IJLTEMAS International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS) IJLTEMAS 2278-2540 IJLTEMAS 99 10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150700094 Education AI-Driven Personalized Learning in Educational Systems: A Framework for Adaptive Learning and Decision Support Pirathap Vishaliney Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computing, SLIIT Northern uni, Jaffna, Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Arunprakash Sangeetha Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computing, SLIIT Northern uni, Jaffna, Sri Lanka Sri Lanka S. S. Mayadunna M. Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computing, SLIIT Northern uni, Jaffna, Sri Lanka Sri Lanka 15 7 1188 1208 29 07 2026 03 08 2026 15 08 2026 AI-driven personalized learning; adaptive learning; educational decision support; explainable AI; multi-agent orchestration; human-centered AI; educational governance. Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has expanded the capacity of educational systems to support learner modelling, performance prediction, adaptive resource recommendation, automated feedback, and conversational tutoring. However, existing AI-based personalized learning systems commonly employ these capabilities as separate technical components, with limited coordination, pedagogical grounding, explainability, educator control, and governance. This study proposes the Pedagogically Constrained Explainable Orchestration (PCEO) framework to address these limitations. A structured literature review guided by PRISMA 2020 reporting principles and critical thematic synthesis was used to identify recurring technical, educational, ethical, and human-oversight requirements in AI-driven personalized learning. These findings were translated into a requirement-driven con-ceptual architecture. The proposed framework coordinates specialized agents for learner modelling, engagement and risk analysis, recommendation, policy optimisation, generative support, and governance through a shared learner-state representation and an explicit orchestration mechanism. Candidate educational actions are evaluated using pedagogical suitability, expected learning benefit, engagement, explainability, cognitive load, risk, evidence quality, and governance constraints. The framework also incorporates decision-level explanation records and educator review, modification, rejection, and escalation mechanisms. The principal contribution is not the intro-duction of new standalone AI models, but the specification of how established AI capabilities can be combined within a transparent, pedagogically informed, and human-governed educational decision process.together with a staged implementation and evaluation roadmap The PCEO framework remains a conceptual and technically specified proposal; no classroom implementation or empirical effectiveness evaluation was conducted. Future work should develop and assess a working prototype through expert review, usability studies, and controlled evaluations involving educators and learners.

 References Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gasˇevic´, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024). Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100215. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–12. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 87–110. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4, 253–278. Folty´nek, T., Bjelobaba, S., Glendinning, I., Khan, Z. R., Santos, R., Pavletic, P., & Kravjar, J. (2023). ENAI recommendations on the ethical use of artificial intelligence in education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, Article 12. Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2019). Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher–AI complementarity. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 27–52. Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 923–938. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Ku¨chemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. Khosravi, H., Buckingham Shum, S., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., & Gasˇevic´, D. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100074. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review.Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. Liu, Z., Liu, Q., Chen, J., Huang, S., Tang, J., & Luo, W. (2022). pyKT: A Python library to benchmark deep learning-based knowledge tracing models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7893–7925. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L. J., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 505–513. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, Article 15. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. Zawacki-Richter, O., Mar´ın, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). A systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.