Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 519–530 | Cite as

Designing learning personalized to students’ interests: balancing rich experiences with mathematical goals

  • Candace Walkington
  • Carole A. Hayata
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Context personalization is an instructional design principle where tasks are presented to students in the context of their interest areas like sports, music, or video games. Personalization allows for understanding of domain principles to be grounded in concrete and familiar experiences. By making connections to prior knowledge, personalization may reduce extraneous cognitive load, freeing up resources for the acquisition of new ideas. However, issues with adding seductive details that may distract learners, as well as mismatch between in-school and out-of-school mathematics, must be critically considered when designing for personalized learning. We review the research on personalization in mathematics, interpreting conflicting results by highlighting key cognitive considerations. Personalization can be implemented at radically different levels of depth, grain size, and ownership. We give an extended example of a promising intervention for personalized learning, drawing from research on problem-posing in algebra. We argue that interventions designed to draw upon students’ experiences with quantities have potential to enhance learning. However, when the complex, situated experiences of students are mathematized, there is a tension between preserving the authenticity of their experience, and accomplishing desired mathematical goals.

Keywords

Personalization Personalized learning Contextual grounding Everyday math 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Alyssa Holland and Brian Kuria for their assistance with the transcripts. We also thank the participating classroom teachers. The work was funded by the National Academy of Education’s Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship program.

Supplementary material

11858_2017_842_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (374 kb)
Supplementary material (PDF 373 KB)

References

  1. Anand, P., & Ross, S. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E., Kouper, I., & Herring, S. (2008). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, E., & Wiest, L. (2004). The impact of personalization of mathematical word problems on student performance. The Mathematics Educator, 14(2), 17–26.Google Scholar
  4. Boaler, J. (1994). When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female underachievement in relation to ‘realistic’ mathematic contexts. British Educational Research Journal, 20(5), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, D. W., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Integrating formal and grounded representations in combinatorics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 666–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cakir, O., & Simsek, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1524–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Civil, M. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In N. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom (pp. 105–117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, B., & Harries, T. (2009). Realistic contexts, mathematics assessment, and social class. In B. Greer, L. Verschaffel, W. Van Dooren & S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Word and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 93–110). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Cordova, D., & Lepper, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fancsali, S. E., & Ritter, S. (2014). Context personalization, preferences, and performance in an intelligent tutoring system for middle school mathematics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 73–77). ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstone, R., & Son, J. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). St. Louis: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Høgheim, S., & Reber, R. (2015). Supporting interest of middle school students in mathematics through context personalization and example choice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inoue, N. (2005). The realistic reasons behind unrealistic solutions: The role of interpretive activity in word problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koedinger, K., Alibali, M., & Nathan, M. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koedinger, K., & Nathan, M. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ku, H., & Sullivan, H. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ku, H. Y., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Student performance and attitudes using personalized mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ladsen-Billings G. (1995). Making mathematics meaningful in multicultural contexts. In W. Secada (Ed.), For equity in mathematics education (pp. 126–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. (2003). Model development sequences. In H. Doerr & R. Lesh. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. López, C. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (1992). Effect of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masingila, J., Davidenko, S., & Prus-Wisniowska, E. (1996). Mathematics learning and practice in and out of school: A framework for connecting these experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Mathematics literacy and civil rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nathan, M. J. (2008). An embodied cognition perspective on symbols, gesture, and grounding instruction. In M. DeVega, A. M. Glenberg & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 375–396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  38. Palm, T. (2008). Impact of authenticity on sense making in word problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pane, J. F., Steiner, E., Baird, M. & Hamilton, L. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Gates-ContinuedProgress-Nov13.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2016.
  40. Reber, R., Hetland, H., Chen, W., Norman, E., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2009). Effects of example choice on interest, control, and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 509–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renninger, K., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution: The social rationality of mathematical modeling in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roberts-Mahoney, H., Means, A. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saxe, G. (1988). Candy selling and mathematics learning. Educational Researcher, 17(6), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simsek, N., & Cakir, O. (2009). Effect of personalization on students’ achievement and gender factor in mathematics education. International Journal of Social Science, 4(4), 278–282.Google Scholar
  48. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner, E. E., Foote, M. Q., Stoehr, K. J., McDuffie, A. R., Aguirre, J. M., Bartell, T. G., & Drake, C. (2016). Learning to leverage children’s multiple mathematical knowledge bases in mathematics instruction. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 9(1), 48–78.Google Scholar
  51. Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems (pp. XVII–X203). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  54. Walkington, C. (2013). Using learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. (2014). Motivating students by “personalizing” learning around individual interests: A consideration of theory, design, and implementation issues. In S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement volume 18 (pp. 139–176), Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. (accepted). Personalization of instruction: Design dimensions and implications for cognition. Journal of Experimental Education.Google Scholar
  57. Walkington, C., Clinton, V., & Mingle, L. (2016). Considering cognitive factors in interest research: Context personalization and illustrations in mathematics curricula. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil & J. A. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 89–96). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  58. Walkington, C., Cooper, J., & Howell, E. (2013). The effects of visual representations and interest-based personalization on solving percent problems. In M. Martinez & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 533–536). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Walkington, C., Cooper, J., Nathan, M. J., & Alibali, M. A. (2015). The effects of visual representations and interest-based personalization on solving mathematics story problems. In T. Bartell, K. Bieda, R. Putnam, K. Bradfield & H. Dominguez. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 127). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  60. Walkington, C., Sherman, M., & Howell, E. (2014). Personalized learning in algebra. Mathematics Teacher, 108(4), 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A Web-based learning system for question-posing and peer assessment: pedagogical design and preliminary evaluation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching and LearningSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options