Evaluation - Advances in Personalized Web-Based Education - page 109

Did the system's inferences about your
knowledge level on each domain concept …

Was the system's decision not to read some
concepts meaningful?

Were the returns to already learned concepts
meaningful?

Did the system return you to read again a
concept that that you knew it?

Did you need to read some concepts that the
system considered to be learned?

Did the prompt for revision was useful and
appropriate?

How time did you spend on issues that you
already known?

Did the educational system correspond to
your needs and knowledge level each time?

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 4.11 Learners' answers about the system's adaptive responses to their needs

4.3.7 The Validity of the Conclusions Drawn by the Student
Model Concerning the Aspects of the Students'
Characteristics

The conclusions that are drawn by the system concerning the aspects of students'
characteristics seem to be satisfactory valid. According to the results the system
advises the learners with studies on arts fields to read a domain concept more
times than the learners who had been involved with the logic of programming
before (Fig. 4.12 ). The lower average times of reading corresponds to the learners
with background on computer-related sciences. Furthermore, the system advises
the learners with studies on arts to return to a domain concept in order to revise
it more times than the other learners (Fig. 4.13 ). This is evident, since learners
with no previous knowledge and experience on computer programming, have
difficulty in assimilating the learning material of the particular knowledge domain.
The average time of returns to a domain concept for revision is very low for the
learners with background on computer-related sciences. It is logical, since the
most learners with background on computer-related sciences have already been
involved in computer programming and thus it is easy for them to deal with the
learning material of the system's knowledge domain.