Advertisement

EDUC8 ontology: semantic modeling of multi-facet learning pathways

  • Omiros IatrellisEmail author
  • Achilles Kameas
  • Panos Fitsilis
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

One of the main challenges to be confronted in Higher Education, so as to increase quality, is the personalization of education services, since each student constitutes a unique case. In this paper, we present the conceptualization of the domain of Learning Pathways in Higher Education. We present the EDUC8 (EDUCATE) ontology, which models the needed domain knowledge streams for the learning pathways and consists of four (4) main modules: 1) the learner model 2) the learning pathway model 3) the business model and 4) the quality assurance model. Taking into account the multifaceted nature of a learning pathway in a Higher Educational Institution (HEI), our proposal achieves a holistic conceptualization of the domain of educational provision, in order to be further utilized for the implementation of a Semantic Web Rules repository. This rule base is in control of the required streams of knowledge enclosed in the learning pathway for developing, recommending and executing tailored educational processes to meet each learner’s personal characteristics. Finally, EDUC8 ontology is applied for the definition of a ruleset for the Computer Science program case study.

Keywords

Semantic web Learner Educational process Learning pathways Academic advising Personalization 

Notes

References

  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).Google Scholar
  2. Almami, E., Juric, R., & Ahmed, M. Z. (2014). The reasoning processes for selecting teaching practices with students with impairments. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Society for Design and Process Science, SDPS14.  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4245.8563.
  3. Almarri, H. B., et al. (2014). Semantic recommendation of information sources for lifelong learning. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Society for Design and Process Science.Google Scholar
  4. Anon. (2011). U-Multirank | Universities compared. Your way. Available at: http://www.umultirank.org. Accessed 14 August 2018.
  5. Anon. (2012). ACM CSS. Available at: https://www.acm.org/publications/class-2012. Accessed 21 June 2018.
  6. Anon. (2013). HEI-UP business process management in higher education institutions. Available at: http://www.bpm-hei.eu/. Accessed 19 May 2018.
  7. Dorri, M., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Nadi, M. A. (2012). A review on value chain in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3842–3846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elfaki, A. O., et al. (2011). Towards representation and validation of knowledge in students’ learning pathway using variability modeling technique. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(3), 30–35.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grajcevci, A., & Shala, A. (2016). Formal and non-formal education in the new era. Action Researcher in Education, 2020(7), 119–130.Google Scholar
  11. Grivokostopoulou, F., Perikos, I. & Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2014). Using semantic web Technologies in a web Based System for personalized learning AI course. In 2014 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education. IEEE, pp. 257–260. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7009584/. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  12. 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, 781–803 24(ISSN 1360–2357).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jakimoski, K. (2016). Challenges of interoperability and integration in education information systems. International Journal of Database and Theory and Application, 9(2), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janssen, J. et al. (2010). Learning Path Information Model - Version 1.3. Retrieved November, (March), pp.1–23.Google Scholar
  15. Kašík, J. & Hunka, F. (2011). Business Process Modelling Using Rea Ontology. Economics & Management, 16(March), pp.1047–1053. Available at: http://w3.bgu.ac.il/lib/customproxy.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=61822106&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,uid&custid=s4309548&groupid=main&profile=eds
  16. Liegl, P., Huemer, C., & Zapletal, M. (2009). Towards a global business document reference ontology. In ICSC 2009 - 2009 IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (pp. 355–360).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCarthy, W. (1982). The REA accounting model: A generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Accounting Review, 554–578.Google Scholar
  18. 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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noy, N.F. & Mcguinness, D. L. (2000). Ontology development 101 : A guide to creating your first ontology. , pp.1–25.Google Scholar
  20. Okoye, K., Tawil, A. R. H., Naeem, U., Bashroush, R., & Lamine, E. (2014). A semantic rule-based approach supported by process mining for personalised adaptive learning. Procedia Computer Science, 37, 203–210. Available at.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.08.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavlenko, V., et al. (2017). Competence approach to modeling and control of students’ learning pathways in the cloud service. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1844, 257–264.Google Scholar
  22. Pernias Peco, P. et al. (2010). Learning management based on process. Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2010, In J. Herr(1), pp.1212–1217.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: FreePress.Google Scholar
  24. Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: An exploratory approach. MPRA Paper, 1(5523), 203–218.Google Scholar
  25. Reardon, R. C., & Bertoch, S. C. (2011). Revitalizing educational counseling: How career theory can inform a forgotten practice. The Professional Counselor, 1(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, W. R. (2015). Organization theory and higher education. Journal of Organizational Theory in Education, 1(1), 68–76.Google Scholar
  27. 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 Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/09684881011058669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsh, C., Moorhouse, J., Dunnett, A., & Barry, C. (2015). University choice: Which attributes matter when you are paying the full price? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 670–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zielinski, A., & Bock, J. (2015). A case study on the use of semantic web Technologies for Learner Guidance. In 24th International World Wide Web Conference {WWW} (pp. 1425–1430).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations