A Systematic Review of Learning Object and Recommender Systems in E-

learning.

Abstract
The e-learning domain is one of the richest fields of scientific research and has witnessed rapid development and
has become a popular topic since 1990s. In this article, we presented a literature review of the field of e-learning
with a particular interest in concepts: the learning object and recommender systems. Firstly, we present the history
of e-learning, Secondly, we detail the learning objects by focusing on the different proposed definitions, features,
standards, and models. Lastly, the development, evolution, and types of recommender systems are served. This
survey covers the span time from the appearance of each concept to nowadays.
Keywords: E-learning, Learning object, Recommender systems.

1 Introduction

Since the 1990s, the e-learning area has been developed rapidly, (Tom & Michael, 2015), and has become a major
subject and alternative approach in the learning and teaching processes. The online learning market potential will
increase threefold from 2015 to be worth $325 billion in 2025 (Anggrawan & Jihadil, 2018). According to (Justo-
López et al., 2021), in e-learning, it is possible to identify 3 key elements: the educational resources called Learning
Objects (LO), the place which contains them, named Learning Objects Repository (LOR), and the place where
resources are used, known as Learning Environment (LE). Recently LO become one of the most important research
topics in the e-learning community (Benitti, 2018). LO are developed under e-learning specifications and standards
for example Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) and Instructional Management System (IMS)
Content Package. LE and LO must be created according to the same standards (Valenzuela et al, 2017). (Premlatha
& Geetha, 2015) reviewed the various level adaptation, LO design and model/component of e-learning, (Alarcón
et al., 2015) surveyed the LO definition and classification proposed between 2000 and 2015. The rest of reviews
and surveys are presented in appendix 1, and in appendix 2, we summary some of systems and models proposed
to recommender a LO.
This paper is organized as following: Foremost, we introduce the history and definitions of e-learning. In the second
section, we detail the concept of LO. In the third section, we present recommender systems with a focus on the
different proposed definitions, their types, and we summarize the various challenges and limitations of
recommender systems. We concluded this work in the last section.

2. E-learning

According to (Cross, 2004; Al-Yahya et al., 2015), at the end of 1997, before the existence of the term “e-learning”,
learning guru Elliot Masie told, “Online learning is the use of network technology to design, deliver, select,
administer, and extend learning”.
Depending on (Cross, 2004; Karna, 2017), in 1998, Jay Cross wrote coined the term “e-learning” and he defined
it as “e-learning is learning on Internet Time, the convergence of learning and networks. E-Learning is a vision of
what corporate training can become. E-Learning is to traditional training as e-business is to business as usual”. In
2019, (Rodrigues et al., 2019) defined e-learning as “E-learning is an innovative web-based system based on digital
technologies and other forms of educational materials whose primary goal is to provide students with a
personalized, learner-centered, open, enjoyable and interactive learning environment supporting and enhancing the
learning processes.”, however, (Gupta & Gupta, 2020) described E-learning as the method of learning anywhere,
anytime and as often as you like using PCs or smartphones.
In October 1999, the first usage in a professional environment of the word “e-learning” was during a Computer
Based Training (CBT) Systems seminar. It is described as: “a way to learn based on the use of new technologies
allowing access to online, interactive and sometimes personalized training through the Internet or other electronic
media (intranet, extranet, interactive TV, CD-ROM, and so on), to develop competencies while the process of
learning is independent of time and place” (Karmakar & Asoke, 2014; Carrió-Pastor, 2018).
The principles behind e-learning and early forms of e-learning already existed in the 19th century. Long before the
advent of the Internet, distance courses on specific subjects were offered to students from different countries. Isaac
Pitman, a qualified teacher, educated students shorthand by correspondence in the 1840s (Sivaranjani & Saravana,
2014). Pitman would receive completed assignments from his students through the mail system, and he would then
send them more tasks to complete. The first testing machine, allowing students to assess their information, was
created in 1924 (Sivaranjani & Saravana, 2014). In 1954, Burrhus Frederic Skinner, a Harvard professor, invented
the teaching machine. This machine allowed schools to give programmed instructions to students. The first
computer-based training program, originating at the University of Illinois, was PLATO-Programmed Logic for
Automated Teaching (Sivaranjani & Saravana, 2014). The first e-learning systems were only for the transmission
of information to students. Since the 1970s, they have become more interactive (Klašnja-Milićević et al., 2017).
In the 1980s, a revolution occurred in e-learning with the first MAC computers allowing people to have computers
in their homes (Sivaranjani & Saravana, 2014). At the end of the 1990s, the first Learning Management Systems
(LMS) were widely used. Some universities designed and developed their systems, but the majority of the
educational establishment started with systems off the market. In the 21st century, an important step and success
happened in the e-learning field, many companies around the world started using e-learning to train their
employees. Laborers had the chance to ameliorate their industry knowledge base and develop their skills. At home,
people can access programs that offer them the capacity to obtain online grades and extend their knowledge.
The advantages of e-learning are mainly the flexibility in terms of time, the consideration of the learner's interests,
and the availability of high-quality and free resources. However, the biggest problem with e-learning systems is
information overload (George & Lal, 2019).

3. Learning object
3.1 History of learning object
As a consequence of the increasingly frequent implementation of courses and training – in the classroom or virtual
form – the need for educational materials that could be carried out became evident. One of the ideas that began to
take shape was to break down the contents into small parts that could be reassembled (re-used) in different
activities. Authors, such as (Wiley, 2000a) argue that if teachers receive the material in individual components,
this could increase the speed and efficiency of instructional material development. According to (Gibbons et al.,
2000), this had already been suggested by Gerard in 1969, who wrote “curricular units can be made smaller and
combined, like standardized Meccano [mechanical building set] parts, into a great variety of particular programs
custom-made for each learner”. As per (Fernandez-Manjon & Sancho, 2002) “The idea behind learning objects is
clearly grounded in the object-oriented paradigm: independent pieces of instruction that may be reused in multiple
learning contexts and that fulfil the principles of encapsulation, abstraction and inheritance.” At the beginning of
the 1990s, (Merrill et al., 1991) proposed to represent knowledge as objects called frames (containers). They could
be linked with others to constitute a course.
Twenty-five years after Gerard's proposal, in 1994, Wayne Hodgins used, for the first time, the term “learning
object” to name his group at Computer Education Managers Association (CedMa):” Learning Architectures,
APIs, and Learning Objects” (Wiley, 2000a).
During 1994 and 1995, the company Oracle started the development of the Oracle Learning Application (OLA)
which was an attempt to create authoring software to design materials through LO (Astudillo et al., 2011).
In 1998, (L’Allier, 1998) wrote “The Linking of Occupational Skills Descriptors to Training Interventions”, where
he described small, independent instructional experiences that he called “Learning Objects”.
The Oracle project did not prosper, but Tom Kelly and Chuck Barritts -responsible for the project at Oracle –
continued it at Cisco System and, in 1999, they presented Reusable Learning Objects (RLO). A RLO was created
by combining a view, a summary, an assessment, and between 5 and 7 Reusable Information Objects (RIOs).
The latter are composed of content, activities, and assessments (Barritt et al., 1999).
In the following years, the concept of LO continued to evolve, but this time, it was associated with metadata.
With the emergence of metadata standards and the creation of the first repositories, authors began to include, in
new definitions of (Higgs et al., 2003), the concept of information about the object itself.
Various terms were used to define LOs including (McGreal, 2004):
 Fig 1 Emergence of LOs

3.2 Definition of learning object

In 1998, L’Allier defined LO as “the smallest independent learning experience that contains an objective, learning
activities, and assessment". (L’Allier, 1998)
In 2000 the IEEE presented, within Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working draft v4.1, its definition of LOs,
which brought with it a great controversy. For the IEEE, a LO is: "any entity - digital or not - that can be used to
learn, teach or use in training strategies” (Wiley, 2000a; Friesen, 2001).
Foremost, it becomes evident that the IEEE definition is too generic to be used as a framework to characterize
or identify a LO. Considering that any entity (including people) referenced in a learning activity could be
considered as a LO, implementing this definition is almost impossible in practice since everything is a LO.
In this sense (Friesen, 2001) says that "the [IEEE] definition of LO is not only general but also impractical, in
part because non-digital objects such as computer equipment or digital objects such as images enjoy the same
conceptual status, thus making it impossible to use the term LO in a meaningful way". For (Wiley, 2000a), the
"definition is extremely broad [and...] fails to exclude people, places, things, or ideas that have existed at any
time in the history of the universe”.
On the other hand, the definition does not show LO as an innovative proposal for the time, it only gives a new
name to educational resources. To highlight, in the second definition, one of the fundamental characteristics of LO,
reusability, is made explicit.
In 2000, (Wiley, 2000a) based on the IEEE definition, considered the LO as "any digital resource that can be reused
to support learning".
Comparing the definition given by Wiley with that of the IEEE, Friesen considered that "Wiley's contribution to
this debate is limited to excluding non-digital objects from the IEEE definition" (Friesen, 2001). In the same
vein, (McGreal, 2004) states that "restricting the definition of LOs to digital resources does not narrow the
meaning enough to be useful". Parrish criticizes Wiley's definition because "it does not eliminate software tools
that a student might use to generate products (word processors, concept mapping tools, calculators) or to
participate in a discussion (chat, email, or even a classmate's number stored on a cell phone)" (Polsani, 2003).

In June 2002, the LOM metadata standard was approved as an IEEE standard with the reference 1484.12.1. For
this standard, a LO is defined as any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used for learning, education, or
training (IEEE, 2002).

In July 2003, a LO is defined as “a digital learning resource that facilitates a single learning objective and which
may be reused in a different context.” (Mohan & Brooks, 2003).

In 2004, Wiley redefined a LO as "any digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning" (Wiley et al., 2004).
Also, (McGreal, 2004) defined LO as "any reusable digital resource that is encapsulated in a lesson or a set of
lessons grouped into units, modules, courses, or even programs".
In 2007, Churchill suggested a general definition: “a LO is a representation designed to afford uses in different
educational contexts” (Churchill, 2007).
In 2011 (Astudillo et al., 2011) defined a LO as “a digital didactic unit designed to achieve a simple learning
objective, and to be reused in different Virtual Teaching and Learning Environments, and different learning
contexts. It must also have metadata that facilitates its localization and allows its contextualization”.
In 2015, (Maldonado, 2015) described a LO as “An independent digital didactic unit, whose structure is formed
by a specific learning objective, a content, activities, and a self-assessment, and that can be reused in different
technological (repositories, virtual teaching and learning environments) and educational contexts. In addition, it
has metadata that facilitates its location within the repositories and allows its contextualization.”

In September 2020, the LOM metadata standard was approved as an IEEE standard with the reference 1484.12.1™-
2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 1484.12.1-2002). For this standard, a LO is defined as any entity, digital or non-
digital, that is used for learning, education, or training (IEEE, 2020).

3.3 Characteristics of Learning Object

According to (Wiley, 2000a; McGreal, 2004; Hodgins & Marcia, 2000; García, 2005), LO should meet certain
characteristics or properties to be considered as such. According to (Friesen, 2001), the characteristics agreed upon
by the scientific community for LO are: accessibility, reusability, and interoperability. Some authors, such as (Di
Nitto et al., 2006; Valderrama et al., 2005; Berking, & Gallagher, 2013), add durability.

Table 1 shows the set of characteristics that the different authors proposed to describe LO. It is a description of
those that are most widely accepted, and the corresponding consensus.

Table 1: LOs characteristics (Maldonado et al., 2015)

3.3.1 Accessibility

This characteristic is defined by (McGreal, 2004; Berking, & Gallagher, 2013) as "the ability to locate and access
instructional components in a remote location and distribute them to other locations".

García Aretio, when explaining the characteristics of an LO, defines accessibility as the "ease of being identified,
searched and found thanks to the corresponding labeling through various descriptors (metadata) that would allow
cataloging and storage in the corresponding repository" (García, 2005).

3.3.2 Interoperability

Interoperability is defined as "the ability to take an instructional component from one location, developed with a
particular set of tools, and use it in another location and with a different set of tools or platforms" (McGreal, 2004;
Berking, & Gallagher, 2013).
García Aretio, also, associated the interoperability with platforms and defined this characteristic as "the ability to
be integrated into different structures and systems (platforms)" (García, 2005).
3.3.3 Reusability

The different meanings given by the authors to the concept of reuse will be presented below and classified into
three main groups:

● Using the same LO in different Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) or technology platforms
(Technical reuse):

McGreal considered the reusability as the ability of instructional components to be "incorporated within
multiple applications" (McGreal, 2004).

● Using the same LO in different educational contexts (didactic reuse):

In introducing the notion of LO (Wiley et al., 2000) spoke about the fact that "LOs can be both used and
reused in different learning contexts".

García Aretio defined the reuse as the "capacity [of a LO] to be used in different contexts and educational
purposes and to be adapted and combined within new learning sequences" (García, 2005).

● Using the same LO in different applications and educational contexts:

For (Berking, & Gallagher, 2013) reusability is the "ability to incorporate educational components in multiple
applications and contexts".

It is not possible to leave this section without addressing a topic as controversial for LO as it is sensitive for reuse,
i.e., granularity that represents the size of a LO. " The most difficult problem for LO designers is 'granularity'- how
big should a LO be?" (Wiley, 2000b). There is a general agreement that lower granularity favors reusability. That
is, the smaller the number of topics a LO addresses (low granularity) the greater the chances of reusing the LO.
“The size of a LO is crucial for successful reuse” (Friesen, 2001).

3.3.4 Durability

Berking defined durability as "the ability to withstand technology evolution and change without undergoing costly
redesign, reconfiguration or recoding" (Berking, & Gallagher, 2013).

García Aretio, on the other hand, defined this characteristic of LO as the "validity of the information of the objects,
without the need for new designs" (García, 2005).

McGreal considered it as the ability for "instructional components to be used when base technology changes
without the need to be redesigned or re-coded” (McGreal, 2004).

3.4 Learning object Standards

3.4.1 Learning Object Metadata

The IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) has been working on the development and
maintenance of a metadata standard for LO since 1997 called Learning Object Metadata. This standard is the fruit
of an international effort of the LOM Working Group (or WG12) with members representing more than 15
countries. In June 2002, the IEEE LTSC completed and published the 1484.12.1 LOM data model standard. LOM
is one of the first metadata standards that was specifically designed to describe educational material, particularly
LO.
The model specifies how LO should be described. It has nine categories: General, Life cycle, Meta-Metadata,
Technical, Teaching, Rights, Relationship, Annotation, and Classification. These, in turn, contain sub-categories.
It has a total of 76 elements or fields to fill in -which are also extensible. The complete IEEE LOM hierarchy can
be seen in Fig 2.
 Fig 2 Complete IEEE LOM hierarchy (Astudillo et al., 2011).

The IEEE Std 1484.12.1™-2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 1484.12.1-2002) standard on metadata for LOs describes
each category as follows (IEEE, 2020):
A) The General category groups the general information that describes the LO as a whole.
B) The Lifecycle category groups the features related to the history and current state of this LO and those who
have affected this LO during its evolution.
C) The Meta-Metadata category groups information about the metadata instance itself (rather than the LO that the
metadata instance describes).
D) The Technical category groups the technical requirements and technical characteristics of the LO.
E) The Educational category groups the educational and pedagogic characteristics of the LO.
F) The Rights category groups the intellectual property rights and conditions of use for the LO.
G) The Relation category groups features that define the relationship between the LO and other related LOs.
H) The Annotation category provides comments on the educational use of the LO and provides information on
when and by whom the comments were created.
I) The Classification category describes this LO in relation to a particular classification system.

The LOM standard IEEE 2020 identifies four distinct levels of LO aggregation or functional granularity (IEEE,
2020):
A) The smallest level of aggregation, e.g., raw media data or fragments.
B) A collection of level 1 learning objects, e.g., a lesson.
C) A collection of level 2 learning objects, e.g., a course.
D) The largest level of granularity, e.g., a set of courses that lead to a certificate.

3.4.2 Dublin Core Metadata Initiative:

Dublin Core is an open organization, started in 1995, which is dedicated to the development of interoperable
metadata standards. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) standard has a set of 15 semantic definitions that
enable the description and organization of information. It allows the definition of object properties for systems that
are responsible for searching Web-based resources. The 15 elements, that make up the standard are: contributor,
coverage, creator, date, description, format, identifier, language, publisher, relationship, rights, source, subject,
title, and type (DCMI, 2022) (see Fig 3).
 Fig 3 Complete DCMI hierarchy (Astudillo et al., 2011).

The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (version 2020-01-20) describes each category as follows (Dublin, 2022):

A) Contributor: An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource

B) Coverage: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, spatial applicability of the resource, or
jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.
C) Creator: An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.
D) Date: A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.
E) Description: An account of the resource.
F) Format: The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource.
G) Identifier: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.
H) Language: A language of the resource.
I) Publisher: An entity responsible for making the resource available.
J) Relation: A related resource.
K) Rights: Information about rights held in and over the resource.
L) Source: A related resource from which the described resource is derived.
M) Subject: The topic of the resource.
N) Title: A name given to the resource.
O) Type: The nature or genre of the resource.

3.4.3 Sharable Content Object Reference Model:

The Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM®) was created in 2000 by the Advanced Distributed
Learning (ADL) Initiative to address e-learning interoperability, reusability, and durability challenges. This
research was driven by the challenge that enterprise organizations faced when upgrading systems or switching
vendors, which often required them to abandon expensive content and start from scratch. The most recent release
(2009) is SCORM 2004 4th Edition (SCORM, 2022).

The SCORM specification combines elements of the IEEE LTSC and IMS specifications. The SCORM standard
consists of four main elements (see Fig 4) (Verbert, 2008; Verbert & Duval, 2008):

A) Part 1 provides an overview, comprising high-level conceptual information, the history, current status,
and future directions of ADL and SCORM.
B) Part 2, the SCORM Content Aggregation Model (CAM), describes content components used in a learning
object, how these components are packaged for system-to-system exchange, how these components are
described to enable search and discovery, and how sequencing rules for the components are defined.
C) Part 3 describes how learning objects are sequenced and navigated. It describes how SCORM-compliant
content can be sequenced through a series of learner or system-initiated navigation events for the learner.
D) Part 4 covers the SCORM run-time environment. The runtime environment aims to supply a way for
interoperability between learning content and Learning Management Systems (LMSs). It pictures the
LMS exigencies in managing the run-time environment, such as the content launch process, normalized
communication between content and LMSs, and standardized data model elements used for passing
information pertinent to the learner experience with the content.
 Fig 4 SCORM parts (Verbert, 2008).

3.5 Automatic composition of learning object not based on ontologies

Nine content models are presented in this section. First, we will introduce the models defined by some major actors
in the e-learning domain, subsequent by those created for academic aims.

3.5.1 National Education Training Group Learning Object Model

The National Education Training Group (NETg), one of the leaders in the design of e-learning solutions, has
proposed a LO model that focuses on course structure (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.1.1 NETg: Model structure

In NETg, a course is organized as a matrix (Fig 5) partitioned into three main constituents: Units (the vertical),
Lessons (the horizontal), and Topics (the cells).

Fig 5 An NETg course structure (Hua, 2002)

 Fig 6 UML representation of the NETg learning object model (Verbert, 2008).

In the course structure, each unit, lesson, or topic is defined by its relationship to the other components.
(Verbert, 2008):
A) Course: Consisted of units
B) Unit: composed of lessons
C) Lesson: Made up of topics
D) Topic: Contains a unique objective, a learning activity, and an evaluation (see Fig 6).

3.5.2 Learnativity content model

The Learnativity foundation has developed a content model that supplies a thorough depiction of granularity
(Wagner, 2002).

3.5.2.1 Learnativity: Model Structure

The model, proposed by Learnativity (Verbert, 2008; Duval & Hodgins, 2003), defines learning content in five
levels (see Fig 7) which are:
A) “Raw” data and media constituents are the smallest level. They are related to contain components that
exist at a pure data level, for example, a single sentence or paragraph, images, and animations.
B) An information object is a combination of raw data and multimedia elements centered on a single unit of
information. Some content is considered as a concept that illustrates a principle or describes a process.
Exercises are considered as information objects;
C) A set of information objects represents the third level and forms application objects. LOs appear, at this
level, according to the level as defined by the LOM standard. LOs are a combination of information
objects and bind to a single learning objective.
D) The fourth level aggregates assemblies that are dealing with larger (ultimate) goals. This level
corresponds to lessons or chapters.
E) The fifth level is a grouping of chapters and lessons to constitute a large collection corresponding to the
courses and programs.

Fig 7 UML representation of the Learnativity model (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.3 SCORM content model

The most widely used set of specifications intended to enable the development of learning content independent of
any particular delivery platform, is the Shared Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). It is a collection of
specifications and standards documented and maintained by the Advanced Initiative for distributed learning.
SCORM comprises a content aggregation model with the following properties (Cardinaels, 2007):

● Assets
● Shareable Content Objects (SCOs)
● Activities
● Content aggregations.

3.5.3.1 SCORM: Model structure

SCORM assets are raw data and media elements and information objects in the Learnativity model. SCOs are
standalone LOs or learning constituents that address additional technical requirements needed to interoperate with
learning delivery platforms. To improve the reusability, a SCO should be independent of its learning context. An
activity groups SCOs and assets to form a high-level lesson that meets high-level learning objectives. Content
Aggregation is a set of learning resources coherently structured within a higher-level entity, such as a course,
chapter, module, etc.

Fig 8 UML representation of the SCORM content model (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.4 Navy content model

To meet the needs of the “Navy Interactive Learning Environment”, the Navy has refined the SCORM model while
adding more specific definitions of LO content at different levels of granularity (Conkey et al., 2006).

3.5.4.1 NCOM: Model structure

According to the model proposed by the Navy, it should be a clear distinction between Learning Object
Aggregations (LOAs), Terminal Learning Objects (TLOs), Enabling Learning Objects (ELOs), and assets (See
Fig 9) (Conkey et al., 2006; Verbert, 2008):
● A learning object aggregation is the higher-level grouping of relevant content that includes TLOs and
ELOs.
● A TLO is a set of one or more ELOs. A TLO satisfies one end goal and corresponds to an activity in the
SCORM model. Terminal learning objectives are associated with lessons.
● An ELO is a collection of one or more assets. An ELO addresses a single competency objective and
corresponds to a SCORM SCO. Examples comprise illustration and exercises.
● An asset is a single text element or alone media element (e.g., an evaluation object, a video, or other basic
elements)
 Fig 9 UML representation of the Navy content model (Verbert, 2008)

3.5.5 Cisco RLO / RIO Model

Cisco Systems, Inc., built their model based on an object-oriented strategy to develop learning content (Barritt et
al., 1999).

3.5.5.1 Cisco RLO / RIO: Model Structure

Cisco defines lessons as Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs) and lesson subjects like Reusable Information Objects
(RIOs).
RIOs bind to a lone learning goal and comprise content, practice, and evaluation elements. Cisco furthermore
categorizes every RIO as a concept, fact, procedure, process, or principle (Verbert, 2008). To construct a lesson or
RLO, five to nine (7 2) RIOs are assembled with an overview and summary (see Fig 10) (Verbert & Duval, 2004).
A RIO can act as a standalone learning component that can be accessed by a learner who needs specific information.
A learner can summon an RLO for a deeper learning experience.
RLOs can be sequenced to create a course on a specific topic, and they can be aggregated to create custom RLOs
that meet the needs of individual learners (Hua, 2002).

Fig 10 The RLO and RIO structure (Barritt et al., 1999).

3.5.6 Dynamic Learning Content Management System Component Model

Dynamic Learning Content Management System (dLCMS) proposes a model that provides a modularization
strategy combined with structural tags to improve the reuse of learning content (Schluep et al., 2006).

3.5.6.1 dLCMS: Model Structure

The dLCMS model defines three aggregation levels (see Fig 11) which are (Verbert, 2008):
A) Assets: They are media components like images, videos, animations, or simulations. They are binary data
objects that cannot easily be broken down into smaller constituents. They comprise pictorial or auditive
information that can be static (image and graphics) or dynamic (video, audio, and animation).
B) Content elements: They are defined as small, modular learning content that: (1) served as the basic
construction blocks of learning content, (2) can be grouped into larger pedagogically sound learning units,
(3) are autonomous, (4) are based on a lone pedagogic content kind, (5) are reusable in several educational
contexts, and (6) can enclose assets. As examples, we can cite: exercises, experiences, questionnaires,
and summaries.
 C) A learning unit: It is defined as a collection of content elements presented to the learner. Usually, a
learning unit serves as an online lesson and can be utilized to educate multiple learning objectives. A
learning unit enables a way to set a chapter-like, hierarchical building of nodes. Apiece nodes are partnered
with a content element by reference. The content elements are not copied into the learning unit, however
referred to by links. The component pattern does not define any more levels for the aggregation of learning
units.

Fig 11 UML representation of the dLCMS component model (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.7 New Economy Didactical Model

The New Economy Didactical Model is the result of a New Economy research project supported by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research, developed for academic purposes. The main objective of the project
is the creation of new curricula and the development of online interactive multimedia materials to support MBA
studies. Seven German universities and institutes were involved in this project (Löser et al., 2002; Verbert, 2008).

3.5.7.1 New Economy Didactical Model: Model Structure

This model defines eight types of constituents (See Fig 12) which are (Verbert, 2008):
A) An information object: It is outlined as a little LO without complex logical structures which combine
physical media (image, video, and text) into didactically adequate units.
B) A learning component: it is defined as a little LO that merges a limited number of information objects, to
constitute one of the below characteristics: motivation, basic knowledge or theory, example, exercise,
references, further material, open questions, problems, and virtual laboratory.
C) A learning module: It is defined as a logical structure with a didactic purpose, containing single learning
modules. It referred to a Cisco RLO or lesson.
D) A learning unit: It is set as a structure conceived to mediate complex content. A learning unit unifies
learning modules and learning constituents. An example is a case study with three learning modules
combined with a virtual laboratory.
E) A course: It unifies learning modules and learning units and can be elements of a curriculum.
F) A curriculum: It is a set of courses and learning units as per one or several academic specifications.
G) A learning path: It is a structure composed of learning modules and learning units which may be singly
adjusted to the learner.
H) A sequence: It is defined as a result of an individual search in different LO repositories to increase
personal knowledge.
 Fig 12 UML representation of the new economy didactical model (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.8 Semantic Learning Model

Developed for academic purposes, the Semantic Learning Model (SLM) model aims to support the decomposition
of learning objects (Fernandes et al., 2005; Verbert, 2008).

3.5.8.1 SLM: Model Structure

This model is built around six categories (See Fig 13) which are (Verbert, 2008):
A) The asset: It represents the lowest level of granularity. These assets may be images, illustrations,
diagrams, audio and video files, animations, and text fragments.
B) Pedagogical information: It is defined as a set of assets that describe the same situation or indicate the
same meaning, for example, a figure and its legend.
C) A pedagogical entity: It is set of pedagogical information constituent related to a pedagogical role. Four
roles have been specified to support this definition: a concept, an argument, a solved problem, and a
simple text.
D) A pedagogical context: It is defined as a semantic structure (or network) in which pedagogical entities
are assembled.
E) A pedagogical document: It comprises a pedagogical context, involved with requirements.
F) Several pedagogical documents: They are assembled to form a curriculum. This group is known as the
pedagogical schema.

Fig 13 UML representation of the semantic learning model (Verbert, 2008).

3.5.9 Passauer Knowledge Management System

The Passauer Knowledge Management System (PaKMaS) (Süß et al., 2000) is a multimedia content management
system with functions for searching, editing, evaluating, and exchanging learning materials for learners and
teachers (Verbert, 2008). This system comes from a model of the same name whose structure is defined below (see
Fig 14).
3.5.9.1 PaKMaS: Model Structure

The structure of this model focuses on the differentiation between multimedia objects, content modules, and
structuring modules (See Fig 14) which are (Süß et al., 2000; Verbert, 2008):
A) Media objects: They are at the lowest granularity level and are classed as text, audio, animations, and
pictures.
B) Content modules: They consist of media objects and are categorized as motivations, definitions, remarks,
paragraphs, examples, exercises, and illustrations. They can be organized in lists or tables.
C) Structure modules: They consist of a set of content modules dedicated to several teaching strategies. They
are organized into sections and collections whose categories are: guided tours, collections, glossaries, and
indexes.

Fig 14 UML representation of the PaKMaS model (Verbert, 2008).

3.6 Automatic composition of learning object based on ontologies

In the e-Learning area, ontologies may be utilized to model educational domains and to construct, organize and
update specific learning resources (e.g., LO, learner profiles, learning paths, etc.) (Gaeta et al., 2009). Some
research projects aiming at generating learning objects built more or less on ontologies have emerged.

3.6.1 Self e-learning Networks

The Self e-learning Networks (SeLeNe) project investigates the feasibility and the design of a tool to meet the
needs of communities (Teachers/Learners) in learning. It takes documents (DocBook) as input and transforms
them into Los. Then, it offers services for the discovery, sharing, and collaborative creation of these objects,
facilitating syndicated and personalized access to these resources (Keenoy et al., 2004; Zouaq et al., 2007).
Metadata descriptions of learning objects and associated schemas form the repository of information where users
can query to locate resources according to their learning or teaching needs. Users must also define custom views
on this wide range of heterogeneous data (Keenoy et al., 2004; Zouaq et al., 2007).
 Fig 15 View of the descriptive scheme of learning objects in SeLeNe (Doukoure, 2014).

3.6.2 Tools for Reusable, Integrated, Adaptable Learning – Systems/Standards for Open Learning Using Tested,
Interoperable Objects and Networking

The general approach is to slice electronic books into elementary learning resources and re-engineer these resources
by refining the slices and annotating the resources with metadata on content, didactic characteristic, and
interoperability interfacing; to allow intelligent retrieval (Buffa et al., 2005). All annotated resources are available
on a Web server, dedicated to teachers and students. Resource search and document publishing tools have been
developed to enable these end-users to search on the server.
The Tools for Reusable, Integrated, Adaptable Learning – Systems/Standards for Open Learning Using Tested,
Interoperable Objects and Networking (TRIAL-SOLUTION) platform integrates three principal services:
automatically extracting and annotating learning resources from electronic books, re-engineering the repository of
learning resources, and retrieving learning resources based on their annotations (Buffa et al., 2005).

Fig 16 Trial Solution platform (Doukoure, 2014).

3.6.3 Integrated Manuals And Training

The main objective of the Integrated Manuals And Training (IMAT) project was the development of a set of
products to support better and more efficient re-use of technical manual content for educational purposes.
Furthermore, the creation of a structure to facilitate the storage and exchange of experience gained from working
with this material. The approach was to take a technical manual as delivered by the equipment manufacturer, divide
it into small homogeneous fragments and store them. They are indexed meaningfully in an object-oriented
database. This database with fragments can be used to recover materials when creating training material in a user-
selected LO creation environment (De Hoog et al., 2002).
The IMAT project has delivered a collection of interoperable tools which are (De Hoog et al., 2002): A)
A database schema to describe fragments
B) A document analysis tool to analyze fragments and index technical guides
C) A Database Facilities Tool to administer the database, comprising fragment versioning
D) An Authoring Environments Interface Tool to recover fragments from the database and transfer selected
fragments to an authoring environment; likewise utilized for supplemental indexing and annotation of
fragments
E) An Ontology Development Tool to set up ontologies structurally
F) An aggregate of ontologies to describe fragments, both domain-specific and generic, including an
extensive pedagogical ontology
G) An Instructional Scenarios Tool to support the inception of skeletal lessons for maintenance tasks. The
skeletal lessons may be transmitted to the Authoring Environments Interface Tool and utilized to guide
database queries which results can be stocked in the skeletal lesson

Fig 17 Workflow and structure of the IMAT toolset (De Hoog et al., 2002).

3.6.4 Abstract Learning Object COntent Model

The appearance of several standards/ models has generated many terms that often refer to the same thing without
calling it the same way. This very large heterogeneity of learning objects definitions and aggregation levels
represents an obstacle to learning, the reuse of existing content, interoperability on a global scale because it
becomes difficult to know if content can be reused or redirected in a different context than the one for which it was
created (Verbert, 2008). To solve this aspect of the problem in the field of online learning, a new model named
Abstract Learning Object COntent Model (ALOCOM) based on ontologies has been developed to facilitate the
interoperability between certain existing models. Some models have been analyzed and mapped to the generic
ALOCOM model. This method involves three (3) main steps (Verbert, 2008):
● Implementation of a global ontology that covers existing models
● Implementation of a local ontology for each model
● Definition of the mapping between the models.
Fig 18 The ALOCOM aggregation levels (Verbert, 2008).

Fig 19 The ALOCOM model (Verbert, 2008).

4. The recommender systems in e-learning

4.1 Recommender system definition and history

Recommender systems are “tools and techniques that suggest items that are most likely of interest to a particular
user” (Ricci et al., 2015; Deschênes, 2020). They are considered also as “software tools and techniques that provide
suggestions for items to be of use to a user” (Klašnja-Milićević et al., 2015; Rahayu et al., 2022). In the mid-1990s,
they have become an independent research field (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005), and a popular subject of research
(Afoudi et al., 2021), especially with the integration of social networks, machine learning, and big data, the field
has been constantly evolving. (Yang et al., 2014) explain that recommender systems are based on several research
areas such as information retrieval, user modeling, machine learning, cognitive science, and human-computer
interaction. As per (Tadlaoui, 2018), among the first recommender systems that appeared in the 1990s: Tapestry
(Goldberget al., 1992) for recommending newsgroup messages, GroupLens (Resnick et al., 1994) for
recommending Usenet articles, and Ringo (Shardanand & Maes, 1995) for recommending music.

Fig 20 Evaluation of recommender systems (Bhareti et al., 2020; George & Lal, 2019).

4.2 Types of recommender systems.

According to (Abbas et al., 2015; Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005; Isinkaye et al., 2015; Fkih, 2021; Liphoto et al.,
2016; Khusro et al., 2016; Melville & Vikas, 2010; Mustafa et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2017; Najmani et al.,
2019; Deschênes, 2020; Khanal et al., 2020; Biswal et al., 2021; Joy et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Shahbazi &
Byun, 2022; Nam, 2022; Kumar et al., 2021; Sharma & Anju, 2013; Sharma & Gera, 2013; Pagare & Patil, 2014;
Rafsanjani et al., 2013; Souabi et al., 2021; Thomas & Sujatha, 2016), there are mainly three types of recommender
systems: Content-based, Collaborative filtering, and Hybrid-based.

Fig 21 Types of recommender system (Biswal et al., 2021).

For (Aggarwal, 2016; Rahayu et al., 2022), recommender systems are divided into two types: The basic model of
the recommender system utilizes interaction or attributes data. This model is subdivided into the collaborative
filtering recommender, and the content-based recommender, additionally, Knowledge-based systems (KBS)
recommenders, demographic-based recommenders, and hybrid recommenders.
For (George & Lal, 2019), the recommender systems in e-learning are divided into three types. The first one is
recommender systems that use neither the concept of ontology nor hybridization for example Matrix factorization-
based recommender systems, Machine learning-based recommender systems, User-based recommender systems,
Tag-based recommender systems, and Group-based recommender system. The second type is Ontology-based
recommender systems, and the third one is Hybrid recommender systems.

Fig 22 Types of recommender system (George & Lal, 2019).

According to (Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019), recommender systems (Fig 23) have six categories which are:
content-based, collaborative filtering, knowledge-based systems (KBS), demographic systems, community-
based, and hybridized systems.

Fig 23 Recommender system approaches (Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019).

(Tarus et al., 2018) mentioned 11 recommendation techniques which are content-based CB, collaborative
filtering CF, knowledge-based systems KB, demographic-based DB, utility-based UB, context-aware CA, trust
aware TA, fuzzy-based FB, social network-based SB, group-based GB, and hybrid.

Fig. 24 Recommendation techniques (Tarus et al., 2018).

According to (Klašnja-Milićević et al., 2015), the four types of recommender systems in the e-learning field are
content-based techniques including Case-based reasoning (CBR) techniques and Attribute-based techniques,
collaborative filtering, matrix and tensor factorization, and association rule mining. Similarly, (Javed et al., 2021;
Zuva et al., 2012), as well categorized recommender systems into four categories as illustrated in Fig 25 which
are: Collaborative Filtering (CF), Content-Based Filtering (CBF)/ ontology-based, Knowledge-Based filtering
(KBF) and Hybrid Filtering (HF).
 Fig 25 Classification of Recommender Systems (Zuva et al., 2012).

In the following paragraph, we will describe the most popular types of recommender systems in the field of e-
learning

4.2.1 Content-based recommender systems

Based on (Anand & Rajender, 2020) in 1962, (Hensley et al., 1962) presented the primary idea of content-based
recommender systems. Content-based recommender systems (CBRS) recommends to the user items similar to
those favored in the past (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005). In 2015 (Gemmis et al., 2015) proposed architecture of
a content-based recommender system as represented in Fig 26. This architecture contains three components:
Content analyzer, Profile learner, and Filtering component (Gemmis et al., 2015). Later (Boratto et al., 2016)
updated this architecture by adding a fourth component named Profile cleaner, the novel architecture is shown in
Fig 27.

Fig 26 High-level architecture of content-based recommender (Gemmis et al., 2015).

 Fig 27 Architecture of a semantics-aware content-based recommender system (Boratto et al., 2016).
4.2.2 Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems

According to (Park et al., 2012), the first emergency of Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems (CFRS)
was in the mid-1990s in the paper research (Resnick et al., 1994; Shardanand & Maes, 1995). It recommends to
the active user the items that other users with similar tastes previously preferred (Tarus et al., 2018), in other words,
CFRS aids people to make choices based on the evaluations of other people (Resnick et al., 1994). The taste
similarity of two users is calculated based on the similarity in the users' rating history (Schafer et al., 2007). There
are many techniques to implement CFRS see Fig 28. The most popular ways are memory-based collaborative
filtering and model-based collaborative filtering (Abbas et al., 2015; Bhareti et al., 2020; Isinkaye et al., 2015;
Liphoto et al., 2016; Biswal et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Melville & Vikas, 2010; Rafsanjani et al., 2013;
Sachan & Richariya, 2013), and some authors like (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005; Nagarnaik & Thomas, 2015;
Najmani et al., 2019; Thomas & Sujatha, 2016; Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019) add a third type named hybrid-
based collaborative filtering. The difference between CFRS and CBRS is shown in Fig 29.

Fig 28 Recommendation techniques (Isinkaye et al., 2015).

Fig 29 The difference between CFRS, and CBRS. (Mohamed et al., 2019).
4.2.3 Hybrid-based recommender systems

Hybrid-based recommender systems HBRS is a combination of content filtering and content-based (Bhareti et al.,
2020; Javed et al., 2021; Joy et al., 2021; Khusro et al., 2016; Melville & Vikas, 2010; Mohamed et al., 2019;
Rafsanjani et al., 2013; Schein et al., 2002; Sharma & Gera, 2013; Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019; Su &
Khoshgoftaar, 2009; Tarus et al., 2018), which aids to avert some limitations of content filtering and content-based
(Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005; Balabanović & Shoham, 1997; Basu et al., 1998; Claypool et al., 1999; Schein et
al., 2002; Soboroff & Nicholas, 1999; Pazzani, 1999; Rafsanjani et al., 2013; Sridevi et al., 2016; Ungar & Foster,
1998).
As per (Anwar & Uma, 2021; Al Fararni et al., 2020; Burke, 2002; Çano & Morisio, 2017; Ignat’ev et al., 2018;
Isinkaye et al., 2015; Fayyaz et al., 2020; Mohamed et al., 2019; Le et al., 2017; Patel & Patel, 2015; Rafsanjani
et al., 2013; Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019; Sridevi et al., 2016), there are seven approaches of hybrid-based
recommender systems, which are:
A) Weighted approach (O’Sullivan et al., 2004): It combines scores from multiple recommendation
techniques to generate a single recommendation.
B) Switching approach (Condliff et al., 1999): It is based on the current situation, the system switches
between recommendation techniques.
C) Cascade approach (Pazzani, 1999): It uses one recommender to refine another's recommendations.
D) Feature combination approach (Mooney & Loriene, 2000): It merges the characteristics of various
recommendation data sources into a single recommendation algorithm.
E) Feature augmentation approach (Smyth & Paul, 2000): It uses the output of one technique as an input
feature to another.
F) Mixed approach (McSherry, 2002): It presents at the same time recommendations from several
recommenders
G) Meta-level approach (Billsus & Michael, 1999): It uses the model learned by one recommender as input
to another.

4.3 Comparison of recommender system types

Content-Based RS Collaborative filtering RS Hybrid-Based RS

Advantages ● The user’s data are not ● Capability to recommend

● Combines all the
required to recommend items outside their
advantages of content-
items. (Najmani et al., 2019 preferences to the user and
based and collaborative
; Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, may like this item.
filtering. (Mohamed et al.,
2019) (Mohamed et al., 2019)
2019)
● A new item can be ● The domain knowledge of ● Overcomes the cold start,
recommended based on the the user doesn’t require data sparsity, and
similarity between items’ making predictions. (Sinha overspecialization
specifications (Mohamed et & Dhanalakshmi, 2019) problems. (Mohamed et al.,
al., 2019; Thorat et al., 2019; Najmani et al.,
2015) 2019)
Disadvantages ● Cold start. (Najmani et al., ● Implementation is very
2019 ; Shah et al., 2017 ; expensive. (Najmani et al.,
● Overspecialization Thorat et al., 2015) 2019)
(Najmani et al., 2019 ; ● Data sparsity. (Najmani et ● Hybridization increases the
Sridevi et al., 2016) al., 2019; Shah et al., 2017; complexity of the
● Necessity to analyze and Thorat et al., 2015) recommendation process.
discover all item ● Scalability. (Najmani et (Najmani et al., 2019)
characteristics to create a al., 2019 ; Shah et al., 2017
recommendation list ; Thorat et al., 2015)
(Mohamed et al., 2019).

4.4 Recommender systems research challenges

The recommender systems have several challenges, and limitations (Abbas et al., 2015; George & Lal, 2019;
Melville & Vikas, 2010; Mohamed et al., 2019; Patel & Patel, 2015; Sharma et al., 2017; Sharma & Anju, 2013;
Sharma & Gera, 2013; Sinha & Dhanalakshmi, 2019; Su & Khoshgoftaar, 2009; Taneja & Anuja, 2018; Thorat et
al., 2015; Zuva et al., 2012). In the following paragraph, we will present some of them, and in Table 2 we will
introduce certain solutions proposed to overcome these issues.

4.4.1 Cold start

One of the most well-known problems in recommendation systems is the cold start problem (Jeevamol & Renumol,
2021; Lika et al., 2014). The cold start issue concerns the situation where a new user/element enters the system
(Sharma & Anju, 2013; Zuva et al., 2012). It is divided into two categories: Item cold start, and User cold start
(Jeevamol & Renumol, 2021; Melville & Vikas, 2010; Sharma et al., 2017; Sharma & Anju, 2013; Sinha &
Dhanalakshmi, 2019; Taneja & Anuja, 2018; Zuva et al., 2012). It is really very hard to supply recommendation
because in the case of new user, there is very less information about user that is available and as well for a new
item, no ratings are usually available (Sharma & Gera, 2013; Zuva et al., 2012).

4.4.2 Sparsity

The sparsity issue is one of the main problems that recommender systems encounter and data sparsity have a major
impact on the quality of the recommendation (Sharma & Gera, 2013). It ensues because the user interacts with a
small part of items in the particular application area (Natarajan et al., 2020).

4.4.3 Scalability

With the tremendous growing of information over the internet, it is evident that the recommender systems have a
data explosion, and therefore it is a big challenge to cope with tremendously continually growth demand (Sharma
& Gera, 2013). The traditional recommender systems algorithms suffer from serious scalability issues as
computational resources exceed practical or acceptable levels (Su & Khoshgoftaar, 2009; Zuva et al., 2012).
Some of them deal with the computations that increase as the number of users and items (Sharma & Gera, 2013).

4.4.4 Over Specialization

Users are limited to receive recommendations as defined in their profiles in certain cases and this is known as the
over specialization issue. It prevents the user from discovering new items and other available options (Mohamed
et al., 2019; Sharma & Gera, 2013).
Table 2: Solutions proposed
Authors Challenge Solution
Stitini et al., 2022. Over-specialization
Developing a new approach to address the problem of
overspecialization in content-based recommender systems and to
create new elements for the user.
Alhijawi et al., 2021. Cold start and data
Developing new model named inheritance-based prediction
sparsity.
(INHBP) that surmounts issues and challenges using the user
interest print (UIP) matrix.
Alhijawi, 2019. Cold start
Developing OptNibor which is a recommender system that reduces
the impact of the cold start issue and enhances the quality of CFRS.
Mahadevan & Data sparsity
Proposing an upgraded collaborative filtering algorithm to
Michael, 2017.
overcome data sparsity issue, in the videos' domain. The algorithm
applies credible user-reviews to generate precise recommendations
Ahmadian et al., Cold start and data
Proposing an approach that mitigates the cold start and data
2018. sparsity
sparsity issues in recommendation systems by adding trusty virtual
ratings.
Elkahky et al., 2015. Scalability
Proposing a solution to the scalability issue by using deep neural
networks to get low dimensional characteristics from high
dimensional ones
Adamopoulos & Over-specialization
Presenting a novel probabilistic method for recommending items,
Alexander, 2014.
that reduces the common issues of over-specialization and
concentration bias of recommendations.
Gemulla et al., 2011. Scalability
Suggesting a distributed algorithm where most computations can
be performed on several machines in parallel.
Shanshan et al. 2021.
Cold start and data Proposing hybrid recommended approach that could aid relieve the
sparsity problems. cold start and data sparsity issues.
Tarus et al., 2017. Developing hybrid approach can reduce both the cold start and data
Cold start and data sparsity problems by using ontological domain knowledge and
sparsity problems. learner’s sequential access pattern before the initial data to work on
is available in the recommender system.
5. Conclusion:

In this paper, we detail the e-learning history and surveyed the concept LO, and recommender systems, this review
covers the time span from the emergence of each concept to nowadays. the next article will be a survey on the
learning model in order to propose and develop a recommendation system for learning objects using machine
learning and big data.

appendix 1: Summary of systematic review

Authors Title Database source Number of Timespan
articles
Alhijawi et al., Survey on the Objectives of Recommender ACM Digital Over 100 2015-2020
2022. System: Measures, Solutions, Evaluation Library, Springer
Methodology, and New Perspectives Link, Web of
Science,
ScienceDirect
Mastan et al., Evaluation of distance learning system (e- Science Direct, 38 2016-2021
2022 learning): a systematic literature review. ACM, SCOPUS.
Rahayu et al., A systematic review of ontology uses in E-Learning IEEE Xplore, 72 2010-2020
2022. recommender system. JSTOR, Proquest,
SAGE Journals,
Science Direct,
SpringerLink, and
Taylor & Francis
Online
Raj & Renumol, A systematic literature review on adaptive content Scopus 52 2015-2020
2021. recommenders in personalized learning IEEE Xplore
environments from 2015 to 2020 ACM digital
library
Google scholar
Web of science
Souabi et al., Towards an Evolution of E-Learning IEEE, Springer, 36 2000-2020
2021. Recommendation Systems: From 2000 to Elsevier,
Nowadays ScienceDirect,
Google Scholar
George & Lal, Review of ontology-based recommender systems in Springer, Elsevier, 108 2010-2018
2019. e-learning IEEE, ACM
Digital Library,
and Google
Scholar
Rodrigues et al., Tracking e-learning through published papers: A ABI-Inform 99 2010-2018
2019 systematic review. Academic Search
Complete EBSCO
Tarus al., 2017. Knowledge-based recommendation: a review of Web of Science, 80 2005-2014
ontology-based recommender systems for e- Engineering Index,
learning Science Direct,
EBSCO Academic
Search Premier,
Springer,
IEEE Xplore
ACM Digital
Library.
Lu et al., 2015. Recommender System Application Developments: Science Direct, 177 1994-2014
A Survey ACM Digital
Library,
IEEE Xplore
SpringerLink.
Park et al., 2012. A literature review and classification of ABI/INFORM 210 2001-2010
recommender systems research Database;
ACM Portal;
EBSCO Academic
Search Premier;
EBSCO Business
Source Premier;
IEEE/IEE Library;
Science Direct.
Al-Yahya et al., Ontologies in E-learning: review of the literature ACM Digital 33 2000–2012
2015. Library,
IEEE Xplore,
Science Direct,
Web of Science
Çano & Hybrid Recommender Systems: A Systematic SpringerLink 240 2005-2015
Morisio, 2017. Literature Review Scopus
ACM Digital
Library
Science Direct
IEEE Explore

Sinha & Evolution of recommender system over the time …………… 142 1992-2019
Dhanalakshmi,
2019.

Jannach et al., Recommender systems in computer science and IEEE Intelligent 330 2006-2011
2012. information systems–a landscape of research Systems
AI Comm.
Jrnl. of Mgt.
Information
Systems (JMIS)
Mgt Information
Systems Quarterly
(MISQ)
Bobadilla et al., Recommender systems survey ……………….. 300 1995-2013
2013.
Mohamed et al., Computational Approaches in Supporting Special IEEE, 36 2009-2017
2017. Education Domain: A Review. ScienceDirect,
Scopus,
Google Scholar,
Springer ACM
digital library.

Appendix 2: Summary Systems et models proposed to recommender a LO

Title Type Model/system name

Publication
(Year and authors)

Tahir et al., 2022. Smart Learning Objects Retrieval for Prototype DRFLO (Dynamic
E-Learning with Contextual Recommendation of
Recommendation based on Collaborative Filtered LOs)
Filtering.

A hybrid E-learning recommendation

integrating adaptive profiling and ELHRS (Enhanced e-
Ezaldeen et al.,
sentiment analysis. Prototype Learning Hybrid
2022.
Recommender System)

Shanshan et al., An improved hybrid ontology-based Model -

2021. approach for online learning resource
recommendations.
De Medio et al., MoodleREC: A recommendation Prototype MoodleREC
2020. system for creating courses using the
Moodle e-learning platform.

Khaled et al., 2019. Prototype ILEARN

Recommendations-based on semantic
analysis of social networks in learning
environments

Mourão & José, Prototype SIMROAA

SIMROAA Multi-Agent
2019.
Recommendation System for
Recommending Accessible Learning
Objects

Iatrellis et al., 2019. A novel integrated approach to the Prototype EDUC8

execution of personalized and self-
evolving learning
pathways

Capuano & Toti, Prototype eJRM (electronic Justice

2019. Experimentation of a smart learning Relationship Management)
system for law based on knowledge
discovery and cognitive computing

Nafea et al., 2018. Prototype ULEARN

ULEARN: Personalized course learning
objects based on hybrid recommendation
approach

Mourão & José, MIDOAA: Inclusive Model of Model MIDOAA

2018. Development of Accessible Learning
Objects

Tarus et al., 2017. Model -

A hybrid knowledge-based recommender
system for e-learning based on ontology
and sequential pattern mining.

Labib et al., 2017. Model

On the way to learning style models LOAT (Learning
integration: a Learner’s Characteristics Object Authoring
Ontology Tool)

Imran et al., 2016. PLORS: a personalized learning object Prototype

PLORS (personalized
recommender system.
learning object recommender
system)

Muñoz et al., 2015. OntoSakai: On the optimization of a Prototype OntoSakai

Learning Management System using
semantics and user profiling
 Sergis & Demetrios, Prototype -
Learning object recommendations for
2015.
teachers based on elicited ICT
competence profiles.

Clemente et al., Prototype SMA (Student

2014. Applying a student modeling with Modeling Agent)
non-monotonic diagnosis
to Intelligent Virtual Environment for
Training/ Instruction.

Zapata et al., 2013. Prototype DELPHOS

A framework for recommendation in
learning object repositories: An example
of application in civil engineering.

Fonte et al., 2012. Prototype INES (Intelligent

An intelligent tutoring module controlled Educational System)
by BDI agents for an e-learning platform.

Caravantes & Prototype

Generic educational knowledge COES (Cognitive
Ramón, 2011.
representation for adaptive and cognitive Ontology of Educational
systems. Systems)

Ullrich & Erica, Prototype Piagos

2010. Complex course generation adapted to
pedagogical scenarios and its evaluation.

Verbert & Duval, ALOCOM: a generic content model for Model

ALOCOM (Abstract
2008. learning objects.
Learning Object COntent
Model)

Biletskiy et al., Prototype

An adjustable personalization of search PSDLO (personalized search
2009.
and delivery of learning objects to and delivery of learning
learners. objects)

Acknowledgements
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References:
Abbas, A., Zhang, L., & Khan, S. U. (2015). A survey on context-aware recommender systems based on
computational intelligence techniques. Computing, 97(7), 667-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-015-0448-7

Adamopoulos, P., & Tuzhilin, A. (2014, October). On over-specialization and concentration bias of
recommendations: Probabilistic neighborhood selection in collaborative filtering systems. In Proceedings of the
8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2645710.2645752

Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the
state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 17(6), 734-749.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.99
Afoudi, Y., Lazaar, M., & Al Achhab, M. (2021). Hybrid recommendation system combined content-based
filtering and collaborative prediction using artificial neural network. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
113, 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2021.102375
Aggarwal, C. C. (2016). Recommender systems. Springer International
Publishing Switzerland https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29659-3

Ahmadian, S., Meghdadi, M., & Afsharchi, M. (2018). Incorporating reliable virtual ratings into social
recommendation systems. Applied Intelligence, 48(11), 4448-4469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1219-x

Alarcón Valero, F., Alemany Díaz, M. D. M., Boza, A., Cuenca, L., Gordo Monzó, M. L., Fernández-Diego, M.,
& Ruiz Font, L. (2015). Learning object definition and classification. Edulearn Proceedings (Internet), 44794488.
http://hdl.handle.net/10251/95287

Al Fararni, K., Aghoutane, B., Riffi, J., Sabri, A., & Yahyaouy, A. (2020). Comparative study on approaches of
recommendation systems. In Embedded Systems and Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Singapore, 753-764.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0947-6_72

Alhijawi, B. (2019, October). Improving collaborative filtering recommender system results using optimization
technique. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 183187.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3369114.3369126

Alhijawi, B., Awajan, A., & Fraihat, S. (2022). Survey on the Objectives of Recommender System: Measures,
Solutions, Evaluation Methodology, and New Perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3527449

Alhijawi, B., Ghazi, A., Nadim, O., & Arafat, A. (2021). Novel predictive model to improve the accuracy of
collaborative filtering recommender systems. Information Systems, 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2020.101670.

Al-Yahya, M., George, R., & Alfaries, A. (2015). Ontologies in E-learning: review of the literature. International
Journal of software engineering and its applications, 9(2), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.2.07.

Anand, P. B., & Rajender, N. (2020). Content‐Based Recommender Systems. Recommender System with
Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: Practical Tools and Applications in Medical, Agricultural and
Other Industries, 165-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119711582.ch9

Anggrawan, A., & Jihadil, Q. S. (2018, October). Comparative analysis of online e-learning and face to face
learning: an experimental study. In 2018 Third International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC),
1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAC.2018.8780495

Anwar, T., & Uma, V. (2021). Comparative study of recommender system approaches and movie recommendation
using collaborative filtering. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 12(3), 426-
436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-021-01087-x

Astudillo, G., Sanz, C., & Willging, P. (2011). Análisis del estado del arte de los objetos de aprendizaje. Revisión
de su definición y sus posibilidades. Facultad de Informática Universidad Nacional de La Plata,
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Recovered 15 Feb. 22, From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283316705

Balabanović, M., & Shoham, Y. (1997). Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of
the ACM, 40(3), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1145/245108.245124

Barritt, C., Lewis, D., & Wieseler, W. (1999). Cisco Systems reusable information object strategy. definition,
creation overview, and guidelines. Cisco Systems, Inc. Retrieved 01 Feb .22, from
https://www.mindmeister.com/generic_files/get_file/519411?filetype=attachment_file
Basu, C., Hirsh, H., & Cohen, W. (1998, July). Recommendation as classification: Using social and content-based
information in recommendation. In Aaai/iaai, 714-720. Recovered 27 April 2022, from
https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/1998/AAAI98-101.pdf.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2018). A methodology to define learning objects granularity: a case study in software testing.
Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 17(1), 1-20.

Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2013). Choosing a learning management system. Advanced Distributed Learning
(ADL) Co-Laboratories, 14, 40-62. Recovered 07 Feb. 22, From
https://adlnet.gov/assets/uploads/ChoosingAnLMS.pdf

Bhareti, K., Perera, S., Jamal, S., Pallege, M. H., Akash, V., & Wiieweera, S. (2020, November). A literature
review of recommendation systems. In 2020 IEEE International Conference for Innovation in Technology
(INOCON), IEEE, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/INOCON50539.2020.9298450

Biletskiy, Y., Baghi, H., Keleberda, I., & Fleming, M. (2009). An adjustable personalization of search and delivery
of learning objects to learners. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9113-9120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.038

Billsus, D., & Michael, J. P. (1999). A hybrid user model for news story classification. In Um99 user modeling,
Springer, Vienna, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2490-1_10

Biswal, A., Borah, M. D., & Hussain, Z. (2021). Music recommender system using restricted Boltzmann machine
with implicit feedback. In Advances in Computers, Elsevier, 122, 367-402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2021.01.001

Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A., & Gutiérrez, A. (2013). Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-based
systems, 46, 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.03.012

Boratto, L., Carta, S., Fenu, G., & Saia, R. (2017). Semantics-aware content-based recommender systems:
Design and architecture guidelines. Neurocomputing, 254, 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.079

Buffa, M., Dehors, S., Faron-Zucker, C., Sander, P., & ACACIA, I. S. A. (2005). Towards a corporate semantic
web approach in designing learning systems: Review of the trial solution project. In Proc. of International
Workshop on Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning, AIED, 73-76. Amsterdam: Holland.

Burke, R. (2002). Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User modeling and user-adapted
interaction, 12(4), 331-370. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021240730564

Çano, E., & Morisio, M. (2017). Hybrid recommender systems: A systematic literature review. Intelligent Data
Analysis, 21(6), 1487-1524. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDA-163209

Capuano, N., & Daniele, T. (2019). Experimentation of a smart learning system for law based on knowledge
discovery and cognitive computing. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 459-467.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.034

Caravantes, A., & Galán, R. (2011). Generic educational knowledge representation for adaptive and cognitive
systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 252-266.

Cardinaels, K. (2007). A dynamic learning object life cycle and its implications for automatic metadata generation.
Recovered 15 May 2022, from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1652647?limo=0.

Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching language and teaching literature in virtual environments. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1358-5
Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 55(5), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9000-y.

Claypool, M., Gokhale, A., Miranda, T., Murnikov, P., Netes, D., & Sartin, M. (1999). Combining content-based
and collaborative filters in an online newspaper. In Proceedings of ACM SIGIR workshop on recommender
systems, 60, 1853-1870.

Clemente, J., Ramírez, J., & De Antonio, A. (2014). Applying a student modeling with non-monotonic diagnosis
to intelligent virtual environment for training/instruction. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 508-520.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.077
Condliff, M. K., David, L., David, M., & Christian, P. (1999). Bayesian mixed-effects models for recommender
systems. In ACM SIGIR, 99, 23-30.

Conkey, C., Smith, B., DuBuc, C., & Smith, P. A. (2006). Integrating Simulations into Sharable Content Object
Reference Model Learning Environments. In The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education
Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, Florida.

Cross, J. (2004). An informal history of e-learning. On the

Horizon, 12(3), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120410555340

DCMI. (2022). DCMI Metadata Basics. Website, Retrieved from

https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/ Accessed February 05 , 2022.

De Hoog, R., Kabel, S., Barnard, Y., Boy, G., DeLuca, P., Desmoulins, C., Johan, R., & Verstegen, D. (2002).
Re-using technical manuals for instruction: creating instructional material with the tools of the IMAT project. In
Workshop on Integrating Technical and Training Documentation.

De Medio, C., Carla, L., Filippo, S., & Marco, T. (2020). MoodleREC: A recommendation system for creating
courses using the moodle e-learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106-168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106168

De Rosa, C., Dempsey, L., & Wilson, A. (2004). 2003 OCLC environmental scan. OCLC Online Computer
Library Center, Inc. Recovered 12 Jan.22, from https://library.oclc.org/digital/collection/p267701coll5/id/820/
Deschênes, M. (2020). Recommender systems to support learners’ Agency in a Learning Context: a systematic
review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00219-w

Di Nitto, E., Mainetti, L., Monga, M., Sbattella, L., & Tedesco, R. (2006). Supporting interoperability and
reusability of learning objects: The virtual campus approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(2),
33-50.

Doukoure, I. (2014). Ontologies, web sémantique et e-learning : vers la composition automatique des objets
d'apprentissage fondée sur les ontologies et les théories pédagogiques (Doctoral dissertation, Université du
Québec à Montréal). Recovered 03 March 2022 from https://archipel.uqam.ca/7054/

Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2(1) 1-35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v2i1.32

Dublin. (2022). Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. Current version (2020-01-20) Retrieved from
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#section-3 Accessed February 04 , 2022.

Duval, E., & Hodgins, W. (2003). A LOM Research Agenda. In WWW (Alternate Paper Tracks). Retrieved Feb 28,
2022, from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.1891&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Elkahky, A. M., Song, Y., & He, X. (2015, May). A multi-view deep learning approach for cross domain user
modeling in recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web,
278-288. https://doi.org/10.1145/2736277.2741667

Ezaldeen, H., Rachita, M., Sukant, K. B., Rawaa, A., & Rojalina, P. (2022). A hybrid E-learning recommendation
integrating adaptive profiling and sentiment analysis. Journal of Web Semantics, 72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2021.100700

Fayyaz, Z., Mahsa, E., Dina, N., Ahmed, I., & Rasha, K. (2020). Recommendation Systems: Algorithms,
Challenges, Metrics, and Business Opportunities. Applied Sciences, 10(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217748

Fernandes, E., & Hend, M., Sami M., & Maia, W. F. (2005). Phoenix tool: a support to Semantic Learning Model.
In Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05), 948-949.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2005.220
Fernandez-Manjon, B., & Sancho, P. (2002). Creating cost-effective adaptative educational hypermedia based on
markup technologies and e-learning standards. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 1-11.

Fkih, F. (2021). Similarity measures for Collaborative Filtering-based Recommender Systems: Review and
experimental comparison. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.09.014

Friesen, N. (2001). What are educational objects? Interactive learning environments, 9(3), 219-230.
https://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.9.3.219.3573

Fonte, F. A. M., Burguillo, J. C., & Nistal, M. L. (2012). An intelligent tutoring module controlled by BDI agents
for an e-learning platform. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7546-7554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.161

Gaeta, M., Orciuoli, F., & Ritrovato, P. (2009). Advanced ontology management system for personalised e-
Learning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(4), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2009.01.006

García, A. L. (2005). Objetos de aprendizaje. Características y repositorios. Recovered 04 Feb 22, by

http://espacio.uned.es/fez/eserv/bibliuned:327/editabril2005.pdf

Gemmis, M. D., Lops, P., Musto, C., Narducci, F., & Semeraro, G. (2015). Semantics-aware content-based
recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook, Springer, Boston, MA, 119-159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_4

Gemulla, R., Nijkamp, E., Haas, P. J., & Sismanis, Y. (2011, August). Large-scale matrix factorization with
distributed stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on
Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2020408.2020426

George, G., & Lal, A. M. (2019). Review of ontology-based recommender systems in e-learning. Computers &
Education, 142, Article 103642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103642

Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. The instructional
use of learning objects, 25-58. Recovered 12 Dec 21, from
http://members.aect.org/publications/InstructionalUseofLearningObjects.pdf#page=28

Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B. M., & Terry, D. (1992). Using collaborative filtering to weave an information
tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 35(12), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1145/138859.138867

Gupta, S. B., & Gupta, M. (2020). Technology and E-learning in higher education. Technology, 29(4), 13201325.

Hensley, C. B., Savage, T. R., Sowarby, A. J., & Resnick, A. (1962). Selective dissemination of information-a new
approach to effective communication. IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, (2), 55-65.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IRET-EM.1962.5007661

Higgs, P., Meredith, S., & Hand, T. (2003). Technology for sharing: Researching learning objects and digital rights
management. Flexible Learning Leader Report 2002. Recovered 04 Feb. 22, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.6536&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hodgins, W., & Marcia, C. (2000). Everything you ever wanted to know about learning standards but were afraid
to ask. Learning in the New Economy e-Magazine (LiNE Zine).

Hua, T. G. (2002). Getting started with learning objects. Centre for IT in Education and Learning Temasek
Polytechnic.

Iatrellis, O., Achilles, K., & Panos, F. (2019). A novel integrated approach to the execution of personalized and
self-evolving learning pathways. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 781-803.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9802-7

IEEE. (2002). IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata, in IEEE Std 1484.12.1-2002, 1-40.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2002.94128

IEEE. (2020). IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata, in IEEE Std 1484.12.1-2020, 1-50.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9262118.

Ignat’ev, V. Yu., Lemtyuzhnikova, D. V., Rul, D. I., & Ryabov, I. L. (2018). Constructing a hybrid recommender
system. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International, 57(6), 921-926.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064230718060060

Imran, H., Belghis-Zadeh, M., Chang, T. W., & Graf, S. (2016). PLORS: a personalized learning object
recommender system. Vietnam Journal of Computer Science, 3(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40595-0150049-
6

Isinkaye, F. O., Folajimi, Y. O., & Ojokoh, B. A. (2015). Recommendation systems: Principles, methods and
evaluation. Egyptian informatics journal, 16(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2015.06.005

Jannach, D., Zanker, M., Ge, M., & Gröning, M. (2012, September). Recommender systems in computer science
and information systems–a landscape of research. In International conference on electronic commerce and web
technologies, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32273-0_7

Javed, U., Shaukat, K., Hameed, I. A., Iqbal, F., Alam, T. M., & Luo, S. (2021). A review of content-based and
context-based recommendation systems. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET),
16(3), 274-306. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i03.18851

Jeevamol, J., & Renumol, V. G. (2021). An ontology-based hybrid e-learning content recommender system for
alleviating the cold-start problem. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4993-5022.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3429251

Justo-López, A., López-Morteo, G., Flores-Ríos, B., & García, L. C. (2021). Process pattern and process capability
evaluation model for interoperability in learning object environments. Array, 10, Article 100059.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2021.100059

Joy, J., Raj, N. S., & VG, R. (2021). Ontology-based E-learning Content Recommender System for Addressing the
Pure Cold-start Problem. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 13(3), 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3429251
Karmakar, A., & Asoke, N. (2014). E-Learning Methodologies, Strategies and Tools to implement lifetime
education anywhere anytime. International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering, 1(4),
193194.

Karna, N. (2017, November). New model of e-learning based on knowledge management system. In 2017 2nd
International conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering
(ICITISEE), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITISEE.2017.8285562

Keenoy, K., Alexandra, P., Vassilis, C., Philippe, R., George, P., Aimilia, M., Miltos, S., Nicolas, S., & Peter,
W. (2004). Personalisation services for self e-learning networks. In International Conference on Web Engineering,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 215-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27834-4_27

Khaled, A., Samir, O., & Chemseddine, C. (2019). Recommendations-based on semantic analysis of social
networks in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 435-449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.051

Khanal, S. S., Prasad, P. W. C., Alsadoon, A., & Maag, A. (2020). A systematic review: machine learning based
recommendation systems for e-learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4),
26352664.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10063-9

Khusro, S., Ali, Z., & Ullah, I. (2016). Recommender systems: issues, challenges, and research opportunities.
In Information science and applications (ICISA), Springer, Singapore, 1179-1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-
10-0557-2_112

Klašnja-Milićević, A., Ivanović, M., & Nanopoulos, A. (2015). Recommender systems in e-learning environments:
a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44(4),
571604.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-015-9440-z

Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., Budimac, Z., & Jain, L. C. (2017). Introduction to E-learning
systems. In E-Learning Systems, Springer, Cham, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41163-7_1

Kumar, P. P., Vairachilai, S., Potluri, S., & Mohanty, S. N. (2021). Recommender Systems: Algorithms and
Applications (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367631888

Labib, A., Ezzat, J. H., Canós, M., & Carmen, P. (2017). On the way to learning style models integration: a
Learner's Characteristics Ontology. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 433-445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.054

L’Allier, J. J. (1998). NETg's precision skilling: The linking of occupational skills descriptors to training
interventions. Retrieved 30, Dec 2021. from
http://web.archive.org/web/20020615192443/http://www.netg.com/research/whitepapers/frameref.asp

Le H. L., Quoc, C. N., & Minh, T. N. (2017). An improvement on recommender systems by exploring more
relationships. International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, 7(29).
http://dx.doi.org/10.19101/IJACR.2017.72800

Lika, B., Kostas, K., & Stathes, H. (2014). Facing the cold start problem in recommender systems. Expert
Systems with Applications, 41(4), 2065-2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.09.005

Liphoto, M., Chunling D., & Seleman, N. (2016, November). A survey on recommender systems. In 2016
International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communication Engineering (ICACCE), IEEE, 276-
280. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCE.2016.8073761
Löser, A., Christian, G., & Marcus, H. (2002). A didactic model, definition of learning objects and selection of
metadata for an online curriculum. In Proceedings of the International Workshop of Interactive Computer Aided
Learning (ICL), Villach, Austria.

Lu, J., Wu, D., Mao, M., Wang, W., & Zhang, G. (2015). Recommender system application developments: a
survey. Decision Support Systems, 74, 12-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.03.008

Mahadevan, A., & Arock, M. (2017, December). Credible user-review incorporated collaborative filtering for
video recommendation system. In 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS), 375-
379. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISS1.2017.8389433

Maldonado, M. J. (2015). Desarrollo de un marco de análisis para la selección de metodologías de diseño de

objetos de aprendizaje (OA) basado en criterios de calidad para contextos educativos específicos (Doctoral
dissertation, Universidad Nacional de La Plata). https://doi.org/10.35537/10915/45063

Maldonado, J. J., Fernández-Pampillón, A. M., & Sanz, C. V. (2015, June). Analysis framework for tailored
selection of learning objects methodologies. In 2015 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and
Systems (CTS), pp. 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2015.7210415

Mastan, I. A., Sensuse, D. I., Suryono, R. R., & Kautsarina, K. (2022). Evaluation of distance learning system (e-
learning): a systematic literature review. Jurnal Teknoinfo, 16(1), 132-137.

McGreal, R. (Ed.). (2004). Online Education Using Learning Objects (2nd

ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964538

McSherry, D. (2002). Diversity-conscious retrieval. In European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning,

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46119-1_17

Melville, P., & Vikas, S. (2010). Recommender systems. Encyclopedia of machine learning, 1, 829-838.
Recovered 10 April 2022, from https://www.ime.usp.br/~jstern/miscellanea/seminario/Melville1.pdf

Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1991). Instructional transaction theory: An introduction. Educational
Technology, 7-12. Recovered 12 Dec. 21, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428337

Mohamed, M. H., Khafagy, M. H., & Ibrahim, M. H. (2019, February). Recommender systems challenges and
solutions survey. In 2019 International Conference on Innovative Trends in Computer Engineering (ITCE), IEEE,
149-155. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITCE.2019.8646645

Mohemad, R., Mamat, N. F. A., Noor, N. M. M., & Alhadi, A. C. (2017). Computational Approaches in
Supporting Special Education Domain: A Review. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer
Engineering (JTEC), 9(3-5), 61-67. https://jtec.utem.edu.my/jtec/article/view/2964/2096

Mohan, P., & Brooks C. (2003). Learning objects on the semantic web. In Proceedings 3rd IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Technologies, 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2003.1215055

Mooney, R. J., & Loriene, R. (2000). Content-based book recommending using learning for text categorization. In
Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Digital libraries, pp. 195-204, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1145/336597.336662

Mourão, A. B., & Netto, J. F. M. (2018, October). Inclusive Model for the development and evaluation of accessible
learning objects for graduation in computing: a case study. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE),
1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658494
Mourão, A. B., & Netto, J. F. M. (2019, October). SIMROAA Multi-Agent Recommendation System for
Recommending Accessible Learning Objects. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028504

Muñoz, A., Lasheras, J., Capel, A., Cantabella, M., & Caballero, A. (2015). OntoSakai: On the optimization of a
Learning Management System using semantics and user profiling. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15-16),
5995-6007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.019

Mustafa, N., Ibrahim, A. O., Ahmed, A., & Abdullah, A. (2017, January). Collaborative filtering: Techniques and
applications. In 2017 International Conference on Communication, Control, Computing and Electronics
Engineering (ICCCCEE), IEEE, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCCEE.2017.7867668

Nafea, S., Francois, S., & Ying, H. (2018). ULEARN: Personalized course learning objects based on hybrid
recommendation approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(12).

Nagarnaik, P., & Thomas, A. (2015, February). Survey on recommendation system methods. In 2015 2nd
International Conference on Electronics and Communication Systems, IEEE, 1603-1608.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECS.2015.7124857

Najmani, K., El habib, B., Sael, N., & Zellou, A. (2019, October). A comparative study on recommender systems
approaches. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Big Data and Internet of Things, 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3372938.337294

Nam, L. N. H. (2022). Towards comprehensive approaches for the rating prediction phase in memory-based
collaborative filtering recommender systems, 589, 878-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.123

Natarajan, S., Vairavasundaram, S., Natarajan, S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2020). Resolving data sparsity and cold start
problem in collaborative filtering recommender system using linked open data. Expert Systems with Applications,
149, 113248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113248

O’Sullivan, D., Barry, S., & David, W. (2004). Preserving recommender accuracy and diversity in sparse datasets.
International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(01), 219-235.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218213004001491

Pagare, R., & Patil, S. A. (2014, February). Social recommender system by embedding social regularization.
In 2014 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), IEEE, 471-
476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IAdCC.2014.6779370

Patel, B., Desai, P., & Panchal, U. (2017, March). Methods of recommender system: A review. In 2017
international conference on innovations in information, embedded and communication systems (ICIIECS), IEEE,
1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIECS.2017.8275856

Patel, Y. G., & Patel, V. P. (2015). A survey on various techniques of recommendation system in web mining.
International Journal of Engineering Development and Research, 3(4), 696-700. Corpus ID: 212575812

Park, D. H., Kim, H. K., Choi, I. Y., & Kim, J. K. (2012). A literature review and classification of recommender
systems research. Expert systems with applications, 39(11), 10059-10072.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.038

Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational technology research and development, 52(1),
49-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504772

Pazzani, M. J. (1999). A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic filtering. Artificial
intelligence review, 13(5), 393-https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006544522159
Pazzani, M. J. (1999). A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic filtering. Artificial
intelligence review, 13(5), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006544522159

Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital information, 3(4).
Recovered 30 Dec 2021, From https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/jodi-105

Premlatha, K. R., & Geetha, T. V. (2015). Learning content design and learner adaptation for adaptive e-learning
environment: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44(4), 443-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-015-9432z

Rafsanjani, A. H. N., Salim, N., Aghdam, A. R., & Fard, K. B. (2013). Recommendation systems: a review.
International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3(5), 47-52.

Rahayu, N. W., Ferdiana, R., & Kusumawardani, S. S. (2022). A systematic review of ontology use in E-Learning
recommender system. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence,
100047.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100047

Raj, N. S., & Renumol, V. G. (2021). A systematic literature review on adaptive content recommenders in
personalized learning environments from 2015 to 2020. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00199-4

Resnick, P., Iacovou, N., Suchak, M., Bergstrom, P., & Riedl, J. (1994, October). Grouplens: An open architecture
for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.192905

Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2015). Recommender systems: introduction and challenges. In Recommender
systems handbook Springer, Boston, MA, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_1

Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019). Tracking e-learning through published papers:
A systematic review. Computers & Education, 136, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.007

Sachan, A., & Richariya, V. (2013). A survey on recommender systems based on collaborative filtering technique.
International journal of Innovations in Engineering and technology (IJIET), 2(2), 8-14.

Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J., & Sen, S. (2007). Collaborative filtering recommender systems.
In The adaptive web, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 291-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_9

Schein, A. I., Popescul, A., Ungar, L. H., & Pennock, D. M. (2002, August). Methods and metrics for cold-start
recommendations. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and
development in information retrieval, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1145/564376.564421

Schluep, S. (2005). Modularization and structured markup for web-based learning content in an academic
environment. 10.
Schluep, S., Bettoni, M., & Schär, S. G. (2006). Modularization and structured markup for learning content in an
academic environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(1), 35-44.
SCORM. (2022). ADL The SCORM® Overview Version 1.2. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative.
Recovered from https://www.adlnet.gov/projects/scorm/ Accessed January 22, 2022

Sergis, S., & Sampson, D. G. (2015). Learning object recommendations for teachers based on elicited ICT
competence profiles. Ieee transactions on learning technologies, 9(1), 67-80.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2434824

Shah, K., Salunke, A., Dongare, S., & Antala, K. (2017, March). Recommender systems: An overview of different
approaches to recommendations. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and
Communication Systems (ICIIECS), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIECS.2017.8276172
Shanshan, S., Gao, M., & Luo, L. (2021). An improved hybrid ontology-based approach for online learning
resource recommendations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2637-2661.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10029-0

Sharma, L., & Anju, G. (2013). A survey of recommendation system: Research challenges. International Journal
of Engineering Trends and Technology, 4(5), 1989-1992.

Sharma, R., Gopalani, D., & Meena, Y. (2017, February). Collaborative filtering-based recommender system:
Approaches and research challenges. In 2017 3rd international conference on computational intelligence &
communication technology (CICT), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIACT.2017.7977363

Shahbazi, Z., & Byun, Y. C. (2022). Agent-Based Recommendation in E-Learning Environment Using Knowledge
Discovery and Machine Learning Approaches. Mathematics, 10(7), Article 1192.
https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071192

Shardanand, U., & Maes, P. (1995, May). Social information filtering: Algorithms for automating “word of
mouth”. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 210-217.
https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223931

Sharma, L., & Gera, A. (2013). A survey of recommendation system: Research challenges. International Journal
of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 4(5), 1989-1992.

Singh, T., Choudhury, A., & Akash, V. (2021). An Analysis on Recommendation Systems in Machine Learning.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 08(09), 263-268. Recovered 01 April
22, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354527303_An_Analysis_on_Recommendation_Systems_in_Machine
_Learning

Sinha, B. B., & Dhanalakshmi, R. (2019). Evolution of recommender system over the time. Soft
Computing, 23(23), 12169-12188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04143-8

Sivaranjani, B., & Saravana, P. (2014); E-Learning—An overview. International Journal of Engineering and
Management Research (IJEMR), 4(4), 117-123. Retrieved 27 March 2022, from
https://www.ijemr.net/DOC/E-LearningAnOverview(117-123)bb6c355b-8d3c-4fb7-b1e3-8f026e475be8.pdf

Smyth, B., & Paul, C. (2000). A personalised TV listings service for the digital TV age. Knowledge-Based Systems,
13(2-3), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00046-0

Soboroff, I., & Nicholas, C. (1999). Combining content and collaboration in text filtering. In Proceedings of the
IJCAI, 99(1999), 86-91.

Sridevi, M., Rao, R. R., & Rao, M. V. (2016). A survey on recommender system. International Journal of
Computer Science and Information Security, 14(5), 265.

Stitini, O., Soulaimane, K., & Omar, B. (2022). An Improved Recommender System Solution to Mitigate the
Over-Specialization Problem Using Genetic Algorithms. Electronics, 11(2).
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11020242

Souabi, S., Retbi, A., Idrissi, M. K., & Bennani, S. (2021). Towards an Evolution of E-Learning
Recommendation Systems: From 2000 to Nowadays. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning, 16(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i06.18159

Su, X., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2009). A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Advances in artificial
intelligence, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/421425
Süß, C., Kammerl, R., & Freitag, B. (2000). A teachware management framework for multiple teaching strategies.
In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, 1101-1106. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).

Tadlaoui, M. (2018). Système de recommandation de ressources pédagogiques fondé sur les liens sociaux :
formalisation et évaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lyon ; Université Abou Bekr Belkaid (Tlemcen,
Algérie)). Recovered 21. April 2022 http://theses.insa-lyon.fr/publication/2018LYSEI053/these.pdf

Tahir, S., Yaser, H., Muhammad, A. A., Asif, N., & Bushra, H. (2022). Smart Learning Objects Retrieval for E-
Learning with Contextual Recommendation based on Collaborative Filtering. Education and Information
Technologies, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10966-0

Taneja, A., & Anuja, A. (2018). Recommendation research trends: review, approaches and open issues.
International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, 13(2), 123-186.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWET.2018.092831

Tarus, J. K., Niu, Z., & Mustafa, G. (2018). Knowledge-based recommendation: a review of ontology-based
recommender systems for e-learning. Artificial intelligence review, 50(1), 21-48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462017-9539-5

Tarus, J. K., Zhendong, N., & Abdallah, Y. (2017). A hybrid knowledge-based recommender system for e-learning
based on ontology and sequential pattern mining. Future Generation Computer Systems, 72, 37-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.02.049

Thomas, A., & Sujatha, A. K. (2016, March). Comparative study of recommender systems. In 2016 International
Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT), pp. 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPCT.2016.7530304

Thorat, P. B., Goudar, R. M., & Sunita B. (2015). Survey on collaborative filtering, content-based filtering and
hybrid recommendation system. International Journal of Computer Applications, 110(4), 31-36.

Tom, C., & Michael, K. B. (2015). Online Blended and Distance Education in Schools: Building Successful Program
(1st ed.). United States of America: Stylus Publishing. ISBN-13: 978-1620361641.

Ullrich, C., & Melis, E. (2010). Complex course generation adapted to pedagogical scenarios and its evaluation.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 102-115.

Ungar, L. H., & Foster, D. P. (1998). Clustering methods for collaborative filtering. In AAAI workshop on
recommendation systems, 1, 114-129. Recovered 27 April 2022, from
https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/1998/WS-98-08/WS98-08-029.pdf

Valderrama, R. P., Ocaña, L. B., & Sheremetov, L. B. (2005). Development of intelligent reusable learning objects
for web-based education systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 28(2), 273-283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2004.09.003

Valenzuela, B. D., Fragoso, O. G., Santaolaya, R., & Munoz, J. (2017). Educational resources as learning Web
services, an alternative point of view to learning objects. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 15(4), 711-719.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2017.7896399

Verbert, K. (2008). An architecture and framework for flexible reuse of learning object components. Recovered
04 Feb. 22, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28360461_An_architecture_and_framework_for_flexible_reuse_of_lea
rning_object_components
Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2004). Towards a global architecture for learning objects: a comparative analysis of
learning object content models. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 202-208). Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE).

Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2008). ALOCOM: a generic content model for learning objects. International Journal
on Digital Libraries, 9(1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-008-0039-8

Wagner, E. (2002). Steps to creating a content strategy for your organization. Best of the e-learning guild's learning
solutions: Top articles from the e-Magazine's first five years, 103-120.
Wiley, D. A. (2000a). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a
taxonomy. The instructional use of learning objects, 2830(435), 1-35. Recovered 12 Dec. 21, from
shttp://members.aect.org/publications/InstructionalUseofLearningObjects.pdf#page=7

Wiley, D. A. (2000b). Learning object design and sequencing theory. (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young
University). Recovered 12 Dec. 21, from http://opencontent.org/docs/dissertation.pdf

Wiley, D., Gibbons, A., & Recker, M. (2000). A reformulation of the issue of learning object granularity and its
implications for the design of learning objects. The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, Indiana:
Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications of Technology.
Recovered 04 Feb. 22, from http://reusability.org/granularity.pdf

Wiley, D., Sandie, W., Deonne, D., Brent, L., Matthew, B., David, W., & Laurie, N. (2004). Overcoming the
limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(4), 507-521. ISSN
10558896

Yang, X., Guo, Y., Liu, Y., & Steck, H. (2014). A survey of collaborative filtering based social recommender
systems. Computer communications, 41, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2013.06.009

Zapata, A., Menéndez, V. H., Prieto, M. E., & Romero, C. (2013). A framework for recommendation in learning
object repositories: An example of application in civil engineering. Advances in Engineering Software, 56, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.10.005

Zouaq, A., Nkambou, R., & Frasson, C. (2007). An integrated approach for automatic aggregation of learning
knowledge objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 3(1), 135-162.

Zuva, T., Ojo, S. O., Ngwira, S., & Zuva, K. (2012). A survey of recommender systems techniques, challenges and
evaluation metrics. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 2(11), 382386.