Building Conceptual Knowledge for Managing Learning Paths in e-Learning

  • Yu-Liang Chi
  • Hsun-Ming Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4092)


This study develops a framework of conceptual model to manage learning paths in e-learning systems. Since learning objects are rapidly accumulated in e-learning course repositories, managing the relevant relations among learning objects are costly and error-prone. Moreover, conventional learning path management based on databases or XML metadata does not offer a sufficient conceptual model to represent semantics. This study utilizes ontology-based techniques to strengthen learning path management in a knowledgeable manner. Through establishing a conceptual model of learning paths, semantic modeling provides richer data structuring capabilities for organizing learning objects. Empirical findings are presented, which show technologies to enhance completeness of semantic representation and reduce the complexity of the path management efforts. A walkthrough example is given to present ontology building, knowledge inference and the planning of learning paths.


Ontology Semantic Conceptual structure e-Learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, S.: E-learning developments and experiences. Education+Training 43, 240–248 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Parel-Schneider, P.: The description logic handbook. University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R., Benjamins, V.R.: What are ontologies and why do we need them. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14, 20–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, C., Lee, H., Chen, Y.: Personalized e-learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education 44, 237–255 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cloete, E.: Electronic education system model. Computers & Education 36, 171–182 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, W.W., Hirsh, H.: The Learnablity of Description Logics with Equality Constraints. Machine Learning 17, 169–199 (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Datta, A., Dutta, K., VanderMeer, D., Ramamritham, K., Navathe, S.B.: An architecture to support scalable online personalization on the Web. VLDB J. 10, 104–117 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H., Wahlster, W.: Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaines, B.R., Shaw, M.L.G.: Knowledge Acquisition Tools based on Personal Construct Psychology. Knowledge Eng. Review 8, 49–85 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillam, L., Tariq, M., Ahmad, K.: Terminology and the construction of ontology. Terminology 11, 55–81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber, T.R.: Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 43, 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 43, 625–640 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guarino, N.: Understanding, building and using ontologies. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 46, 293–310 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R.D., Shaul, D.: E-learning: research and application. Industrial and Commercial Training 34, 44–53 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfability. J. of Web Semantics 1, 345–357 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Harmelen, F.V.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 1, 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hui, B., Yu, E.: Extracting conceptual relationships from specialized documents. Data & Knowledge Eng 54, 29–55 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kamba, T., Sakagami, H., Koseki, Y.: ANATAGONOMY: a personalized newspaper on the World Wide Web. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 46, 789–803 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noy, N.F., Hafner, C.D.: The State of the Art in Ontology Design. AI Magazine 18, 53–74 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uschold, M., Grueninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Eng. Review 11, 93–155 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, D., Zhao, J.L., Zhou, L., Nunamaker, J.F.: Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Comm. of the ACM 47, 75–79 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu-Liang Chi
    • 1
  • Hsun-Ming Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Management Information SystemsChung Yuan Christian UniversityChung-LiTaiwan, R.O.C.
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Information Systems & Quantitative MethodsTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations