, 20–24 April 2020; pp. 1648–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chen, Q.; Yu, X.; Liu, N.; Yuan, X.; Wang, Z. Personalized Course Recommendation Based on Eye-Tracking Technology and Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 2020, Sydney, Australia, 6–9 October 2020; pp. 692–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wan, N.; Wu, X.; Guo, S.; Yang, L.; Han, Q.; Yin, R. Research on Personalized Recommendation of Learning Resource Based on Big Data of Education. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization, CSEI 2020, Xinxiang, China, 12–14 June 2020; pp. 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Suganya, G.; Premalatha, M.; Dubey, P.; Drolia, A.R.; Srihari, S. Subjective Areas of Improvement: A Personalized Recommendation. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Slimani, H.; Hamal, O.; el Faddouli, N.E.; Bennani, S.; Amrous, N. The Hybrid Recommendation of Digital Educational Resources in a Distance Learning Environment: The Case of MOOC. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, SITA’20, Rabat, Morocco, 23–24 September 2020; pp. 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Sebbaq, H.; el Faddouli, N.E.; Bennani, S. Recommender System to Support Moocs Teachers: Framework Based on Ontology and Linked Data. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, SITA’20, Rabat, Morocco, 23–24 September 2020; pp. 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wu, Z.; Tang, Y.; Liang, Q. A Course Recommendation System Oriented to Multiple Condition Constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Educational Technology, ICET 2021, Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2021; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  138. Emon, M.I.; Shahiduzzaman, M.; Rakib, M.R.H.; Shathee, M.S.A.; Saha, S.; Kamran, M.N.; Fahim, J.H. Profile Based Course Recommendation System Using Association Rule Mining and Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Science & Contemporary Technologies (ICSCT), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 5–7 August 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  139. Tembo, S.; Chen, J. Personalised Material and Course Recommendation System for High School Students. In Book Artificial Intelligence in Education and Teaching Assessment, 1st ed.; Wei, W., Guangming, W., Xiaoming, D., Baoju, Z., Eds.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2021; pp. 175–184. [Google Scholar]
  140. Rezende, P.; Campos, F. BROAD-RS: Agent Based Architecture for Educational Context-Aware Recommendation. Lynx 2021, 1, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lang, F.; Liang, L.; Huang, K.; Chen, T.; Zhu, S. Movie Recommendation System for Educational Purposes Based on Field-Aware Factorization Machine. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2021, 26, 2199–2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vedavathi, N.; Anil Kumar, K.M. An Efficient E-Learning Recommendation System for User Preferences Using Hybrid Optimization Algorithm. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 9377–9388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ali, S.; Hafeez, Y.; Humayun, M.; Jamail, N.S.M.; Aqib, M.; Nawaz, A. Enabling Recommendation System Architecture in Virtualized Environment for E-Learning. Egypt. Inform. J. 2021, 23, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bhaskaran, S.; Marappan, R. Design and Analysis of an Efficient Machine Learning Based Hybrid Recommendation System with Enhanced Density-Based Spatial Clustering for Digital e-Learning Applications. Complex Intell. Syst. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bhaskaran, S.; Marappan, R.; Santhi, B. Design and Analysis of a Cluster-Based Intelligent Hybrid Recommendation System for E-Learning Applications. Mathematics 2021, 9, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Khalifeh, S.; Al-Mousa, A. A Book Recommender System Using Collaborative Filtering Method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems, DATA’21, Ma’an, Jordan, 5–7 April 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 131–135. [Google Scholar]
  147. Joy, J.; Raj, N.S.; Renumol, V.G. Ontology-Based E-Learning Content Recommender System for Addressing the Pure Cold-Start Problem. J. Data Inf. Qual. 2021, 13, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Diao, X.; Zeng, Q.; Duan, H.; Song, Z.; Zhou, C. Personalized Learning Resource Recommendation Based on Course Ontology and Cognitive Ability. J. Comput. 2021, 32, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Azouzi, S.; Hajlaoui, J.E.; Brahmi, Z.; Ghannouchi, S.A. Collaborative E-Learning Process Discovery in Multi-Tenant Cloud. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2021, 13, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Bustos López, M.; Alor-Hernández, G.; Sánchez-Cervantes, J.L.; Paredes-Valverde, M.A.; Salas-Zárate, M.D.P. EduRecomSys: An Educational Resource Recommender System Based on Collaborative Filtering and Emotion Detection. Interact. Comput. 2020, 32, 407–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Mentes Libed, J.; Perreras, R. Recommending Learning Model for Online Learning Delivery. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning, IC4E 2021, Tokyo, Japan, 10–13 January 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  152. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M. Performance comparison of featured neural network trained with backpropagation and delta rule techniques for movie rating prediction in multi-criteria recommender systems. Informatica 2016, 40, 409–414. [Google Scholar]
  153. Hassan, M.; Hamada, M. Performance comparison of feed-forward neural networks trained with different learning algorithms for recommender systems. Computation 2017, 5, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Hamada, M.; Hassan, M. An enhanced learning style index: Implementation and integration into an intelligent and adaptive e-Learning system. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 4449–4470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 12 11996 g001 550
Figure 1. Statistics of recommendation goals.
Figure 1. Statistics of recommendation goals.
Applsci 12 11996 g001
Applsci 12 11996 g002 550
Figure 2. Recommendation Elements.
Figure 2. Recommendation Elements.
Applsci 12 11996 g002
Applsci 12 11996 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequencies of recommendation techniques.
Figure 3. Frequencies of recommendation techniques.
Applsci 12 11996 g003
Applsci 12 11996 g004 550
Figure 4. Recommendation Platform.
Figure 4. Recommendation Platform.
Applsci 12 11996 g004
Applsci 12 11996 g005 550
Figure 5. Recommendation for User Type.
Figure 5. Recommendation for User Type.
Applsci 12 11996 g005
Applsci 12 11996 g006 550
Figure 6. Regional distribution of surveyed papers.
Figure 6. Regional distribution of surveyed papers.
Applsci 12 11996 g006
Applsci 12 11996 g007 550
Figure 7. Surveyed Paper type.
Figure 7. Surveyed Paper type.
Applsci 12 11996 g007
Table
Table 1. Example of Four Criteria Rating Problem.
Table 1. Example of Four Criteria Rating Problem.
User/ItemItem1Item2Item3Item4
User12.5,4,3,2,13.5,5,2,4,34,4,5,5,21,1,0,2,1
User2?,?,?,?,?1,0,0,0,42,3,2,2,10,0,0,0,0
User3?,?,?,?,?4,4,5,5,25,5,5,5,5?,?,?,?,?
User44.5,4,5,5,41.5,2,1,1,25,5,5,5,50,0,0,0,0
User53,4,3,2,3?,?,?,?,??,?,?,?,?2.5,3,3,2,2
Table
Table 2. Recommendation goals.
Table 2. Recommendation goals.
TasksWorks on the User Task
Find Novel Items[37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
Find Peers[19,43,44,45,46,47,48]
Recommend Sequence[49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]
Annotation in Context[57,58,59,60,61]
Find Good Pathways[62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]
Find Good Items/Find All Good Items[44,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151]
Table
Table 3. Recommendation techniques.
Table 3. Recommendation techniques.
YearCollaborative FilteringContent-BasedKnowledge-BasedRule-BasedHybridContext-AwareDeep LearningOthers
2021[68,138,141,146,149][61][69][138,148][139,144,145][140][56,142][137,143,147,151]
2020[48,126,127,129,131,133,150] [67][130][114,123,128,135,136][55][54,125,132][124,134]
2019[106,107,108,111,112,120,121][113][118][119] [60,110][53,106,115,116,122][109,117,118]
2018[43,64,86,103,104,105][42,96,101] [98] [52,65,97,99,102][43][42,66][100]
2017[41,84,87,92,95][39][94] [40,59,85,89,90,93] [88][91]
2016[19,73,75,76,77,79][79][80,81] [51,63,82,83] [74,78]
2015[37,38,47,71,72][44][71] [45,46,50][57,58] [49,62,70]
Table
Table 4. Regional distribution of surveyed papers.
Table 4. Regional distribution of surveyed papers.
CountryAlpha CodeNo. of PapersCountryAlpha CodeNo. of PapersCountryAlpha CodeNo. of Papers
ChinaCN34PakistanPK2MexicoMX1
IndiaIN12EcuadorEC2ColombiaCO1
USAUS10GermanyDE2CanadaCA1
MoroccoMA9BangladeshBD2IsraelIL1
IndonesiaID4South KoreaKR2CzechCZ1
BrazilBR4SerbiaRS1AustraliaAU1
GreeceGR3Saudi ArabiaSA1ThailandTH1
JordanJO3MalaysiaMY1TaiwanTW1
VietnamVN2ItalyIT1New ZealandNZ1
TunisiaTN2PhilippinesPH1FranceFR1
SpainES2NigeriaNG1LithuaniaLT1
NetherlandsNL2JapanJP1UKGB1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salau, L.; Hamada, M.; Prasad, R.; Hassan, M.; Mahendran, A.; Watanobe, Y. State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning-Based Recommender Systems for E-Learning. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11996. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122311996

AMA Style

Salau L, Hamada M, Prasad R, Hassan M, Mahendran A, Watanobe Y. State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning-Based Recommender Systems for E-Learning. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(23):11996. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122311996

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salau, Latifat, Mohamed Hamada, Rajesh Prasad, Mohammed Hassan, Anand Mahendran, and Yutaka Watanobe. 2022. "State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning-Based Recommender Systems for E-Learning" Applied Sciences 12, no. 23: 11996. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122311996

APA Style

Salau, L., Hamada, M., Prasad, R., Hassan, M., Mahendran, A., & Watanobe, Y. (2022). State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning-Based Recommender Systems for E-Learning. Applied Sciences, 12(23), 11996. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122311996

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop