Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 781–803 | Cite as

A novel integrated approach to the execution of personalized and self-evolving learning pathways

  • Omiros IatrellisEmail author
  • Achilles Kameas
  • Panos Fitsilis


One of the main challenges to be confronted by Higher Educational Institutions (HEI), so as to increase quality, is the provision of personalized education services in a wide range of educational settings, often beyond the course sequences historically offered to students. However, this personalization requires the continuous reconfiguration and adaptation of the selected academic plans, since each student is a unique case and both the educational options and current circumstances inside an educational institution change rapidly. In this paper, we present an innovative software environment offered to the academic staff and personnel that provides an integrated information technology solution concerning the dynamic and personalized composition of students’ learning pathways during execution phase. The software environment comprises a process execution engine based on a semantic infrastructure (ontology) for configuring the learning pathways. During the execution of learning pathways, the system reasons over the rules and dynamically recommends the next steps of the learning. The implemented graphical user interface and the respective business logic for the recommendation and execution of the learning pathway processes is presented, alongside with a graphical rule generator interface for the definition of the rule-set for the learning pathways in a user-friendly way.


Semantic meta-modeling Educational process Learning pathways Academic advising Personalization 



  1. ACM. (2001). ACM curriculum guidelines for Computer Science. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula Society, IEEE Computer Machinery, Association for Computing, 1(3).
  2. ACM CSS. (2012). Retrieved from
  3. Bandara, W., Chand, D. R., Chircu, A. M., Hintringer, S., Karagiannis, D., Recker, J. C., et al. (2010). Business process management education in academia: Status, challenges, and recommendations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, 743–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BBC - Ontologies - Curriculum Ontology. (n.d.). Retrieved from
  5. Cerverón-lleó, V., Cabotà-soro, J., Grimaldo-moreno, F., & Ferrís-castell, R. (2014). Bpm for quality assurance systems in higher education. Journal of Teaching and Education, 03(02), 175–183.Google Scholar
  6. de Souza, J. M., Bomfim, E., & Oliveira, J. (2007). Using a CBR approach based on ontologies for recommendation and reuse of educational processes. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3(2), 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geerts, G. L., & McCarthy, W. E. (2003). An ontological analysis of the economc primitives of the extended-Rea enterprise information architecture. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 3(1), 1–16. Scholar
  8. HEI-UP Business Process Management in Higher Education Institutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from
  9. Iatrellis, O., Kameas, A., & Fitsilis, P. (2017). Academic advising systems: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Education Sciences, 7(4), 90. Scholar
  10. Jami, S. I., & Shaikh, Z. A. (2007). A workflow based academic management system using multi agent approach. Proceeding of the 11th Wseas International Conference on Computers: Computer Science and Technology, Vol 4, 201–206.Google Scholar
  11. Janssen, J., Hermans, H., Berlanga, A., & Koper, R. (2010). Learning path information model - version 1.3. Retrieved November, (march), 1–23.Google Scholar
  12. K.V.Zhukova and A.Yu.Pleshkova. (2016). Business process modeling: Case of undergraduate program. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Management and Information Technology (Iccmit 2016) (pp. 179–186).Google Scholar
  13. Kakasevski, G., Mihajlov, M., Arsenovski, S., & Chungurski, S. (2008). Sealms: Semantically Enhanced Adaptive Learning Management System, 4(5), 613–618.Google Scholar
  14. Kurilovas, E., Kubilinskiene, S., & Dagiene, V. (2014). Web 3.0 - based personalisation of learning objects in virtual learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 654–662. Scholar
  15. Machinery, A. for C., & IEEE Computer Society. (2016). Computer Engineering Curricula 2016 CE2016 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Engineering. Retrieved from
  16. Nauta, M. M. (2010). The development, evolution, and status of Holland’s theory of vocational personalities: Reflections and future directions for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 11–22. Scholar
  17. Noy, N. F., & Mcguinness, D. L. (2000). Ontology development 101 : A guide to creating your first ontology, 1–25.Google Scholar
  18. Ouf, S., Abd Ellatif, M., Salama, S. E., & Helmy, Y. (2016). A proposed paradigm for smart learning environment based on semantic web. Computers in Human Behavior.
  19. Panagiotopoulos, I., Kalou, A., Pierrakeas, C., & Kameas, A. (2012). An ontology-based model for student representation in intelligent tutoring systems for distance learning. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 381(AICT(PART 1)), 296–305. Scholar
  20. Pavlenko, V., Prokhorov, A., Kuzminska, O., & Mazorchuk, M. (2017). Competence approach to modeling and control of students’ learning pathways in the cloud service. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1844, 257–264.Google Scholar
  21. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. Scholar
  22. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: FreePress.Google Scholar
  23. Rius, A., & Conesa, J. (2013). Specifying patterns of educational settings by means of ontologies. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(3), 353–382.Google Scholar
  24. Rius, À., Conesa, J., García-barriocanal, E., & Sicilia, M. (2014). Computer Standards & Interfaces Automating educational processes implementation by means of an ontological framework. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(2), 335–348. Scholar
  25. Rius, À., Conesa, J., García-Barriocanal, E., & Sicilia, M. Á. (2017). An ontology-driven framework for specifying, adapting and implementing educational settings. Applied Ontology, 12(1), 33–58. Scholar
  26. Seng, D., & Churilov, L. (2003). Business process-oriented information support for a higher education Enterprise. 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, (July), 1055–1074. Retrieved from
  27. The EFQM Excellence Model. (2013). Retrieved January 30, 2017, from
  28. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227–244. Scholar
  29. U-Multirank | Universities compared. Your way. (2011). Retrieved from
  30. Wen, F., & McGreal, F. (2007). E-advisor: A multi-agent system for academic advising. Workshop on Agent-Based Systems for Human and Entertainment (ABSHLE) at AAMAS, 2007(1988), 34–37 Retrieved from Scholar
  31. Yarandi, M., Tawil, A.-R., & Jahankhani, H. (2011). Adaptive E-learning system using ontology. 2011 22nd International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, (c), 511–516.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences of ThessalyLarissaGreece
  2. 2.Hellenic Open University PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations