Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 355–370 | Cite as

Student perceptions of personalised learning: development and validation of a questionnaire with regional secondary students

  • Bruce WaldripEmail author
  • Peter Cox
  • Craig Deed
  • Jeffrey Dorman
  • Debra Edwards
  • Cathleen Farrelly
  • Mary Keeffe
  • Valeria Lovejoy
  • Lucy Mow
  • Vaughan Prain
  • Peter Sellings
  • Zali Yager
Original Paper

Abstract

This project sought to evaluate regional students’ perceptions of their readiness to learn, assessment processes, engagement, extent to which their learning is personalised and to relate these to academic efficacy, academic achievement, and student well-being. It also examined teachers’ perceptions of students’ readiness to learn, the assessment process, engagement, and the extent to which students’ learning is personalised. The sample involved students in years 7–10 from six Victorian secondary schools. An instrument Personalised Learning Environment Questionnaire (PLQ) was developed to measure students’ perceptions of the factors effecting the implementation of Personalised Learning Plans (PLPs). It employed the latest scales to assess a range of PLP indicator variables, with all scales modified for use in an Australian context, and the total number of items kept to a minimum. Only scales more sensitive to PLPs were used to minimise the length of the instrument. There were three outcome variables: academic efficacy, academic achievement, and student well-being. The PLPs were assessed through scales that assess several contributing, distinct dimensions: selfdirected learning readiness, personal achievement, goal orientation, learning environment, personalised teaching and learning initiatives, curriculum entitlement and choice, and perceptions of assessment for learning. The trail PLQ was administered to 220 students, resulting in a 19 scale questionnaire with three or four items per scale. This paper reveals good data to model fit for the majority of items and each scale had good reliability. The paper describes the analytic techniques and results, how the instrument was refined and identifies common and uncommon student perceptions based on a post hoc analysis. The main study consisted of 2,407 students from four schools in the Bendigo Education Plan. They responded to this refined 19 scale version of the PLQ that was developed from the trial PLQ. All scales had satisfactory internal consistency reliability.

Keywords

Learning plans Perceptions Personalised learning Questionnaire development Regional students 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was supported in part by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP100200179 called Improving Regional Learning.

References

  1. Aelterman, A. N., Engels, J.P., Verhaeghe, K., Panagiotou, H. S., & Van Petegem, K. (2002). Het welbevinden van de leerkracht (OBPWO project, Gent).Google Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). National Assessment ProgramLiteracy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) national report. Sydney: ACARA. Accessed Jan 18, 2012 http://www.nap.edu.au/Test_Results/National_reports/index.html.
  3. Bendigo Education Plan (2005). Loddon Mallee Region, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education (Final report). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, R., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Mazzoli, L. (2007). Personalised learning: Ambiguities in theory and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice, and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008). Personalised learningA practical guide. Accessed June 18, 2011. http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/tf-mentors/ActivitiesforMentoring/Personalised/PracticalGuide.aspx.
  8. Department for Education. (2006). 2020 vision: Report of the teaching and learning in 2020 review group. Date accessed 20/10/10. http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-04255-2006& (accessed 20 October 2011).
  9. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004) A national conversation about personalised learning. Nottingham: DfES. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200919%20200MIG186.pdf (accessed 11 September 2011).
  10. Duckworth, K., Akerman, R., MacGregor, A., Salter, E., & Vorhaus, J. (2009). Self regulated learning: A literature review (London, Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning). OECD/CERI, 83–100. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, A. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in system of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engels, N., Aelterman, A., Deconinck, E., Schepens, A., & Van Petegem, K. (2000). Het wel-bevinden in de schoolsituatie bij leerlingen secundair onderwijs (OBPWO project, Gent).Google Scholar
  15. Engels, N., Aelterman, A., Van Petegem, K., & Schepens, A. (2004). Factors which influence the well-being of pupils in Flemish secondary schools. Educational Studies, 30, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21, 516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert. C., August., K., Brooks, D., Hargreaves, D., Pearce, N., Roberts, J., Rose, J., & Wise, D. (2006). 2020 vision: Report of the teaching and learning in 2020 review group. Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  21. Glanville, J. L., & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement invariance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonida, E. N., Kiosseoglou, G., & Voulala, K. A. (2007). Perceptions of parent goals and their contribution to student achievement goal orientation and engagement in the classroom: Grade-level differences across adolescence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. G. (1967). Comparative validity of different strategies of constructing personality inventory scales. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huppert, F. A., Marks, N., Clark, A., Siegert, J., Tutzer, A., Vitterso, J., et al. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research, 91, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeffe, M., & Tadich, B. (2009). Curriculum transitions in the Bendigo Education Plan. Bendigo: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  27. Leadbeater, C. (2003). Personalisation through participation. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  28. Leadbetter, C. (2005) The shape of things to come: Personalised learning through collaboration. Available online at: http://www.innovationunit.org/sites/default/files/The%20shape%20of%20things%20to%20come.pdf (accessed 7 December 2011).
  29. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia (The SiMERR national survey). Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  30. Masters, G. N. (2009). A shared challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science learning in Queensland primary schools. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  31. McMahon, T. (2010). Combining peer-assessment with negotiated learning activities on a day-release undergraduate-level certificate course (ECTS level 3). Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 223–239.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, B., Haywood, N., Sachdev, D., & Faraday, S. (2008). Independent learning: Literature review (Research Report 051). London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  33. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  34. Onyx, J., Wood, C., Bullen, P., & Osburn, L. (2005). Social capital: A rural youth perspective. Youth Studies Australia, 24(4), 21–27.Google Scholar
  35. Parliamentary Library Paper. (2009). Poverty rates by electoral divisions, 2006. Department of Parliamentary Services.Google Scholar
  36. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivated and self-regulated learning components of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pykett, J. (2010). Personalised governing through behaviour change and re-education. PSA Conference Paper, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  38. Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., Galton, M., & James, M. (2007). An investigation of personalised learning approaches used in schools. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  39. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, N. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, J., & Nelms, L. (2008). Life chances at 16: Life stage study stage 8. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St. Laurence.Google Scholar
  42. Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  43. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K., & Buckley, S. (2009). Challenges for Australian education: Results from PISA 2009. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, C. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice. Theory into Practice, 44, 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. (2001). Young children’s feelings about school. Child Development, 73, 1198–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Rosseel, Y., & Creemers, B. (2007). Student perception as moderator for student well-being. Social Indicators Research, 83, 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2008). The influence of student characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on students’ well-being. Social Indicators Research, 85, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waldrip, B. G., Fisher, D. L., & Dorman, J. (2009). Identifying exemplary science teachers through their students’ perceptions of the assessment process. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 27, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Manual for the Rochester assessment package for schools. Rochester: University of Rochester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Waldrip
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Cox
    • 3
  • Craig Deed
    • 3
  • Jeffrey Dorman
    • 2
  • Debra Edwards
    • 3
  • Cathleen Farrelly
    • 3
  • Mary Keeffe
    • 3
  • Valeria Lovejoy
    • 3
  • Lucy Mow
    • 3
  • Vaughan Prain
    • 3
  • Peter Sellings
    • 2
  • Zali Yager
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of TasmaniaNewnham, LauncestonAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationFederation UniversityChurchillAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations