E-Learning Course Recommendation Based on Employee Interaction History and Implicit Preferences: A Protocol-Aware Comparison of Sequential Recommendation Architectures

Large corporate e-learning catalogs make relevant courses hard for employees to find. This single-organization case study compares six sequential models for next-course recommendation from interaction histories: an Encoder-Decoder LSTM with Temporal Attention, its no-attention and Keras multi-head-attention variants, and GRU4Rec and SASRec, each with and without the same temporal-attention pooling. Each model family receives the same 30-trial Optuna search and is evaluated over ten training seeds on 4,553 (default protocol) and 4,551 (strict, train-history-only protocol) temporally isolated test samples. Under equal tuning, the six backbones are statistically indistinguishable on default-protocol Hit@10 (92.6% to 92.8%). On the strict protocol, SASRec outperforms the LSTM by 0.75 percentage points (95% CI 0.35 to 1.16, Holm-adjusted p = 0.004), but only under a dual-protocol tuning objective (E7b) adopted after inspecting the test results of a single-protocol objective (E7); under E7 the advantage becomes a non-significant 0.15-point deficit. Temporal attention produces no Holm-significant Hit@10 change on any backbone. All models outperform a first-order Markov-chain baseline (by 6.0 to 6.1 points, default; 33 to 34 points, strict) and a popularity baseline. A fixed five-course curriculum followed by 27.3% of test users inflates every raw score; excluding these users leaves every comparison intact. A forward-in-time audit, run on validation users and not a retraining of the main models, gives an absolute Hit@10 of only about 0.51. The 4,795 users (49.96%) with fewer than four interactions were excluded, so the findings do not cover cold-start recommendation, and offline ranking metrics do not measure learning or workforce outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Computers Mechanical and Management
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.57159/jcmm.5.5.261538
Primary Topic
Recommender Systems and Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

E-Learning Course Recommendation Based on Employee Interaction History and Implicit Preferences: A Protocol-Aware Comparison of Sequential Recommendation Architectures

Ruktin Handayani, Ratna Sari Dewi, Udisubakti Ciptomulyono
Journal of Computers Mechanical and Management
Recommender Systems and Techniques
article

E-Learning Course Recommendation Based on Employee Interaction History and Implicit Preferences: A Protocol-Aware Comparison of Sequential Recommendation Architectures

Ruktin Handayani, Ratna Sari Dewi, Udisubakti Ciptomulyono
article en

Abstract

Large corporate e-learning catalogs make relevant courses hard for employees to find. This single-organization case study compares six sequential models for next-course recommendation from interaction histories: an Encoder-Decoder LSTM with Temporal Attention, its no-attention and Keras multi-head-attention variants, and GRU4Rec and SASRec, each with and without the same temporal-attention pooling. Each model family receives the same 30-trial Optuna search and is evaluated over ten training seeds on 4,553 (default protocol) and 4,551 (strict, train-history-only protocol) temporally isolated test samples. Under equal tuning, the six backbones are statistically indistinguishable on default-protocol Hit@10 (92.6% to 92.8%). On the strict protocol, SASRec outperforms the LSTM by 0.75 percentage points (95% CI 0.35 to 1.16, Holm-adjusted p = 0.004), but only under a dual-protocol tuning objective (E7b) adopted after inspecting the test results of a single-protocol objective (E7); under E7 the advantage becomes a non-significant 0.15-point deficit. Temporal attention produces no Holm-significant Hit@10 change on any backbone. All models outperform a first-order Markov-chain baseline (by 6.0 to 6.1 points, default; 33 to 34 points, strict) and a popularity baseline. A fixed five-course curriculum followed by 27.3% of test users inflates every raw score; excluding these users leaves every comparison intact. A forward-in-time audit, run on validation users and not a retraining of the main models, gives an absolute Hit@10 of only about 0.51. The 4,795 users (49.96%) with fewer than four interactions were excluded, so the findings do not cover cold-start recommendation, and offline ranking metrics do not measure learning or workforce outcomes.

Journal of Computers Mechanical and ManagementVol. 5(5)
Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ID), Universitas Internasional Semen Indonesia (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Recommender Systems and Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon